Weekend Stimulus Update

I do not normally write on the weekends but the "dis"covery, not recovery, plan is going to be a disaster.

President Obama is meeting with his policy makers to figure out how to spend $350 billion! They do not have a plan, they just want the money! This is bonkers.

Here are examples of where our federal government wants to waste our money from the AFA:

H.R. 1 is the largest pork barrel spending bill in the history of our country. President Obama has said this bill will create four million new jobs. President Obama is under the impression that we can spend our way out of debt! That's like thinking an alcoholic can drink his way to sobriety!

Examples:

* $20 million "for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers." (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "20,000,000 for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers)

* $400 million for STD prevention (Pg. 60 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "CDC estimates that a proximately 19 million new STD infections occur annually in the United States ...The Committee has included $400,000,000 for testing and prevention of these conditions.")

* $25 million to rehabilitate off-roading (ATV) trails (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration")

* $34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce HQ (Pg. 15 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: $34,000,000 for the Department of Commerce renovation and modernization")

* $70 million to "Support Supercomputing Activities" for climate research (Pgs. 14-15 of Senate Appropriations Committee Report: $70,000,000 is directed to specifically support supercomputing activities, especially as they relate to climate research)

* $150 million for honey bee insurance (Pg. 102 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "The Secretary shall use up to $ 50,000,000 per year, and $150,000,000 in the case of 2009, from the Trust Fund to provide emergency relief to eligible producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses due to disease, adverse weather, or other conditions, such as blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the Secretary")

Please folks, don't sit by and let your great-grandchildren get stuck with our mess. We are too great a people to think that the only way to get out of trouble is to spend our way out. Sometimes we have to swallow our medicine after greed has enveloped our thinking. That's what put most our our nation into the problem we are in. We over spent, and Wall Street over committed in greed and lies.

This is no reason to put our problems and mess onto the shoulders of our children's children. That is exactly what we will be doing if we do not stop this spending bill (HR 1) in its tracks. It is immoral and wrong when we sit idly aside.

There are better ways for our government to act:

1. Balance the budget and cut spending
2. Lower corporate taxes, or even better, total tax reform in the form of the FairTax
3. Give better and more options to our uninsured with plans such as proposed by the AMA
4. Ridding ourselves of foreign oil dependency with incentives to markets who create better and cleaner fuel sources (the Picken's Plan is a good place to look)

That's what our government can easily do! But what can we do?

We must act and act now to stop the stupidity that has hit our nation's capitol. They are blinded to this power hunger and need us to remind them that this is a country run by the people not by a political party.

Things you can do:

1. Contact your representatives in Congress (House and Senate) and let them know your opinion
2. Pray for the President, your representatives (wisdom, strength, and character)
3. Pay off your debts, set aside an emergency fund and more (see Dave' Ramsey's baby steps to financial peace)
4. Pay attention and demand accountability

The best place to start recession busting is at home. Start today and get out of debt! Don't freeload on your grand kids!

"Our orders—backed up by the Master, Jesus—are to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don't permit them to freeload on the rest. We showed you how to pull your weight when we were with you, so get on with it." 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7 (MSG)

Super Bowl Bigger Than Socialism

I think I have figured out why so many people are not worried about the looming increase to our national debt. The Super Bowl.

People are so concerned about what meal they will serve on Super Bowl Sunday, that they can't concentrate on the socialist agenda seeping from the White House. The lack of concern makes sense now. Of course, this excuse only last through this Sunday. After then, I will have to figure out why more people are not concern about the debt that the stimulus bill will generate as it begins to smother more and more personal freedoms.

Maybe this is why the timing for the bill has come into being. People need a break. They need to take a breath after all these negative months about our economy. Our favorite past times like the Super Bowl allow us to get away. So maybe I should not be attacking the American public. Maybe the responsibility rests solely on those who dictate politics to us from Washington. They are taking advantage of this time and ramrodding a bill through Congress that President Obama is pushing without regard to the voice of the people.

Now not all Democrats support the bill, and slowly senatorial Dems are becoming more honest about the "dis"covery, not recovery, plan. For example, 11 democrats voted against the bill in the House - Hurrah's for them!. I very respectable Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson, seems to believe the bill would not pass the Senate as is due to so many earmarks for projects that would not stimulate economic growth.

Run! The Stimulus is Spending Over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is still hope. Get involved. Call your Senator. Let's stop this bill that is very hazardous to the health of our economy.

