Americans Must Limit Size of Government
Email Rich Tucker
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Way back in 1995, a Republican congress and a Democratic president couldn’t agree on spending priorities. As a result, the federal government was, for a short time, shut down. On an internal computer site, a CNN producer asked fellow employees to share any stories they might have about how the shutdown was affecting people.
But that missed the point. The fact that we needed to go looking for stories should have highlighted the fact that there weren’t a lot of stories to be found. For most people, life went on, government shutdown or not.
Still, the shutdown became a Rorschach tests: people saw in it what they wanted to see. Politicians decided they could never allow this to happen again, and they’ve been willing to reach deals to keep the government running. The most recent example is the deal hammered out to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (a signature project crafted by President George W. Bush) for two more years. President Obama says he didn’t want to make the deal, but he conceded it wouldn’t make sense to raise taxes in the face of a recession. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have agreed to extend subsidies for ethanol and other alternative-energy sources. That’s the closest thing to a “stimulus” package that Obama can hope to get.
Both sides should listen to voters.
On November 2, voters opted for the party that promised to extend the tax cuts and rein in federal spending after a two year “stimulus” binge. Obama himself described the results as “a shellacking” for himself and his party, which has come to represent big spending.
The president seems to understand that Americans want lower taxes, which may be why he explained that these cuts represent, “real money for real people that will make a real difference in the lives of the folks who sent us here. It will make a real difference in the pace of job creation and economic growth. In other words, it’s a good deal for the American people.”
However, when it comes to trimming the size and scope of government, Obama seems lost. “I don’t know how they’re [Republicans] going to be able to argue that extending permanently these high-end tax cuts is going to be good for our economy when, to offset them, we’d end up having to cut vital services for our kids, for our veterans, for our seniors.”
The problem is this assumes that the gusher of federal spending in recent years has led directly to “vital services” for people. In fact, the size of the budget has grown almost beyond belief in recent years. Since the year 2000, federal spending per household has increased by about a third, to $30,000 per family.
Was it “vital” to double the size of the Department of Education, as the stimulus bill last year did? Seemingly not; as Obama himself noted in his news conference, test scores for American students have only continued to tumble. That money would have been better off in the hands of states and local districts, instead of coming from Washington with many strings attached.
The key to our nation’s fiscal problems is to cut spending. Recently, budget analyst Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation noted that, “Over the past two years, Congress has added $2.7 trillion to the national debt, including a record $1.4 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009 and a $1.3 trillion deficit for FY 2010.” Riedl laid out simple steps that could trim hundreds of billions from the federal budget.
Among his ideas:
“Empowering state and local governments. Congress should focus the federal government on performing a few duties well and allow the state and local governments, which are closer to the people, to creatively address local needs in areas such as transportation, justice, job training, and economic development.
“Privatization. Many current government functions could be performed more efficiently by the private sector.
“Eliminating outdated and ineffective programs. Congress often allows the federal government to run the same programs for decades, despite many studies showing their ineffectiveness.”
Left to its own devices, government tends to expand. Bureaucracies find new things to regulate, often things that didn’t exist when they were set up. Thus the FCC wants to oversee the Internet and the FTC wants to limit what Web sites may do. Meanwhile, the same congress that couldn’t pass a budget this year manages to enact the CALM Act to “protect” viewers from loud TV ads.
It’s time for Americans to push back and begin limiting the size and scope of government. Our country can “afford” tax cuts if our leaders also cut spending. It’s time for them to do so.
Rich Tucker
Rich Tucker is a communications professional and a columnist for Townhall.com.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
FROM PROPHECY NEWS WATCH
Al Qaeda Looks to Make New 'Friends' - on Facebook
http://www.foxnews.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're on Facebook, Al Qaeda wants to friend you.
Terrorist groups are using Facebook to share operational information and to target, recruit and radicalize members of the general public, according to a Department of Homeland Security report obtained by FoxNews.com.
The DHS report, "Terrorist Use of Social Networking Sites: Facebook Case Study," notes while terrorists have been using social networking sites for quite some time, their strategies for exploiting Facebook have evolved and that they have learned "the inherent value in exploiting a non-ideological medium."
According to the November report, terrorists and jihadists use Facebook as:
— a way to share operational and tactical information, including bomb recipes and weapons maintenance;
— a gateway to extremist forums;
— a media outlet for propaganda;
— a source of remote reconnaissance for targeting purposes.
“Every person who connects to the Internet with a computer needs to take this issue seriously," says Steve Graham, senior director for EC Council, a cybersecurity certification membership organization. "Reports like this show we are figuratively sitting next to terrorists. So are our friends, our kids and anyone else who types www.”
DHS found that among the materials available to Facebook's more than 500 million members are:
— Informational videos titled “tactical shooting,” “getting to know your AK-47” and “how to field strip an AK-47.” Those videos can be found on the page of a radical public Facebook group that is dedicated to jihad and has more than 2,000 members.
— A group discussion page featuring Arabic-language IED recipes for explosive ammonia and poisonous smoke bombs, and instructions on how to prepare nitric acid, which is used to make explosive mixtures. The same recipes were also posted on a radical forum, suggesting “some cross-over between radical content disseminated on Facebook and on Islamist extremist forums,” according to the report.
Some radical Islamist forums also maintain Facebook pages. “In this way, Facebook acts as a gateway or launching pad for further radicalization and for easy access to sites where explosives recipes and IED information are regularly posted,” the report says.
While DHS notes that Facebook is not the only social networking site employed by extremists, its report cites discussion threads collected from well-established radical forums that indicate jihadists are specifically targeting the site:
This [Facebook] is a great idea, and better than the forums. Instead of waiting for people to [come to you so you can] inform them, you go to them and teach them!
God willing, the mujahedeen, their supporters, and proud jihadi journalists will [use the site, too]. [First,] it has become clear that the market of social networking websites is developing in an astonishing manner and that it fulfills important needs for Internet users, particularly younger ones. [Second,] Facebook has become very successful in this field; therefore, it is our duty to use it, as adherents of jihad and [members] of the blessed jihadi media.
[I] mean, if you have a group of 5,000 people, with the press of a button you [can] send them a standardized message. [That] means if you send one message with a link to [forum names], a clear [path] to jihadi media is open.
I entreat you, by God, to begin registering for Facebook as soon as you [finish] reading this post. Familiarize yourselves with it. This post is a seed and a beginning, to be followed by serious efforts to optimize our Facebook usage. Let’s start distributing Islamic jihadi publications, posts, articles, and pictures. Let’s anticipate a reward from the Lord of the Heavens, dedicate our purpose to God, and help our colleagues.
One forum user outlined "General Goals of the Invasion":
1. Reach the wide base of Muslims who [use] Facebook.
2. Encourage brothers to devise new online media in support of jihadi media.
3. Form a solid base on Facebook and shed light on it as a medium for reaching people.
4. Move from an elite society ([on] jihadi forums and websites) to mainstream Muslims, [encourage] their participation, and interact with them.
5. Advance media operations and encourage creativity, innovation, flexibility, and change. Reach large [numbers] of Crusaders, broadcast the losses of their armies, expose the lies of their leaders, and call Muslims to jihad.
“These posts call for the organized, strategic exploitation of Facebook, recognizing its value as a platform for reaching a wider, younger audience,” the report states.
Posters recognize that forums are visited by already-radicalized jihadi supporters, “whereas Facebook offers a space to interact with “mainstream Muslims” and attract and recruit new supporters.”
“Social networking interfaces whose purpose is to virtually connect people based on such common social bonds clearly lend themselves to extremist use and recruitment efforts,” the report states.
Other posts demonstrate security savvy by recommending the use of proxy servers to provide anonymity, while others show strategy employed to recruit new members.
A "concerning factor here is the speed at which an entire demographic can be located and communicated with," Graham said. "DHS mentions the use of social media to find groups with similar interests.
“Fact is, what used to take months to get a few recruits who meet the right criteria is now on a harvested mailing list. Groups are being communicated to in the hundreds, speeding up recruiting efforts."
Jihadists use cyber propaganda material to target youths on Facebook, said Jeff Bardin, chief security strategist at security firm XA Systems.
"The youth who come to Facebook looking for jihadist information are the Generation X and Y youth who also don't worry too much about the security of their profiles and what they post, providing easy prey for intelligence agencies worldwide to access, infiltrate and fully penetrate those wishing to learn," he said.
Facebook tries to filter out terrorist activity by checking for names of terrorists and terrorist organizations provided by the State and Treasury Departments.
The DHS report states:
“According to Facebook Rights and Responsibilities on the website, 'You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.' It also states that 'We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement.' However, information is not screened before it is posted, so posts that violate the rules remain on the site until they are detected and removed.”
Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes told FoxNews.com:
"We take our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) very seriously and react quickly to reports of inappropriate content and behavior. Groups that threaten violence towards people are taken down, as are groups that express hatred towards individuals and those sponsored by recognized terrorist organizations. The goal of these policies is to strike a very delicate balance between giving people the freedom to express their opinions and viewpoints – even those that may be controversial to some – and maintaining a safe and trusted environment."
Noyes added:
"In addition to using the State and Treasury Department lists, and the fact that our SRR prohibits anyone on those terrorist lists from using our service, we are also proactive in screening for those names and organizations. Our internal systems also employ keyword searches related to associated terminology. We give high priority to reviewing and responding to user reports in this area as well."
DHS spokesman Bobby Whithorne provided FoxNews.com with this statement:
“The Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP) facilitates a constant feedback loop with our law enforcement partners on TRIPwire, and as a result of ongoing discussions on the topic, OBP developed a case study on the use of social networking sites to better inform our partners about techniques, tactics and procedures used by terrorists. It is well known that terrorists recruit and share instructions to develop improvised explosive devices online, and we will continue to provide situational awareness and share information with our law enforcement partners on a range of topics in our shared efforts to deter and disrupt terrorism.”
http://www.foxnews.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're on Facebook, Al Qaeda wants to friend you.
Terrorist groups are using Facebook to share operational information and to target, recruit and radicalize members of the general public, according to a Department of Homeland Security report obtained by FoxNews.com.
The DHS report, "Terrorist Use of Social Networking Sites: Facebook Case Study," notes while terrorists have been using social networking sites for quite some time, their strategies for exploiting Facebook have evolved and that they have learned "the inherent value in exploiting a non-ideological medium."
According to the November report, terrorists and jihadists use Facebook as:
— a way to share operational and tactical information, including bomb recipes and weapons maintenance;
— a gateway to extremist forums;
— a media outlet for propaganda;
— a source of remote reconnaissance for targeting purposes.
“Every person who connects to the Internet with a computer needs to take this issue seriously," says Steve Graham, senior director for EC Council, a cybersecurity certification membership organization. "Reports like this show we are figuratively sitting next to terrorists. So are our friends, our kids and anyone else who types www.”
DHS found that among the materials available to Facebook's more than 500 million members are:
— Informational videos titled “tactical shooting,” “getting to know your AK-47” and “how to field strip an AK-47.” Those videos can be found on the page of a radical public Facebook group that is dedicated to jihad and has more than 2,000 members.
— A group discussion page featuring Arabic-language IED recipes for explosive ammonia and poisonous smoke bombs, and instructions on how to prepare nitric acid, which is used to make explosive mixtures. The same recipes were also posted on a radical forum, suggesting “some cross-over between radical content disseminated on Facebook and on Islamist extremist forums,” according to the report.
Some radical Islamist forums also maintain Facebook pages. “In this way, Facebook acts as a gateway or launching pad for further radicalization and for easy access to sites where explosives recipes and IED information are regularly posted,” the report says.
While DHS notes that Facebook is not the only social networking site employed by extremists, its report cites discussion threads collected from well-established radical forums that indicate jihadists are specifically targeting the site:
This [Facebook] is a great idea, and better than the forums. Instead of waiting for people to [come to you so you can] inform them, you go to them and teach them!
God willing, the mujahedeen, their supporters, and proud jihadi journalists will [use the site, too]. [First,] it has become clear that the market of social networking websites is developing in an astonishing manner and that it fulfills important needs for Internet users, particularly younger ones. [Second,] Facebook has become very successful in this field; therefore, it is our duty to use it, as adherents of jihad and [members] of the blessed jihadi media.
[I] mean, if you have a group of 5,000 people, with the press of a button you [can] send them a standardized message. [That] means if you send one message with a link to [forum names], a clear [path] to jihadi media is open.
I entreat you, by God, to begin registering for Facebook as soon as you [finish] reading this post. Familiarize yourselves with it. This post is a seed and a beginning, to be followed by serious efforts to optimize our Facebook usage. Let’s start distributing Islamic jihadi publications, posts, articles, and pictures. Let’s anticipate a reward from the Lord of the Heavens, dedicate our purpose to God, and help our colleagues.
One forum user outlined "General Goals of the Invasion":
1. Reach the wide base of Muslims who [use] Facebook.
2. Encourage brothers to devise new online media in support of jihadi media.
3. Form a solid base on Facebook and shed light on it as a medium for reaching people.
4. Move from an elite society ([on] jihadi forums and websites) to mainstream Muslims, [encourage] their participation, and interact with them.
5. Advance media operations and encourage creativity, innovation, flexibility, and change. Reach large [numbers] of Crusaders, broadcast the losses of their armies, expose the lies of their leaders, and call Muslims to jihad.
“These posts call for the organized, strategic exploitation of Facebook, recognizing its value as a platform for reaching a wider, younger audience,” the report states.
Posters recognize that forums are visited by already-radicalized jihadi supporters, “whereas Facebook offers a space to interact with “mainstream Muslims” and attract and recruit new supporters.”
“Social networking interfaces whose purpose is to virtually connect people based on such common social bonds clearly lend themselves to extremist use and recruitment efforts,” the report states.
Other posts demonstrate security savvy by recommending the use of proxy servers to provide anonymity, while others show strategy employed to recruit new members.
A "concerning factor here is the speed at which an entire demographic can be located and communicated with," Graham said. "DHS mentions the use of social media to find groups with similar interests.
“Fact is, what used to take months to get a few recruits who meet the right criteria is now on a harvested mailing list. Groups are being communicated to in the hundreds, speeding up recruiting efforts."
Jihadists use cyber propaganda material to target youths on Facebook, said Jeff Bardin, chief security strategist at security firm XA Systems.
"The youth who come to Facebook looking for jihadist information are the Generation X and Y youth who also don't worry too much about the security of their profiles and what they post, providing easy prey for intelligence agencies worldwide to access, infiltrate and fully penetrate those wishing to learn," he said.
Facebook tries to filter out terrorist activity by checking for names of terrorists and terrorist organizations provided by the State and Treasury Departments.
The DHS report states:
“According to Facebook Rights and Responsibilities on the website, 'You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.' It also states that 'We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement.' However, information is not screened before it is posted, so posts that violate the rules remain on the site until they are detected and removed.”
Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes told FoxNews.com:
"We take our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) very seriously and react quickly to reports of inappropriate content and behavior. Groups that threaten violence towards people are taken down, as are groups that express hatred towards individuals and those sponsored by recognized terrorist organizations. The goal of these policies is to strike a very delicate balance between giving people the freedom to express their opinions and viewpoints – even those that may be controversial to some – and maintaining a safe and trusted environment."
Noyes added:
"In addition to using the State and Treasury Department lists, and the fact that our SRR prohibits anyone on those terrorist lists from using our service, we are also proactive in screening for those names and organizations. Our internal systems also employ keyword searches related to associated terminology. We give high priority to reviewing and responding to user reports in this area as well."
DHS spokesman Bobby Whithorne provided FoxNews.com with this statement:
“The Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP) facilitates a constant feedback loop with our law enforcement partners on TRIPwire, and as a result of ongoing discussions on the topic, OBP developed a case study on the use of social networking sites to better inform our partners about techniques, tactics and procedures used by terrorists. It is well known that terrorists recruit and share instructions to develop improvised explosive devices online, and we will continue to provide situational awareness and share information with our law enforcement partners on a range of topics in our shared efforts to deter and disrupt terrorism.”
FROM TOWNHALL
Score One for Judeo-Christian Culture
Email John Bennett
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Multiculturalism creates a neurotic and dishonest society. This is seen very plainly during the Christmas season. Those of us who celebrate Christmas are told that we must rip the very core of this season out, and replace it with a phony, soulless thing called "Holiday" or "Winter." This is dishonest because nobody celebrates winter. "Holiday" is a shallow term to describe Christmas; the term abuses language to impose a false meaning on a reality that most of us cherish.
"Holiday" and "Winter" are weasel words used by cultural appeasers who are too ashamed of their own culture to say what everybody knows to be true. That is, that most of us are celebrating Christmas. Maintaining Christmas is part of preserving the culture that gave us almost everything that we have worth keeping. The whole name-changing charade is neurotic because it forces people to pretend that our majority culture is not what it actually is.
Now, the madness of the Christmas season is upon us- not the madness of shopping centers, but the madness of toxic tolerance. It's happening already in Philadelphia, where a shopping plaza was transformed from "Christmas Village" to "Holiday Village."
Sensitive people will respond that concerns about church-state separation could come in to play. But there is not the remotest trace of such a concern to be found in the initial Philadelphia decision. The reported rationale offered by the city manager was that "This is not about taking Christmas out of the holiday. It's about being more inclusive." He also said that the decision was not based on political correctness, but on "common sense."
Just follow the logic of his statement. We want to be inclusive, which means embrace diversity. Therefore we are going to express disapproval for the majority culture that made this nation great, which is what attracted those diverse people in the first instance. Yes, it was largely immigrants of Christian denominations who built this country, and if one does not like that fact then they are free to find another place whose history doesn’t offend them. Next, as the city manager’s logic goes, in place of the majority culture we will substitute a contrived, nebulous thing called “Holiday” or “Winter” which means nothing to anybody.
Ultimately, the Philadelphia Mayor urged "Christmas" to be placed back on the sign. But consider the conflict that played out there, as it does in many cities, every year: For fear of mildly offending a few unreasonable people who don't like to see or hear the word Christmas, we have chosen instead to completely outrage many people who celebrate Christmas as part of our nation’s majority culture.