Half Way to Socialized Healthcare

$1.1 Trillion dollars and counting. Give the spend-sters much more time to think about how to spend us into oblivion, and we may not recover.

Socialized health care has not worked in England, France, or Canada. Why would anyone believe it will work here? Our health care services will go down the drain if we allow this to happen. Can you imagine going to the emergency room and having to take a number (it doesn't matter how much pain you are in), and then having to sit for hours until your number is called? Sound far fetched? Sound impossible? It's not. This is what happens in the U.K. and Canada everyday under socialized medicine.

I am not against finding ways to help more people find affordable and efficient health care coverage. I am all for that. I am against the federal government gaining too much power in this. Here's why - increase federal coverage and involvement and you increase spending very significantly! Our government is in enough mess without having to foot another bill.

My other concern is that by mandating reform, we the public get stuck with one pre-defined plan that will not suit individual families. This means that we lose the choice to find a suitable and affordable plan. Loss of choice means the government decides what is more important for you and forcibly steals your freedom of choice right out from under you.

I am supporting the AMA plan because it has three "pillars" for its foundation that I think are necessary for reform:

Subsidies for those who most need financial assistance obtaining health insurance. This assistance could take the form of tax credits or vouchers, should be more generous at lower income levels, and should be earmarked for health insurance coverage. It is important to note that the government already gives people financial assistance to buy private health insurance—well over $125 billion each year—with an employee income tax break on job-based insurance that is hidden from public view. This tax break gives more assistance to those in higher tax brackets, and gives no assistance to those without employee health benefits. Shifting some or all of this assistance to tax credits or vouchers for lower-income people would reduce the number of uninsured and improve fairness in the health care system.

Choice for individuals and families in what health plan to join. Today people are effectively locked into the health plans their employers offer, often just one or two plans, which are subject to change from year to year. A change in employment typically means a change in insurance coverage. In contrast, under the AMA plan, people could use tax credits or vouchers to help pay for premiums of any available insurance, whether offered through a job, another arrangement or the open market. As with job-based insurance today, health plans would still have to meet federal guidelines for covered benefits, but people would have greater say in what types of benefits and plan features they value. Coupled with individual choice, tax credits benefit recipients directly, and everyone indirectly, by stimulating the market for health insurance. If enough people have enough purchasing power—and enough say over how that purchasing power is used—insurers will be compelled to offer better, more affordable coverage options.

Fair rules of the game that include protections for high-risk patients and greater individual responsibility. For markets to function properly, it is important to establish fair ground rules. A proliferation of state and federal health insurance market regulations has made it more difficult and expensive for insurers to do business in many markets. The AMA proposes streamlined, more uniform health insurance market regulations. Regulations should permit market experimentation to find the most attractive combinations of plan benefits, cost-sharing and premiums. It is also important that market regulations reward, not penalize, insurers for taking all types of patients. People should have a guarantee that they will not lose coverage or be singled out for premium hikes due to changes in health status. Market regulations intended to protect people who have high health risks typically have backfired, sometimes disastrously, by driving up premiums for younger, healthier people and leading them to drop coverage.

To help high-risk people obtain coverage without paying astronomical premiums, additional targeted government subsidies are needed for high-risk people that would allow insurers to keep premiums down in the regular market. Individuals also need to be encouraged to play fairly by taking responsibility for obtaining health insurance without waiting until illness strikes or medical attention is needed. People who are uninsured despite being able to afford coverage should face tax implications.

from the AMA Proposal Overview

By providing better competition, employees and other individuals will not have to pay for "packages" that are designed to fit particular "type" persons rather than providing plans that enable people to get the best coverage for their family at the most affordable price.

I am not an expert in health care, that is why I look to the health care industry to help provide answers. You can also look at the ideas from the American Heritage Foundation for more discussions.

I don't want to be just a parrot who calls out what he hears. I am looking into viable options. My wife and I had to make new choices in health coverage this past year because our provider was being forced out of the choice we had. We were given a choice between only two companies who would give us "options". The process was a pain-in-the-neck but we decided on a company and are now trying to reconcile with that decision as new medical situations arise.

I also have a family member paying $1000 a month for insurance. I understand the need for more affordable insurance plans. But without options, we will drown in our spittle. We should not let our uninsured depend on the federal government when we can provide better options (and SCHIP also has too many problems).