Some people call it the "war on Christmas" but this phenomenon is best described as part of something larger that harms us year round: toxic tolerance. Toxic tolerance has been described as "the imperative never to offend anyone, no matter how evil, duplicitous, or exploitative they might be." Tolerance is supposed to be something that makes society better off by placing consideration of others before one’s own narrow views. Liberals treat tolerance as an absolute value. Along with "embracing diversity," tolerance is one of the only values liberals will allow- or should I say tolerate.
Make no mistake about it, those who rip Christmas out of public life are duplicitous and exploitative, no matter what they claim their victim status to be, and no matter how noble their motives. It is duplicitous to attack the majority culture under the pretense of tolerance, when the outcome of the ostensible tolerance is to be intolerant of the majority culture. It is exploitative to use privileged victim status to enforce personal preferences at the expense of a profoundly important cultural and, yes, religious observance. There are few things more self-centered than using privileged victim status to erase part of the culture one finds themselves in. If Westerners went to non-western nations and tried this ungrateful, petty behavior, they would be rightly condemned or worse, depending on the locale.
We invite hypocrisy as well- not just garden variety hypocrisy, but the type of fundamental hypocrisy that makes a sham of our self-respect and attacks our national identity. In particular, we can’t have any mention of Christ at Christmastime in public, government places, but your tax money will be used to degrade and insult Christ.
Witness the Smithsonian’s display, this close to Christmas, of ant-covered Jesus art. The federally funded Smithsonian featured an art film showing a bloody plastic crucifix with ants crawling on the face and body. That’s what they think of our majority culture. Ant-covered Jesus went along with Ellen DeGeneres man-handling her own breasts, and naked brothers kissing- neither part of a Christmas display, as far as one can tell. The people who despise the majority culture are forcing taxpayers to fund their contempt for our society. This is sheer dishonesty and exploitation.
At root, this toxic tolerance and holiday madness is produced by blending multicultural appeasement with a thoughtless liberal notion of equality- not equality brought about by merit or based on majority norms, but equality brought about by government coercion, leveling, and betraying the majority culture. We are told, particularly in educational settings, that all cultures are equal- without any proof or justification. On top of the absurd premise of equality, liberals add legal or social coercion.
If a fraction of the public doesn’t celebrate Christmas, we’ll offend the majority by eliminating references to their cultural observance. Thus stores and communities take "Christ" and "Christmas" out of the season, as in Philadelphia.
Likewise, if certain groups can't perform academically at a high standard, we'll destroy the high standard. Thus a high school in affluent Evanston, Illinois is considering eliminating an honors course because the class had too many whites and not enough minorities.
And if certain groups are more likely to commit terrorism, we’ll avoid offending those groups, pretend that everyone is an equal risk, and obscenely offend all groups. Thus, TSA searches a wheelchair-bound nun.
Every place where multiculturalists make the rules, the people who work hard are having their interests undermined, and the majority culture has to let itself be muzzled. Make things worse for successful people in order to compensate for those who aren't. That will make everyone strive to do better. Erode the majority culture to make minorities feel more welcome. That will increase social harmony.
We in America, and in the West as a whole, need to stop apologizing for our culture. We –or more accurately those who came before us- have created something great, and that is why people leave their non-Christian nations to come here and to other Western nations. How dare anyone say they have a right to the benefits of our society while at the same time attacking the root of our culture?
The norm needs to be reinforced: At Christmas time, we are celebrating the birth of the historical figure who gave rise to our culture, Jesus Christ. We who celebrate Christmas should be vocal in saying that we are offended when Christmas is ripped out of public life. Those who do not celebrate can bloody well not celebrate. It is selfish and insulting to demand that the majority alter something sacred, simply for the convenience or comfort of an unreasonable minority.
If the liberal mayor of Philadelphia can be pressured to change course, just about anyone can. The first battle in the War on Christmas has been won by Judeo-Christian culture. No one has an excuse for sitting out. We need to take our culture back and take our country back. That is one resolution that we can achieve before the New Year.
John Bennett
John Bennett is a former Army officer and a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. His writing has appeared in the American Thinker and the Chicago Tribune, among others.
Email John Bennett
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Multiculturalism creates a neurotic and dishonest society. This is seen very plainly during the Christmas season. Those of us who celebrate Christmas are told that we must rip the very core of this season out, and replace it with a phony, soulless thing called "Holiday" or "Winter." This is dishonest because nobody celebrates winter. "Holiday" is a shallow term to describe Christmas; the term abuses language to impose a false meaning on a reality that most of us cherish.
"Holiday" and "Winter" are weasel words used by cultural appeasers who are too ashamed of their own culture to say what everybody knows to be true. That is, that most of us are celebrating Christmas. Maintaining Christmas is part of preserving the culture that gave us almost everything that we have worth keeping. The whole name-changing charade is neurotic because it forces people to pretend that our majority culture is not what it actually is.
Now, the madness of the Christmas season is upon us- not the madness of shopping centers, but the madness of toxic tolerance. It's happening already in Philadelphia, where a shopping plaza was transformed from "Christmas Village" to "Holiday Village."
Sensitive people will respond that concerns about church-state separation could come in to play. But there is not the remotest trace of such a concern to be found in the initial Philadelphia decision. The reported rationale offered by the city manager was that "This is not about taking Christmas out of the holiday. It's about being more inclusive." He also said that the decision was not based on political correctness, but on "common sense."
Just follow the logic of his statement. We want to be inclusive, which means embrace diversity. Therefore we are going to express disapproval for the majority culture that made this nation great, which is what attracted those diverse people in the first instance. Yes, it was largely immigrants of Christian denominations who built this country, and if one does not like that fact then they are free to find another place whose history doesn’t offend them. Next, as the city manager’s logic goes, in place of the majority culture we will substitute a contrived, nebulous thing called “Holiday” or “Winter” which means nothing to anybody.
Ultimately, the Philadelphia Mayor urged "Christmas" to be placed back on the sign. But consider the conflict that played out there, as it does in many cities, every year: For fear of mildly offending a few unreasonable people who don't like to see or hear the word Christmas, we have chosen instead to completely outrage many people who celebrate Christmas as part of our nation’s majority culture.
Some people call it the "war on Christmas" but this phenomenon is best described as part of something larger that harms us year round: toxic tolerance. Toxic tolerance has been described as "the imperative never to offend anyone, no matter how evil, duplicitous, or exploitative they might be." Tolerance is supposed to be something that makes society better off by placing consideration of others before one’s own narrow views. Liberals treat tolerance as an absolute value. Along with "embracing diversity," tolerance is one of the only values liberals will allow- or should I say tolerate.
Make no mistake about it, those who rip Christmas out of public life are duplicitous and exploitative, no matter what they claim their victim status to be, and no matter how noble their motives. It is duplicitous to attack the majority culture under the pretense of tolerance, when the outcome of the ostensible tolerance is to be intolerant of the majority culture. It is exploitative to use privileged victim status to enforce personal preferences at the expense of a profoundly important cultural and, yes, religious observance. There are few things more self-centered than using privileged victim status to erase part of the culture one finds themselves in. If Westerners went to non-western nations and tried this ungrateful, petty behavior, they would be rightly condemned or worse, depending on the locale.
We invite hypocrisy as well- not just garden variety hypocrisy, but the type of fundamental hypocrisy that makes a sham of our self-respect and attacks our national identity. In particular, we can’t have any mention of Christ at Christmastime in public, government places, but your tax money will be used to degrade and insult Christ.
Witness the Smithsonian’s display, this close to Christmas, of ant-covered Jesus art. The federally funded Smithsonian featured an art film showing a bloody plastic crucifix with ants crawling on the face and body. That’s what they think of our majority culture. Ant-covered Jesus went along with Ellen DeGeneres man-handling her own breasts, and naked brothers kissing- neither part of a Christmas display, as far as one can tell. The people who despise the majority culture are forcing taxpayers to fund their contempt for our society. This is sheer dishonesty and exploitation.
At root, this toxic tolerance and holiday madness is produced by blending multicultural appeasement with a thoughtless liberal notion of equality- not equality brought about by merit or based on majority norms, but equality brought about by government coercion, leveling, and betraying the majority culture. We are told, particularly in educational settings, that all cultures are equal- without any proof or justification. On top of the absurd premise of equality, liberals add legal or social coercion.
If a fraction of the public doesn’t celebrate Christmas, we’ll offend the majority by eliminating references to their cultural observance. Thus stores and communities take "Christ" and "Christmas" out of the season, as in Philadelphia.
Likewise, if certain groups can't perform academically at a high standard, we'll destroy the high standard. Thus a high school in affluent Evanston, Illinois is considering eliminating an honors course because the class had too many whites and not enough minorities.
And if certain groups are more likely to commit terrorism, we’ll avoid offending those groups, pretend that everyone is an equal risk, and obscenely offend all groups. Thus, TSA searches a wheelchair-bound nun.
Every place where multiculturalists make the rules, the people who work hard are having their interests undermined, and the majority culture has to let itself be muzzled. Make things worse for successful people in order to compensate for those who aren't. That will make everyone strive to do better. Erode the majority culture to make minorities feel more welcome. That will increase social harmony.
We in America, and in the West as a whole, need to stop apologizing for our culture. We –or more accurately those who came before us- have created something great, and that is why people leave their non-Christian nations to come here and to other Western nations. How dare anyone say they have a right to the benefits of our society while at the same time attacking the root of our culture?
The norm needs to be reinforced: At Christmas time, we are celebrating the birth of the historical figure who gave rise to our culture, Jesus Christ. We who celebrate Christmas should be vocal in saying that we are offended when Christmas is ripped out of public life. Those who do not celebrate can bloody well not celebrate. It is selfish and insulting to demand that the majority alter something sacred, simply for the convenience or comfort of an unreasonable minority.
If the liberal mayor of Philadelphia can be pressured to change course, just about anyone can. The first battle in the War on Christmas has been won by Judeo-Christian culture. No one has an excuse for sitting out. We need to take our culture back and take our country back. That is one resolution that we can achieve before the New Year.
John Bennett
John Bennett is a former Army officer and a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. His writing has appeared in the American Thinker and the Chicago Tribune, among others.
FROM TOWNHALL
Left and Right, Fooled by Obama
Email Steve Chapman
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Smart women know that if a guy is sending mixed signals -- promising to call but never getting around to it, making dates and then canceling, professing warm feelings but not introducing you to his friends -- it can mean only one thing: He's just not that into you.
Liberals keep wondering why Barack Obama so often disappoints them. But if he truly cared about not disappointing them, he wouldn't. He disappoints them because his heart is somewhere else.
It took a while, but thanks to the tax deal he reached with Republicans, it seems to be dawning on those in the left wing of the Democratic Party that he is not one of them and never will be.
They were aghast when he agreed to keep the Bush tax cuts for upper-income households, while settling for an inheritance tax rate of just 35 percent. House Democrats promptly rejected the agreement wholesale.
For a long time, liberals suppressed their doubts by blaming Republicans, or Wall Street's excessive influence, or Obama's political advisers. Eventually they decided the president, though well-meaning, was naive, inept or afraid to fight. They did not, however, examine the underlying presumption: that Obama shares their beliefs and goals.
No doubt they took heart from his background as a community organizer, his idealistic rhetoric and his left-wing pastor. They were also encouraged by conservatives who denounced him as a fanatical socialist on a mission to transform America into a replica of France or Cuba or Berkeley, Calif.
The last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were white Southerners who hewed close to the center. In Obama, an African-American from Chicago, those on the left end of the spectrum expected something more to their taste.
So the tax cut deal came as a bitter surprise. But why? Obama has made it plain that he sees liberal priorities as sometimes congenial but always expendable.
He signed a stimulus package far smaller than liberals wanted. He dropped the "public option" from health care reform while protecting the interests of insurance companies. He bailed out big banks.
He stuck to George W. Bush's policy in Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. He hasn't gotten around to closing the Guantanamo detention camp. He signed a free trade deal with South Korea.
Fervent liberals claim there's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. But that's where Obama consistently travels.
A few weeks ago, liberal Democrats were up in arms about the recommendations of deficit commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the plan "simply unacceptable." Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, denounced it as "absurd."
What no one seemed to notice is that the commission came about only because of an executive order by Obama, who also appointed the leaders. Could it be that Obama selected them because he knew, and liked, what they would propose?
Jonathan Chait of The New Republic noted that their plan is "tilted, overwhelmingly, toward Republican priorities," and that "three-quarters of the savings come from spending cuts." He made the excuse that to appease Republicans, "the commission had to cater to their whims by crafting a plan that lies almost as far as can be toward the right-wing side of potential choices."
Could be. Or it could be they catered to the whims of Barack Obama.
Conservatives have always assumed that because he learned from radical Saul Alinsky, knew former Weatherman Bill Ayers and sat through sermons by Jeremiah ("God damn America") Wright, Obama must sing "The Internationale" every morning in the shower. Giving up that conviction is not easy.
Even after he cut the tax deal with Republicans, Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger claimed the president is "a Class Warrior with every fiber of his being" -- comparing his policies to those of Franklin Roosevelt in his 1936 attack on "economic royalists."
But under FDR, the top income tax rate was 94 percent. Obama proposed a top rate of 39.6 percent. That's higher than under President George W. Bush, but lower than the 50 percent top rate in 1986 -- when the president was a notorious class warrior named Ronald Reagan.
Liberals and conservatives have one thing in common: They have both persisted in believing that Obama, in his heart of hearts, is a man of the left. But by his fruits, they -- eventually -- shall know him.
Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
Email Steve Chapman
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Smart women know that if a guy is sending mixed signals -- promising to call but never getting around to it, making dates and then canceling, professing warm feelings but not introducing you to his friends -- it can mean only one thing: He's just not that into you.
Liberals keep wondering why Barack Obama so often disappoints them. But if he truly cared about not disappointing them, he wouldn't. He disappoints them because his heart is somewhere else.
It took a while, but thanks to the tax deal he reached with Republicans, it seems to be dawning on those in the left wing of the Democratic Party that he is not one of them and never will be.
They were aghast when he agreed to keep the Bush tax cuts for upper-income households, while settling for an inheritance tax rate of just 35 percent. House Democrats promptly rejected the agreement wholesale.
For a long time, liberals suppressed their doubts by blaming Republicans, or Wall Street's excessive influence, or Obama's political advisers. Eventually they decided the president, though well-meaning, was naive, inept or afraid to fight. They did not, however, examine the underlying presumption: that Obama shares their beliefs and goals.
No doubt they took heart from his background as a community organizer, his idealistic rhetoric and his left-wing pastor. They were also encouraged by conservatives who denounced him as a fanatical socialist on a mission to transform America into a replica of France or Cuba or Berkeley, Calif.
The last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were white Southerners who hewed close to the center. In Obama, an African-American from Chicago, those on the left end of the spectrum expected something more to their taste.
So the tax cut deal came as a bitter surprise. But why? Obama has made it plain that he sees liberal priorities as sometimes congenial but always expendable.
He signed a stimulus package far smaller than liberals wanted. He dropped the "public option" from health care reform while protecting the interests of insurance companies. He bailed out big banks.
He stuck to George W. Bush's policy in Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. He hasn't gotten around to closing the Guantanamo detention camp. He signed a free trade deal with South Korea.
Fervent liberals claim there's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. But that's where Obama consistently travels.
A few weeks ago, liberal Democrats were up in arms about the recommendations of deficit commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the plan "simply unacceptable." Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, denounced it as "absurd."
What no one seemed to notice is that the commission came about only because of an executive order by Obama, who also appointed the leaders. Could it be that Obama selected them because he knew, and liked, what they would propose?
Jonathan Chait of The New Republic noted that their plan is "tilted, overwhelmingly, toward Republican priorities," and that "three-quarters of the savings come from spending cuts." He made the excuse that to appease Republicans, "the commission had to cater to their whims by crafting a plan that lies almost as far as can be toward the right-wing side of potential choices."
Could be. Or it could be they catered to the whims of Barack Obama.
Conservatives have always assumed that because he learned from radical Saul Alinsky, knew former Weatherman Bill Ayers and sat through sermons by Jeremiah ("God damn America") Wright, Obama must sing "The Internationale" every morning in the shower. Giving up that conviction is not easy.
Even after he cut the tax deal with Republicans, Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger claimed the president is "a Class Warrior with every fiber of his being" -- comparing his policies to those of Franklin Roosevelt in his 1936 attack on "economic royalists."
But under FDR, the top income tax rate was 94 percent. Obama proposed a top rate of 39.6 percent. That's higher than under President George W. Bush, but lower than the 50 percent top rate in 1986 -- when the president was a notorious class warrior named Ronald Reagan.
Liberals and conservatives have one thing in common: They have both persisted in believing that Obama, in his heart of hearts, is a man of the left. But by his fruits, they -- eventually -- shall know him.
Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
FROM TOWNHALL
The Making of a President
Email Pat Buchanan
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up If the Pelosi-Reid liberals are in a hissy fit over the tax-cut deal negotiated by Barack Obama, they have only themselves to blame.
With their three-to-two majorities, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could have forced the Republicans to vote again and again during the election for "tax cuts for the rich."
They never did. Now, what else could Obama do after his own party left him with lousy field position and the clock running out?
"He could have fought!" the left howls. "He could have told the Republicans, 'No way do I sign a bill that gives tax cuts to the rich.'"
Had Obama thrown down that gauntlet, Republicans would have blocked all action in the Senate until Dec. 31. The lame-duck session would have ended in deadlock. There would have been no extension of tax cuts for the middle class, no START treaty on nuclear weapons, no extension of unemployment benefits, no vote on the DREAM Act for amnesty for illegal aliens, no vote on "don't ask, don't tell."
Obama's defiance would have accomplished -- exactly nothing.
In January, a Republican House and more conservative Senate would have passed an extension of all the Bush tax cuts, and Obama would have had to veto the bill and let them all expire. The resulting tax surge would have caused chaos in the economy and been a disaster for the president who is supposed to be running the country.
But the Republicans would have caved, claims the left.
Don't bet on it. Mitch McConnell and the GOP senators know -- after what happened to Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Michael Bennett and Mike Castle -- that the retribution of the Tea Party is the threat they face, not the anger of Barack Obama.
Republicans won the battle because they were united. All 42 senators agreed nothing moves in Harry's house until the tax cuts are voted on. And they took that stand because they truly believe you do not raise taxes in a recession and because they were willing to let all the tax cuts expire on Jan. 1 rather than abandon a principled position.