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Tim 5:8 (NKJV)

Even Christians understand the necessity of providing care for those who need it. We need to act but not on impulse. I don't know why we do not try different answers in different areas to see which one is most effective. Trial and error makes more sense than firing without aiming.

Stimulus Package Drying Up The Economy

As a Christian this burns me up. What you may ask - Government Waste. I received this in an email from the Family Research Center about where Rep. Nancy Pelosi would like to spend your tax dollars:

Exactly what kind of stimulus did Speaker Nancy Pelosi have in mind? That's a question more Americans should be asking now that details are trickling in about the controversial $825 billion "economic recovery" package. $200 million for lawn care in Washington, D.C., $360 million to potentially be used to put on transsexual beauty pageants and erotic art shows. These are a few examples in the $825 BILLION (and counting!), over 1,588 page stimulus bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi argues this bill would stimulate the economy, however only 7 percent of the legislation actually goes towards infrastructure - the rest of the bill reads like a taxpayer funded payoff to groups that have supported liberal Democrats' interests.

And what a pay off! ACORN, the long controversial group that purposefully tried to muck up last year's elections to benefit the Democrats is being rewarded by Nancy Pelosi with potentially $4.19 BILLION in taxpayer funds. And more than 10 percent of the proposal-$87 billion-would be directed to groups like Planned Parenthood! The country's recession is crippling families, and the Democrats' solution is spending billions of dollars on contraception?

On the latest "This Week" program on ABC, George Stephanopoulos pressed Speaker Pelosi for an explanation. She implied that making sure there are less children is a great way to stimulate the economy! Meanwhile she helped stop an amendment to the bill that would have protected parental rights!

$200 million dollars in lawn care? ACORN potentially getting $4 BILLION dollars? $87 Billion dollars to Planned parenthood because Nancy Pelosi thinks that having fewer children will stimulate the economy?

Well the citizens of the U.S. have made their bed by putting the spend-sters in charge in Washington. I had a thought the other day and wonder how true it is, "People who can't run businesses run the government."

Obviously, people who cannot balance their own checkbooks or keep themselves out of debt are in charge. No wonder the United States has one of the largest corporate tax rates amongst industrialized nations. We are chasing our industries out of town and wondering why they don't stay, and then the government wants to call them un-American and tax them more. Idiots.

Of course, while they are demonizing those who actually create jobs, our government is spending money as if they could "always print more." Oh wait, they do.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't care though, she has her personal jet airplane to carry her across the nation. Is she the first Speaker of the House to have one?

Government Spending does not produce a stimulus to the economy! Don't believe me, look at this report form the Heritage Foundation: Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth. Here's a quote:

Most government spending has historically reduced productivity and long-term economic growth due to: [3]

1. Taxes. Most government spending is financed by taxes, and high tax rates reduce incentives to work, save, and invest—resulting in a less motivated workforce as well as less business investment in new capital and technology. Few government expenditures raise productivity enough to offset the productivity lost due to taxes;
2. Incentives. Social spending often reduces in­centives for productivity by subsidizing leisure and unemployment. Combined with taxes, it is clear that taxing Peter to subsidize Paul reduces both of their incentives to be productive, since productivity no longer determines one's income;
3. Displacement. Every dollar spent by politicians means one dollar less to be allocated based on market forces within the more productive pri­vate sector. For example, rather than allowing the market to allocate investments, politicians seize that money and earmark it for favored organizations with little regard for improve­ments to economic efficiency; and
4. Inefficiencies. Government provision of housing, education, and postal operations are often much less efficient than the private sector. Government also distorts existing health care and education markets by promoting third-party payers, resulting in over-consumption and insensitivity to prices and outcomes. Another example of inefficiency is when politicians earmark highway money for wasteful pork projects rather than expanding highway capacity where it is most needed.

Does anymore need to be said? Just two years, just two years, just two years....until the next congressional election.

From House Minority Leader John Boehner

Before I share these things that are attributed to Rep. Boehner, I just wanted to add some of my thoughts. I am absolutely against the debt package being circulated by our new President.

$825 billion dollars? Who is going to pay for this? Your kids and my kids and their kids and their grandkids. And you wonder why I support the FairTax and the Picken's Plan?

I am not willing to stand by and continue to see so much debt tear our country apart! It is not of God and not smart. We are blinded by our debt. How can supposedly smart representatives believe that going deeper into debt will help us to become debt free? My fear is that they do not care about being debt free. They just want more governmental power.

Want to see the oncoming mess we are headed towards? Before you read these, ask yourself, where is the money going to come from? Is our government really able to back these promises? Will our government get its financial backing from those who hate us (the Middle East Money holders)?

I am very skeptical and sadly see us heading towards socialism with these careless spending packages. I have been taught that if you cannot pay cash for what you want then you cannot afford it. Wouldn't it be nice if our federal government set the example and ran on the same principles? Maybe the U.S. would recover more quickly?

From Rep. Boehner:

A Dozen Fun Facts About the House Democrats' Massive Spending Bill

1. The House Democrats' bill will cost each and every household $6,700 additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

2. The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

3. President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save three million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $50,000 a year.

4. The House Democrats' bill provides enough spending - $825 billion - to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.

5. $825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the U.S. $22,000.

6. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.

7. Although the House Democrats' proposal has been billed as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the bill - or three percent - is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office said that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion for infrastructure.

8. Much of the funding within the House Democrats' proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already have $16 billion on hand. And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.

9. In 1993, the unemployment rate was virtually the same as the rate today (around seven percent). Yet, then-President Clinton's proposed stimulus legislation ONLY contained $16 billion in spending.

10. Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats' proposal:

• $650 million for digital TV coupons.
• $6 billion for colleges/universities - many which have billion dollar endowments.
• $166 billion in direct aid to states - many of which have failed to budget wisely.
• $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.
• $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.
• $200 million for the National Mall, including grass planting.
• $400 million for "National Treasures."

11. Almost one-third of the so called tax relief in the House Democrats' bill is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package - not the 40 percent that President-elect Obama had requested.

12. $825 billion is just the beginning - many Capitol Hill Democrats want to spend even more taxpayer dollars on their "stimulus" plan.

from Neal's Nuze

The Boehner rapid economic recovery plan would:

• Give Working Families Tax Relief: Make the tax code fairer and friendlier for the middle-class by doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child to put more money back in the pockets of working families.
• Rebuild 401(k)s and Spur Investment through a Zero Capital Gains Tax: Immediately suspend the capital gains tax on newly acquired assets for the next two years. This will encourage investment and boost the value of sagging 401(k) accounts on behalf of workers and retirees.
• Provide Tax Relief So American Businesses Create More Jobs: Increase the Section 179 limits that allow small businesses to expense new equipment, and extend bonus depreciation for an additional year and increase its value so that 75% of equipment costs can be deducted in the first year. Provide net operating loss relief for all employers by allowing all employers to “carry-back” losses for three years (five years for small businesses).
• Keep American Jobs at Home: At 35%, the American corporate tax rate is the second highest such rate in the industrialized world -– a cost passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The Boehner plan would immediately reduce the rate to 25% to reduce prices for U.S. consumers and give employers additional incentive to keep good-paying jobs in America
• Create Jobs through an “All of the Above” Energy Plan: Accelerate exploration of new sources of American-made energy and begin implementing the “all of the above” energy strategy House Republicans introduced last summer in the American Energy Act (H.R. 6566). The GOP plan, which would create up to 1 million new jobs in the United States once implemented, calls for increased production of American energy, accelerated development and use of alternative and renewable fuels, and greater conservation and efficiency to reduce energy prices.

From Rep Boehner's Website

Government for the Good of the People: Ten Questions about Freedom, Virtue, and the Role of Government