If liberals thought the GOP would crack, Obama knew better.
And considering the deal he came out with, when he walked in with not even a small pair, his party should be congratulating him, not cussing him out.
True, the tax cuts are extended for all, even those earning more than $250,000. But only for two years. If liberals believe ending tax cuts for the rich is a winning issue, why are they screaming? They will have a chance to make that case in the middle of the 2012 election, when all the tax cuts will be up for renewal again.
On the estate taxes, Obama agreed to exempt the first $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple, and impose a 35 percent top tax rate.
This is a relief for small businessmen and farmers who want to deed all they have built up to their kids. This is a compromise between what the left wants and what some of us believe should happen: elimination of the estate tax.
Death taxes do not raise enough to justify the IRS agents working on them and the accountants and lawyers who spend careers helping seniors put together wills and trusts to protect wealth on which they have been paying taxes all their lives.
Obama also won a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits, twice what Democrats had pushed for.
Obama won a 30 percent cut in payroll taxes for workers in 2011. The Social Security tax falls from 6.2 percent of wages to 4.2 percent. This will put tens of billions in the pockets of consumers.
Businesses will be allowed to "expense" investments in equipment such as computers. This means they can write off the entire cost on their corporate income tax in the first year. This will spur job-creating new investment.
With this deal, Obama is conceding that the Pelosi-Reid stimulus approach did not work, that tax cuts must be tried to get the economy moving, that, for the next two years, he must make his deals with Republicans.
The Obama-McConnell pact is a recognition of reality and a sign of maturity.
In these negotiations, Obama acted like a president. He went in with a weak hand and came out with half the pot. He got something, where the Democrats now berating him got nothing.
If the left hasn't realized it yet, Obama has: Liberals have lost the country. The liberal hour is over in America and the West.
With these deals, however, comes one big problem. None of these tax cuts or spending hikes is paid for. A trillion dollars is being added to the long-term deficit and debt. And the plunge in the bond market is signaling that the money power thinks that the United States' credit rating is heading south.
The clock on the debt bomb has just been moved a few minutes closer to midnight.
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
Email Pat Buchanan
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up If the Pelosi-Reid liberals are in a hissy fit over the tax-cut deal negotiated by Barack Obama, they have only themselves to blame.
With their three-to-two majorities, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could have forced the Republicans to vote again and again during the election for "tax cuts for the rich."
They never did. Now, what else could Obama do after his own party left him with lousy field position and the clock running out?
"He could have fought!" the left howls. "He could have told the Republicans, 'No way do I sign a bill that gives tax cuts to the rich.'"
Had Obama thrown down that gauntlet, Republicans would have blocked all action in the Senate until Dec. 31. The lame-duck session would have ended in deadlock. There would have been no extension of tax cuts for the middle class, no START treaty on nuclear weapons, no extension of unemployment benefits, no vote on the DREAM Act for amnesty for illegal aliens, no vote on "don't ask, don't tell."
Obama's defiance would have accomplished -- exactly nothing.
In January, a Republican House and more conservative Senate would have passed an extension of all the Bush tax cuts, and Obama would have had to veto the bill and let them all expire. The resulting tax surge would have caused chaos in the economy and been a disaster for the president who is supposed to be running the country.
But the Republicans would have caved, claims the left.
Don't bet on it. Mitch McConnell and the GOP senators know -- after what happened to Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Michael Bennett and Mike Castle -- that the retribution of the Tea Party is the threat they face, not the anger of Barack Obama.
Republicans won the battle because they were united. All 42 senators agreed nothing moves in Harry's house until the tax cuts are voted on. And they took that stand because they truly believe you do not raise taxes in a recession and because they were willing to let all the tax cuts expire on Jan. 1 rather than abandon a principled position.
If liberals thought the GOP would crack, Obama knew better.
And considering the deal he came out with, when he walked in with not even a small pair, his party should be congratulating him, not cussing him out.
True, the tax cuts are extended for all, even those earning more than $250,000. But only for two years. If liberals believe ending tax cuts for the rich is a winning issue, why are they screaming? They will have a chance to make that case in the middle of the 2012 election, when all the tax cuts will be up for renewal again.
On the estate taxes, Obama agreed to exempt the first $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple, and impose a 35 percent top tax rate.
This is a relief for small businessmen and farmers who want to deed all they have built up to their kids. This is a compromise between what the left wants and what some of us believe should happen: elimination of the estate tax.
Death taxes do not raise enough to justify the IRS agents working on them and the accountants and lawyers who spend careers helping seniors put together wills and trusts to protect wealth on which they have been paying taxes all their lives.
Obama also won a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits, twice what Democrats had pushed for.
Obama won a 30 percent cut in payroll taxes for workers in 2011. The Social Security tax falls from 6.2 percent of wages to 4.2 percent. This will put tens of billions in the pockets of consumers.
Businesses will be allowed to "expense" investments in equipment such as computers. This means they can write off the entire cost on their corporate income tax in the first year. This will spur job-creating new investment.
With this deal, Obama is conceding that the Pelosi-Reid stimulus approach did not work, that tax cuts must be tried to get the economy moving, that, for the next two years, he must make his deals with Republicans.
The Obama-McConnell pact is a recognition of reality and a sign of maturity.
In these negotiations, Obama acted like a president. He went in with a weak hand and came out with half the pot. He got something, where the Democrats now berating him got nothing.
If the left hasn't realized it yet, Obama has: Liberals have lost the country. The liberal hour is over in America and the West.
With these deals, however, comes one big problem. None of these tax cuts or spending hikes is paid for. A trillion dollars is being added to the long-term deficit and debt. And the plunge in the bond market is signaling that the money power thinks that the United States' credit rating is heading south.
The clock on the debt bomb has just been moved a few minutes closer to midnight.
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
FROM TOWNHALL
While His Base Rages, Obama Faces Tax-Cut Reality
Email Michael Barone
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Reality strikes. Barack Obama spurned the advice of columnists Paul Krugman and Katrina vanden Heuvel and agreed with Republicans to extend the current income tax rates -- the so-called Bush tax cuts -- for another two years.
He got a few things in return, primarily extended unemployment benefits for another 13 months, and agreed as well to a 2 percent cut in the Social Security payroll tax.
But he recognized the reality that in order to prevent a tax increase on those with incomes under $250,000 he had to prevent a tax increase on those over that line, as well.
This has infuriated liberal Democrats like outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but they share some of the blame themselves. They probably could have passed their version of the tax bill earlier this year, before the economic recovery stalled in the spring.
But with the economy faltering, there's a strong argument against raising anyone's taxes -- strong enough to have persuaded many congressional Democrats.
Obama had to abandon his goal of raising taxes on high earners not because Republicans opposed it but because not enough Democrats supported it. Pelosi couldn't summon up a majority on the issue back in September, and Harry Reid could get only 53 of the needed 60 votes this month.
Democrats, not Republicans, are responsible for extension of all the "Bush tax cuts."
Still, Obama in his surly statement Monday evening and his unusually brief press conference Tuesday afternoon, was at pains to attack Republicans.
The president who first came to national attention for expressing respect for those with whom he differed insisted that he was eager to "fight" Republicans and described them as "hostage takers," with the American people as hostages. Not much evidence of civility.
And he addressed most of his remarks to what last month's election revealed as a narrow segment of the nation's electorate, the Democratic base.
Over the years, I've noticed that politicians tend to view the whole nation through the prism of their electoral base, even when they know it's not typical. On Monday and Tuesday, Obama seemed to be aiming his remarks at the 13th state Senate district of Illinois, which he designed and which is about 60 percent black and 25 percent gentry liberal, not to the political independents who supported him and his party in 2008 and then went heavily Republican last month.
Thus Obama lauded the health care bill jammed through Congress by Democratic leaders and, addressing liberal complaints that it lacked a public option, said it could be expanded as Medicare was. That might mollify liberal Democrats but will repel independents, who opposed and still oppose Obamacare by wide margins.
Obama did argue that "tax breaks for wealthy individuals" are unpopular and would prove a political liability for Republicans in 2012. But for every poll supporting that proposition you can find another going the other way -- it all depends on how the question is worded.
The strongest part of the press conference came when Obama told liberal Democrats that robust economic growth will make everything easier. That's true: Robust growth produces a boom in revenues far beyond what government statistical models predict. In 1995, Bill Clinton refused to even promise to balance the budget, but the tech boom generated enough revenue to do so a few years later.
But that raises the question of why the economy has been growing at such a limp rate two years into the Obama administration. The specter of higher taxes on high earners -- delayed now for two years, but still threatened by the president -- surely has done something to choke off growth.
So has uncertainty about the extent and cost of the administration's regulatory policies -- which are not limited by the deal on taxes. Extension of unemployment benefits, arguably good policy at a time when jobs are genuinely scarce, tends to perpetuate unemployment as the economy grows, by inducing some workers to hold out for higher-paying jobs.
The tax deal is certainly better for the economy than political gridlock over extending the tax cuts. How much better is uncertain.
But the Democratic base seems more interested in expanding government than in stimulating the economy. They are bellowing with rage not so much at Obama but at the reality that he is grudgingly acknowledging. They had their time, and now it's gone.
Michael Barone
Michael Barone is a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. He is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner and a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
Email Michael Barone
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Reality strikes. Barack Obama spurned the advice of columnists Paul Krugman and Katrina vanden Heuvel and agreed with Republicans to extend the current income tax rates -- the so-called Bush tax cuts -- for another two years.
He got a few things in return, primarily extended unemployment benefits for another 13 months, and agreed as well to a 2 percent cut in the Social Security payroll tax.
But he recognized the reality that in order to prevent a tax increase on those with incomes under $250,000 he had to prevent a tax increase on those over that line, as well.
This has infuriated liberal Democrats like outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but they share some of the blame themselves. They probably could have passed their version of the tax bill earlier this year, before the economic recovery stalled in the spring.
But with the economy faltering, there's a strong argument against raising anyone's taxes -- strong enough to have persuaded many congressional Democrats.
Obama had to abandon his goal of raising taxes on high earners not because Republicans opposed it but because not enough Democrats supported it. Pelosi couldn't summon up a majority on the issue back in September, and Harry Reid could get only 53 of the needed 60 votes this month.
Democrats, not Republicans, are responsible for extension of all the "Bush tax cuts."
Still, Obama in his surly statement Monday evening and his unusually brief press conference Tuesday afternoon, was at pains to attack Republicans.
The president who first came to national attention for expressing respect for those with whom he differed insisted that he was eager to "fight" Republicans and described them as "hostage takers," with the American people as hostages. Not much evidence of civility.
And he addressed most of his remarks to what last month's election revealed as a narrow segment of the nation's electorate, the Democratic base.
Over the years, I've noticed that politicians tend to view the whole nation through the prism of their electoral base, even when they know it's not typical. On Monday and Tuesday, Obama seemed to be aiming his remarks at the 13th state Senate district of Illinois, which he designed and which is about 60 percent black and 25 percent gentry liberal, not to the political independents who supported him and his party in 2008 and then went heavily Republican last month.
Thus Obama lauded the health care bill jammed through Congress by Democratic leaders and, addressing liberal complaints that it lacked a public option, said it could be expanded as Medicare was. That might mollify liberal Democrats but will repel independents, who opposed and still oppose Obamacare by wide margins.
Obama did argue that "tax breaks for wealthy individuals" are unpopular and would prove a political liability for Republicans in 2012. But for every poll supporting that proposition you can find another going the other way -- it all depends on how the question is worded.
The strongest part of the press conference came when Obama told liberal Democrats that robust economic growth will make everything easier. That's true: Robust growth produces a boom in revenues far beyond what government statistical models predict. In 1995, Bill Clinton refused to even promise to balance the budget, but the tech boom generated enough revenue to do so a few years later.
But that raises the question of why the economy has been growing at such a limp rate two years into the Obama administration. The specter of higher taxes on high earners -- delayed now for two years, but still threatened by the president -- surely has done something to choke off growth.
So has uncertainty about the extent and cost of the administration's regulatory policies -- which are not limited by the deal on taxes. Extension of unemployment benefits, arguably good policy at a time when jobs are genuinely scarce, tends to perpetuate unemployment as the economy grows, by inducing some workers to hold out for higher-paying jobs.
The tax deal is certainly better for the economy than political gridlock over extending the tax cuts. How much better is uncertain.
But the Democratic base seems more interested in expanding government than in stimulating the economy. They are bellowing with rage not so much at Obama but at the reality that he is grudgingly acknowledging. They had their time, and now it's gone.
Michael Barone
Michael Barone is a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. He is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner and a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
FROM TOWNHALL
Is Envy More Important than Prosperity?
Email Star Parker
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 1diggdigg
Sign-Up New York Congressman Anthony Weiner is making a name for himself.
He wants taxes raised on wealthy Americans and is one of the more vocal opponents to the deal that would retain current tax rates for everyone.
“An estate tax cut for millionaires adds exactly zero jobs. A tax cut for billionaires – virtually none,” says the congressman.
But what does Weiner know about job creation, about work, about being an entrepreneur?
Looking over his resume, you see he’s never held a private sector job.
Right out of college, he went to work on the staff of then-Congressmen Chuck Schumer, followed by six years serving on New York’s city council, and then ran for congress in 1999, capturing the seat he currently holds.
Mr. Weiner is a politically ambitious young man who has built power and career by confiscating and redistributing other people’s money.
Consider who the wealthy are that Weiner wants to punish.
Thomas Stanley and William Danko wrote a book called “The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy”.
They produced a portrait of who America’s millionaires are and show that by and large these are quiet, understated, self-reliant Americans who are committed to hard work, education, and family.
Their portrait shows that eighty percent of our millionaires are first generation affluent, that less than half received a cent in inheritance funds, and only 19% get any income from a trust fund or estate.
Most Americans – 80% - are not self-employed. But of those that are, two thirds are our millionaires.
Seventy five percent of these self-employed millionaires are entrepreneurs and the remaining quarter are self-employed professionals like doctors and accounts.
These are overwhelmingly self-made individuals, by a large founders and proprietors of prosaic businesses like “welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers and paving contractors.”
Sure, we have high profile billionaires in America. But most of America’s millionaires, those whose income is in the $250,000 and above category whose taxes Anthony Weiner wants to raise, are our nation’s bread and butter entrepreneurs and small business owners.
Regarding the estate tax, or what has come to be known as the death tax, it is probably, of all the ways in which our government takes revenue, the most immoral.
As noted, 80% of millionaires are first generation and two thirds are entrepreneurs. The death tax punishes the very behavior that defines the economic heart and soul of American prosperity.
But perhaps worse, it attacks our most important social institution – the American family.
A recent Pew Research Center/Time Magazine report shows the collapse over the last half century of the traditional American family.
Today 52% of adult Americans are married compared to 72% in 1960. Forty one percent of our babies today are born to unwed mothers compared to 5% in 1960.
It was once a given in our nation that there were inviolable truths that precede government. Once most believed that one of those truths was the integrity of the American family.
The death tax tells us that that government now supersedes family. That politicians like Anthony Weiner can go inside of a family and confiscate the wealth that a breadwinner has accumulated over a lifetime of hard work and prevent parents from freely passing the fruits of their labor on to their children.
Three of four Americans say that the country today is on the wrong track.
The key question today is where we want to go and what it takes to get there.
If we want to get back to prosperity, then it should be axiomatic that protecting freedom, entrepreneurship and family is the answer. Not the politics of power and envy.
Star Parker
Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.
Email Star Parker
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 1diggdigg
Sign-Up New York Congressman Anthony Weiner is making a name for himself.
He wants taxes raised on wealthy Americans and is one of the more vocal opponents to the deal that would retain current tax rates for everyone.
“An estate tax cut for millionaires adds exactly zero jobs. A tax cut for billionaires – virtually none,” says the congressman.
But what does Weiner know about job creation, about work, about being an entrepreneur?
Looking over his resume, you see he’s never held a private sector job.
Right out of college, he went to work on the staff of then-Congressmen Chuck Schumer, followed by six years serving on New York’s city council, and then ran for congress in 1999, capturing the seat he currently holds.
Mr. Weiner is a politically ambitious young man who has built power and career by confiscating and redistributing other people’s money.
Consider who the wealthy are that Weiner wants to punish.
Thomas Stanley and William Danko wrote a book called “The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy”.
They produced a portrait of who America’s millionaires are and show that by and large these are quiet, understated, self-reliant Americans who are committed to hard work, education, and family.
Their portrait shows that eighty percent of our millionaires are first generation affluent, that less than half received a cent in inheritance funds, and only 19% get any income from a trust fund or estate.
Most Americans – 80% - are not self-employed. But of those that are, two thirds are our millionaires.
Seventy five percent of these self-employed millionaires are entrepreneurs and the remaining quarter are self-employed professionals like doctors and accounts.
These are overwhelmingly self-made individuals, by a large founders and proprietors of prosaic businesses like “welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers and paving contractors.”
Sure, we have high profile billionaires in America. But most of America’s millionaires, those whose income is in the $250,000 and above category whose taxes Anthony Weiner wants to raise, are our nation’s bread and butter entrepreneurs and small business owners.
Regarding the estate tax, or what has come to be known as the death tax, it is probably, of all the ways in which our government takes revenue, the most immoral.
As noted, 80% of millionaires are first generation and two thirds are entrepreneurs. The death tax punishes the very behavior that defines the economic heart and soul of American prosperity.
But perhaps worse, it attacks our most important social institution – the American family.
A recent Pew Research Center/Time Magazine report shows the collapse over the last half century of the traditional American family.
Today 52% of adult Americans are married compared to 72% in 1960. Forty one percent of our babies today are born to unwed mothers compared to 5% in 1960.
It was once a given in our nation that there were inviolable truths that precede government. Once most believed that one of those truths was the integrity of the American family.
The death tax tells us that that government now supersedes family. That politicians like Anthony Weiner can go inside of a family and confiscate the wealth that a breadwinner has accumulated over a lifetime of hard work and prevent parents from freely passing the fruits of their labor on to their children.
Three of four Americans say that the country today is on the wrong track.
The key question today is where we want to go and what it takes to get there.