by Ryan Messmore

WebMemo #1620

Today's political debates are often muddied by misconceptions of the role of government and its responsibility to American citizens. What are the limits of good government? How can the virtues necessary for freedom flourish? Sustaining ordered liberty depends on good answers to these questions. 1. What should government do? Government plays an indispensable role in a healthy community, but this does not mean that everything a community needs to be healthy is government's responsibility. Government expresses society's understanding of justice and enacts judgment in light of that understanding. Government's task is to articulate the rights and duties of citizens and protect them from threats. This is very different from the belief that government should create rights or exercise people's duties for them through programs that replace individual and community initiatives. 2. Does morality have anything to do with government? The government, acting on behalf of the people, declares certain actions to be just and unjust. This is a moral distinction between right and wrong. Whenever government debates whether or not certain actions and institutions are lawful, it takes moral considerations into account. Put another way, by formulating and upholding laws, government encourages and expresses a society's fundamental moral principles. 3. What should limit government's authority? "If angels were to govern men," wrote James Madison, "neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." But even if political authorities were angels, there would still be limits on what government should and should not do. In this sense, government power is inherently limited by the role of other social institutions, such as families, religious congregations, schools, and businesses. The rightful authority of these institutions helps to check the authority of the state. Government's formal authority is restrained by its primary purpose (see question #1). Government is supposed to protect the ability of individuals and social institutions to exercise legitimate authority within their own particular areas of influence without unjust interference from other institutions. If the government is supposed to protect this freedom for citizens, its power to intrude must be subject to clearly defined limits. Such limits are defined in the United States Constitution and individual state constitutions. 4. Does big government pose moral problems? When government oversteps its bounds and begins to assume more authority, it weakens other important social institutions, including those, like the family and religious congregations, that are particularly capable of encouraging moral virtue among citizens. Big-government programs and policies also tend to confuse the lines between citizen responsibility and government responsibility. As a result, they erode our understanding of the ethical obligations we have to one another—especially in regard to issues such as poverty and economic justice—and encourage us to assume and to expect that government will provide for our neighbors' needs. 5. What is the relationship between freedom and virtue? Freedom relies on virtue for its survival. Government protects ordered liberty, but it is virtuous citizens taking personal responsibility for their actions and exercising mutual responsibility for the welfare of others who make ordered liberty possible. As Benjamin Franklin declared, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." All political communities are held together by common civic bonds. As the motto of the United States—e pluribus unum,or "out of many, one"—implies, the bonds that unite the nation's many individual citizens into one people are of critical importance. These bonds often take the form of moral obligations that we owe to one another as members of the same community. To fulfill these obligations, citizens need to exercise certain virtues. A virtuous citizen is someone who is enabled by character to act in a way that promotes the common good within the community. Americans tend to see freedom, prosperity, and security as necessary elements of the common good. The habits needed to achieve these ends include trust, cooperation, self-sacrifice, hard work, and a sense of responsibility for others. These are key virtues for members of the American community and essential to the preservation of ordered liberty. 6. If virtue is necessary for freedom, what institutions are best equipped to promote virtuous behavior? America's founders recognized that local forms of association are the best way for citizens to fulfill their moral obligations to one another. They believed that families, religious congregations, and other institutions of civil society are most effective in uniting their members in cooperative pursuit of the common good and thereby cultivating the indispensable virtues that are the foundation of a healthy democracy. The founders especially emphasized the role of religion in moral formation. The belief in a "God All Powerful wise and good," claimed James Madison, is "essential to the moral order of the world." George Washington declared that "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Religious communities bind people vertically to God and horizontally to one another. These social bonds not only depend upon, but actually help to generate, trust, cooperation, respect for authority, self-sacrifice, and a shared pursuit of and participation in the common good. The family is also crucial to the cultivation of virtue and moral sense. In the family, continual character training and moral authority are exercised by those who love and desire the best for each member. In addition, sports teams, orchestras, schools, professional guilds, neighborhoods, theatre troupes, and other voluntary associations can function as local communities that cultivate moral development in similar ways. On a basketball team, for example, players learn what it means to trust others, work together, train hard, respect authority, identify and coordinate different personal skills, accommodate the errors of others, and rely on others to accommodate their own errors. Team members are trained not to consider just themselves, but to act in the best interest of the whole team. 7. How does big government weaken smaller, virtue-producing communities? As government claims responsibility for more tasks, it absorbs the allegiance that citizens once placed in other relationships and forms of association. When the federal government assumes more responsibility for fulfilling the moral obligations among citizens, it tends to undermine the perceived significance and authority of local institutions and communities. This encourages citizens, instead of looking to their families, churches, or local communities for guidance and assistance, to depend on the government for education, welfare, and various other services. As individuals begin to look more consistently to the government for support, the institutions that are able to generate virtues like trust and responsibility begin to lose their sway in the community. Excessive bureaucratic centralization thus sets in motion a dangerous cycle of dependence and social decay. 8. Does government have a role in the moral formation of its citizens? Smaller institutions can encourage virtue among their members because of the strong social bonds and personal contact they share, but government is more dependent on fear of punishment to motivate good behavior. Government can promote political goods such as justice and equality and can contribute to habits such as self-restraint and moderation. However, it is not as equipped as other institutions to cultivate the virtues necessary for many other important ends. As Martin Luther King, Jr., explained, laws can restrain the heartless; they cannot change the heart. But while government is not equipped to cultivate some virtues in citizens, it does have a role to play in their moral formation: It articulates a sense of justice, impartial judgment, and equality before the law. Government also protects those institutions that, through their strong social bonds and personal contact, are equipped to encourage other virtues among citizens. By protecting virtue-forming institutions such as the family or religious congregations against unjust interference from other institutions—including the state—government can influence the cultivation of virtue and the strength of social bonds. Government officials should work to provide the social and legal conditions that help local associations to exercise the authority that rightly belongs to them. 9. How does government influence public opinion and values? Government actions subtly shape how citizens think, speak, and act, thereby influencing where we tend to place our trust, hope, and expectations. The authority to enforce laws carries certain implicit powers: the power to promote certain causes, prioritize certain risks, endorse certain values and beliefs, uphold certain standards, encourage certain expectations, and define and interpret certain terms. For example, government policy dictates that American taxpayers must contribute to Social Security, and that shapes how we think about addressing need in our society (regardless of one's opinion of the current Social Security program). Government also has the power to influence our expectations and outlook on important social questions, such as where to seek assistance for material needs (the welfare state); whom to blame in times of crisis (FEMA, the President, the Federal Reserve); and what people are entitled to by right (privacy, cheap prescription drugs, same-sex marriage). The powers to pass laws and collect taxes therefore entail the power to set social priorities and to define, to some extent, the terms of public understanding, involvement, and debate. 10. How much should we trust government? We should be able to trust our government to perform its appropriate tasks of promoting justice and punishing injustice. Without this protection, communities would not be as free to strengthen social bonds, encourage pursuit of the common good, or cultivate virtue. Therefore, the government deserves a certain degree of trust, hope, and loyalty. But a healthy democracy is one in which citizens give government only the loyalty it deserves without diminishing their trust in or allegiance to other institutions and authorities. Cultural allegiances to family, church, and local associations are some of "the most powerful resources of democracy," according to Robert Nisbet. By not placing complete trust in the government, citizens can help to prevent any one institution from becoming too powerful. For this reason, the diversification of authority and allegiance among various social institutions actually strengthens democracy. Conclusion The power of government carries significant moral implications. The amount of responsibility yielded to or claimed by government can shape attitudes, motivations, expectations, and even the terms of public debate. Government can also influence the cultivation of character and the strength of social bonds by protecting institutions that help to encourage virtue in society, such as the family or religious congregations, against unjust interference from other institutions, including the state. In other words, there is a strong moral case to be made for limited government authority. Ryan Messmore is William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