If we want to get back to prosperity, then it should be axiomatic that protecting freedom, entrepreneurship and family is the answer. Not the politics of power and envy.
Star Parker
Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.
FROM TOWNHALL
Yes, ObamaCare Still Worse Than You Thought
Email Bruce Bialosky
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up This is second in a three-part series on what the new Congress should set as its priorities.
While most Republicans ran on repealing the Health Care Act of 2010, Democrats kept saying that Americans would eventually embrace the features of the bill and that Republicans would never be able to overturn such a major piece of legislation. A new analysis of the bill – by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) – would make any common-sense individual an enthusiastic devotee of the total obliteration of this monstrosity.
The rules established in this massive bill would set anyone back on their heels. Yet these are only the tip of the regulation iceberg that is aimed at the heart of every American. The NCPA identifies 159 new federal agencies in which bureaucrats define what medical care you may or may not receive. But is that true? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce states there are 183 new federal agencies. It’s perverse enough that all these agencies are being created. But if two reputable organizations can analyze this legislation and still disagree on how much bureaucracy springs from its pages, what hope will we ever have to survive this mind-warped beast?
The NCPA analysis clearly illuminates the fantasy-land economics of the bill. Democrats have applauded the elimination of pre-existing conditions, lifetime spending caps, and the fact that your ne’er-do-well child can be tethered to you until they reach the age of 27. They fail to mention the huge costs involved, which we are already seeing (with soaring medical insurance premiums). The Democrats have identified enumerable ways to pay for this, two of which are: (1) a new tax on health care premiums of about $500 per year, and (2) significant cuts in Medicare payments amounting to over $50 billion per year.
If you believe that this is going to happen, then you also believe Nancy Pelosi is the tooth fairy. Medicare reimbursements paid to doctors are scheduled to drop 30% over the next three years. Doctors already complain about low Medicare fees – and how it is just a cost shift to private insurance carriers – but it gets worse. By 2019, Medicare fees are scheduled to drop below Medicaid reimbursements, and by 2050 Medicare payments will fall to 50% of the private sector. At these rates, most doctors will undoubtedly opt out of the system, further limiting the access and quality of medical care for senior citizens. Of course, this is all predicated on the revised reimbursement rates actually getting through Congress – which hasn’t happened in any of the last ten years.
One of the reasons the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes repeal is that the bill requires almost all employers to provide health insurance to even out the playing field. That is a mirage. There are penalties for not providing insurance, but they are estimated to be one-sixth of the cost of insurance. Thus, instead of more people having employer-provided insurance, there will certainly be less. The number of employees who will lose their coverage ranges from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculation of 9 million to the estimate of a former CBO Director of 35 million – over 11% of the entire population! More people will be on the government rolls – which is exactly what the Democrats want to happen - as they force-feed us to a single-payer health care system.
Here is one of the truly spiritual revelations of this plan. Subsidies will be provided to uninsured employees by the government (or their employer) based on the employee’s income. But that would be the employee’s “family income,” not his/her wages. This means that the government will require every employee receiving subsidies to provide a copy of their tax return to their employer or insurance exchange to prove the “family income.” Yes, you read it right – this act not only allows the Department of Health and Human Services to look at your tax return, but it requires insurance exchanges and employers as well.
You will now have to attach to your tax return proof that you carry health insurance, or suffer penalties if you don’t. Your return will also indicate the amount of your subsidy, and, if God forbid you have previously been paid too much, the Feds will either seize your refund or send you a bill for the difference. It’s easy to foresee lots of money being lost in that shuffle, and lots of people receiving threatening letters from their favorite government agency – the IRS.
As for the sanctity of marriage, there is none. Because there is already a marriage penalty built into the tax code, you would think that the people who wrote this bill would make sure to avoid the same problem. But no – this plan awards higher subsidies for two single people than one married couple. Yet again the government discourages marriage. Does anyone wonder why 40% of Americans don’t believe in marriage when Washington penalizes it in your taxes and health care?
The treasure trove of insanity that’s contained in this legislation will ultimately appall and disgust the overwhelming majority of Americans. We clearly remember that this bill was only passed with Congressional shenanigans, bribes to wavering Senators, and the pathetic sellout of the Stupak Democrats, all of whom (except one) are now out of office. We all must work to make sure that those 159 (or 183) agencies don’t ever see a single dollar of funding, don’t ever start hiring a staff, and above all, don’t ever get the opportunity to destroy whatever sense of individuality we have left in this country.
Note: 222 companies and unions have opted out of ObamaCare, wouldn’t you like to also?
Bruce Bialosky
Email Bruce Bialosky
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up This is second in a three-part series on what the new Congress should set as its priorities.
While most Republicans ran on repealing the Health Care Act of 2010, Democrats kept saying that Americans would eventually embrace the features of the bill and that Republicans would never be able to overturn such a major piece of legislation. A new analysis of the bill – by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) – would make any common-sense individual an enthusiastic devotee of the total obliteration of this monstrosity.
The rules established in this massive bill would set anyone back on their heels. Yet these are only the tip of the regulation iceberg that is aimed at the heart of every American. The NCPA identifies 159 new federal agencies in which bureaucrats define what medical care you may or may not receive. But is that true? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce states there are 183 new federal agencies. It’s perverse enough that all these agencies are being created. But if two reputable organizations can analyze this legislation and still disagree on how much bureaucracy springs from its pages, what hope will we ever have to survive this mind-warped beast?
The NCPA analysis clearly illuminates the fantasy-land economics of the bill. Democrats have applauded the elimination of pre-existing conditions, lifetime spending caps, and the fact that your ne’er-do-well child can be tethered to you until they reach the age of 27. They fail to mention the huge costs involved, which we are already seeing (with soaring medical insurance premiums). The Democrats have identified enumerable ways to pay for this, two of which are: (1) a new tax on health care premiums of about $500 per year, and (2) significant cuts in Medicare payments amounting to over $50 billion per year.
If you believe that this is going to happen, then you also believe Nancy Pelosi is the tooth fairy. Medicare reimbursements paid to doctors are scheduled to drop 30% over the next three years. Doctors already complain about low Medicare fees – and how it is just a cost shift to private insurance carriers – but it gets worse. By 2019, Medicare fees are scheduled to drop below Medicaid reimbursements, and by 2050 Medicare payments will fall to 50% of the private sector. At these rates, most doctors will undoubtedly opt out of the system, further limiting the access and quality of medical care for senior citizens. Of course, this is all predicated on the revised reimbursement rates actually getting through Congress – which hasn’t happened in any of the last ten years.
One of the reasons the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes repeal is that the bill requires almost all employers to provide health insurance to even out the playing field. That is a mirage. There are penalties for not providing insurance, but they are estimated to be one-sixth of the cost of insurance. Thus, instead of more people having employer-provided insurance, there will certainly be less. The number of employees who will lose their coverage ranges from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculation of 9 million to the estimate of a former CBO Director of 35 million – over 11% of the entire population! More people will be on the government rolls – which is exactly what the Democrats want to happen - as they force-feed us to a single-payer health care system.
Here is one of the truly spiritual revelations of this plan. Subsidies will be provided to uninsured employees by the government (or their employer) based on the employee’s income. But that would be the employee’s “family income,” not his/her wages. This means that the government will require every employee receiving subsidies to provide a copy of their tax return to their employer or insurance exchange to prove the “family income.” Yes, you read it right – this act not only allows the Department of Health and Human Services to look at your tax return, but it requires insurance exchanges and employers as well.
You will now have to attach to your tax return proof that you carry health insurance, or suffer penalties if you don’t. Your return will also indicate the amount of your subsidy, and, if God forbid you have previously been paid too much, the Feds will either seize your refund or send you a bill for the difference. It’s easy to foresee lots of money being lost in that shuffle, and lots of people receiving threatening letters from their favorite government agency – the IRS.
As for the sanctity of marriage, there is none. Because there is already a marriage penalty built into the tax code, you would think that the people who wrote this bill would make sure to avoid the same problem. But no – this plan awards higher subsidies for two single people than one married couple. Yet again the government discourages marriage. Does anyone wonder why 40% of Americans don’t believe in marriage when Washington penalizes it in your taxes and health care?
The treasure trove of insanity that’s contained in this legislation will ultimately appall and disgust the overwhelming majority of Americans. We clearly remember that this bill was only passed with Congressional shenanigans, bribes to wavering Senators, and the pathetic sellout of the Stupak Democrats, all of whom (except one) are now out of office. We all must work to make sure that those 159 (or 183) agencies don’t ever see a single dollar of funding, don’t ever start hiring a staff, and above all, don’t ever get the opportunity to destroy whatever sense of individuality we have left in this country.
Note: 222 companies and unions have opted out of ObamaCare, wouldn’t you like to also?
Bruce Bialosky
FROM TOWNHALL
Ethanol & Budget Cuts: More Deeds, Less Words
Email Lurita Doan
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Republicans in Congress have taken giant steps forward to restore American economic vitality but, as the current tax legislation, up for a cloture vote in the Senate on Monday proves the GOP has yet to prove that they are serious about cutting spending. Nestled within the legislation that extends the Bush tax cuts for another two years is a 45 cents per gallon subsidy for ethanol, as well as a retroactive $1 per gallon credit for bio-diesel fuel. Continuing these subsidies costs taxpayers approximately $5 billion a year.
Budget-busting subsidies and bailouts of failing industries have been a mainstay of the Democrats in Congress over the last two years, but the tax legislation reveals that there are GOP senators who are not immune from the temptations of pork.
Folks familiar with Iowan Senator Charles Grassley are aware of his characterization as a deficit hawk, tough on waste, fraud and abuse, and yet, he’s the last hold-out on ethanol subsidies, an enormous source of government waste.
Even Al Gore has faced the inconvenient truth that ethanol “is not a good policy.” Corn-based ethanol is expensive and has dubious environmental benefits. Moreover, huge subsidies for corn-based ethanol drive up the cost of food as large amounts of U.S. farm production is diverted to make expensive fuel. Americans are then forced to buy a product that they do not want, because of government mandates for ethanol inclusion in gasoline blends. At the same time, protectionist measures prevent the importation of cheaper forms of ethanol made in Brazil, from sugar cane. These decisions, that enrich the Iowa corn industry, cost taxpayers dearly.
The good news is that the ethanol subsidy and the bio-diesel subsidy were due to expire at the end of this year. But, sadly, Grassley has placed parochial politics above the good of the GOP and the good of the country, and insisted that the extension be tagged on to the tax-cut legislation. So, there goes another 5 billion.
The fact that wasteful pork comes from a GOP Senator that bills himself as a budget hawk is disconcerting. Hopefully, GOP leaders, eager to show voters that they heard them this past November, will strip continued ethanol subsidies from the bill.
Why not let the Bush tax cuts stand alone? Why allow pork, such as the ethanol subsidy, to besmirch GOP efforts to restore fiscal sanity?
Democrats in Congress aren’t serious about cutting spending either, even though President Obama has talked about it a lot. Obama seems content with platitudes and disinterested in action. Americans, sadly, have grown used to politicians in Washington that speak eloquently about the necessity of cutting wasteful programs, boasting about their fiscal courage in making hard decisions. But, many of these politicians simply hope that Americans will ignore what they actually do.
When challenged on the Administration’s efforts to cut costs, Obama often cites the SAVE program as one of his centerpieces for finding and eliminating wasteful spending.
The idea, actually a good one, encourages federal employees to recommend ways to cut costs in the federal government. OMB set up a review committee and every federal employee was asked to come up with ideas to save taxpayer money or discover unneeded government programs. Thousands of ideas were submitted, and recently OMB released the list of “winning” ideas. Three, of four finalists, recommended posting various government forms online. The grand champion recommended limiting the mailing of the huge Federal Register to the 8,000 or so government employees that actually need it, instead of the 25,000 that now receive it.
In a government as spendthrift as ours, any recommendations to cut costs are important, but with over a trillion in federal spending annually, is eliminating a federal paper mailer really the best that the Obama Administration can do? Are we to believe that this is their single best idea, that it warrants a meeting with the President and possible inclusion in the President’s State of the Union speech?
My guess is that if the White House honestly tracked the full costs and time spent on administration of the SAVE program, we would learn that the program administration costs exceed the savings gained from such puny ideas.
Proof positive, in case you needed more, that Washington rhetoric on cutting waste, fraud and abuse rarely matches the actions taken. When Senators and the President can characterize themselves as cutters of waste in government spending, while championing some of the worst examples of wasteful subsidies, it tells Americans that our leaders are not yet ready to be held accountable and face our nation’s budgetary challenges with courage, integrity and honesty.
Lurita Doan
Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.
Email Lurita Doan
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Republicans in Congress have taken giant steps forward to restore American economic vitality but, as the current tax legislation, up for a cloture vote in the Senate on Monday proves the GOP has yet to prove that they are serious about cutting spending. Nestled within the legislation that extends the Bush tax cuts for another two years is a 45 cents per gallon subsidy for ethanol, as well as a retroactive $1 per gallon credit for bio-diesel fuel. Continuing these subsidies costs taxpayers approximately $5 billion a year.
Budget-busting subsidies and bailouts of failing industries have been a mainstay of the Democrats in Congress over the last two years, but the tax legislation reveals that there are GOP senators who are not immune from the temptations of pork.
Folks familiar with Iowan Senator Charles Grassley are aware of his characterization as a deficit hawk, tough on waste, fraud and abuse, and yet, he’s the last hold-out on ethanol subsidies, an enormous source of government waste.
Even Al Gore has faced the inconvenient truth that ethanol “is not a good policy.” Corn-based ethanol is expensive and has dubious environmental benefits. Moreover, huge subsidies for corn-based ethanol drive up the cost of food as large amounts of U.S. farm production is diverted to make expensive fuel. Americans are then forced to buy a product that they do not want, because of government mandates for ethanol inclusion in gasoline blends. At the same time, protectionist measures prevent the importation of cheaper forms of ethanol made in Brazil, from sugar cane. These decisions, that enrich the Iowa corn industry, cost taxpayers dearly.
The good news is that the ethanol subsidy and the bio-diesel subsidy were due to expire at the end of this year. But, sadly, Grassley has placed parochial politics above the good of the GOP and the good of the country, and insisted that the extension be tagged on to the tax-cut legislation. So, there goes another 5 billion.
The fact that wasteful pork comes from a GOP Senator that bills himself as a budget hawk is disconcerting. Hopefully, GOP leaders, eager to show voters that they heard them this past November, will strip continued ethanol subsidies from the bill.
Why not let the Bush tax cuts stand alone? Why allow pork, such as the ethanol subsidy, to besmirch GOP efforts to restore fiscal sanity?
Democrats in Congress aren’t serious about cutting spending either, even though President Obama has talked about it a lot. Obama seems content with platitudes and disinterested in action. Americans, sadly, have grown used to politicians in Washington that speak eloquently about the necessity of cutting wasteful programs, boasting about their fiscal courage in making hard decisions. But, many of these politicians simply hope that Americans will ignore what they actually do.
When challenged on the Administration’s efforts to cut costs, Obama often cites the SAVE program as one of his centerpieces for finding and eliminating wasteful spending.
The idea, actually a good one, encourages federal employees to recommend ways to cut costs in the federal government. OMB set up a review committee and every federal employee was asked to come up with ideas to save taxpayer money or discover unneeded government programs. Thousands of ideas were submitted, and recently OMB released the list of “winning” ideas. Three, of four finalists, recommended posting various government forms online. The grand champion recommended limiting the mailing of the huge Federal Register to the 8,000 or so government employees that actually need it, instead of the 25,000 that now receive it.
In a government as spendthrift as ours, any recommendations to cut costs are important, but with over a trillion in federal spending annually, is eliminating a federal paper mailer really the best that the Obama Administration can do? Are we to believe that this is their single best idea, that it warrants a meeting with the President and possible inclusion in the President’s State of the Union speech?
My guess is that if the White House honestly tracked the full costs and time spent on administration of the SAVE program, we would learn that the program administration costs exceed the savings gained from such puny ideas.
Proof positive, in case you needed more, that Washington rhetoric on cutting waste, fraud and abuse rarely matches the actions taken. When Senators and the President can characterize themselves as cutters of waste in government spending, while championing some of the worst examples of wasteful subsidies, it tells Americans that our leaders are not yet ready to be held accountable and face our nation’s budgetary challenges with courage, integrity and honesty.
Lurita Doan
Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
OVER-COMER TAKING THE CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE
Why, do we allow people to take control of our lives??? To allow others to continually hurt us, some times they want that but if we take back our lives, they cannot do that any-time!! We may not be able to do that on our own more times not then can other wise we would be doing it.
There is someone who can help us & give us a chance for a better life. He already loves you!! He gave His Son for us! that we may be OVER-COMER'S!
Look at 1 John 2:12 - 14
Reasons for Writing
12 I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men,
because you have overcome the evil one.
14 I write to you, dear children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
1 John 5: 1 - 12
Faith in the Incarnate Son of God
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.
3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,
4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.
5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
So, if we're Over-Comer's why do we allow the people that hurt us physically & mentally to continue to hurt us both physically & mentally? That is because we are not laying it down at the feet of Jesus. And we are not becoming the OVER-COMER that God has allowed us to do so.
SO, START BECOMING THE OVER-COMER that HE wants for us!!
Turn your life over to God not to men! Turn your hurt over to God not to men. Become the OVER-COMER that you are meant to be!
AMEN & AMEN
IN CHRIST JESUS
REV. Londa
There is someone who can help us & give us a chance for a better life. He already loves you!! He gave His Son for us! that we may be OVER-COMER'S!
Look at 1 John 2:12 - 14
Reasons for Writing
12 I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men,
because you have overcome the evil one.
14 I write to you, dear children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
1 John 5: 1 - 12
Faith in the Incarnate Son of God
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.
3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,
4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.
5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
So, if we're Over-Comer's why do we allow the people that hurt us physically & mentally to continue to hurt us both physically & mentally? That is because we are not laying it down at the feet of Jesus. And we are not becoming the OVER-COMER that God has allowed us to do so.
SO, START BECOMING THE OVER-COMER that HE wants for us!!
Turn your life over to God not to men! Turn your hurt over to God not to men. Become the OVER-COMER that you are meant to be!
AMEN & AMEN
IN CHRIST JESUS
REV. Londa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