The Democrats Read The Constitution?

I am blown away that the Dems decided to follow the wording in the Constitution, "just in case." What do I mean? President Obama was sworn in again just in case the first swearing in was null and void because the exact words in the Constitution were not used. Me personally, I think the first time was more than suffice.

But my questions is, how would they have known the words were not correct unless they had actually read the Constitution of the United States? Does this mean since they followed it to the letter that they have become Constitutionalists? Welcome aboard Dems, it is about time! (Thump! - that's the sound of me hitting the floor)

Now, can we get them to read the rest of the Constitution? For example, that our nation is not a Democracy but a Republic. How about the fact that we were never to become a socialist republic which is what their bailout plan offers but we are to remain a nation governed by laws.

The one thing we cannot avoid now is the fact that without God's input into our nation, we would never survive as a nation. The more intolerant the Democrats become then the more dangerous living a Cristian faith becomes.

So Dems, here is a lesson about the Constitution. There is a section of addendum's called amendments. These amendments open with what are known as the basic civil rights of the citizenry of the United States called the Bill of Rights.

Here is Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now do you see what all is included here?

1. No law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2. No law abridging the freedom of speech
3. No law abridging the freedom of the press
4. No law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble
5. No law abridging the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I want to highlight the 1st part because it was important to the founders of our country. What it tells us it that Congress is not to create a nationally sanctioned religion, or, as the word "respecting" suggests, Congress is not to honor one Christian belief over another. I cannot for the life of me see anywhere where "separation of church and state" is implied here. In fact, I see quite the contrary. Congress is not to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Remember, at that time, when our founders spoke of religions, they were speaking of the differing views of Christianity. They did not want Presbyterians or Catholics or Baptist or other forms of Christianity to rule over the others. This is precisely why people fled from England.

To keep one form of Christianity from dominating the others, the founders placed this simple statement in the Bill of Rights. They knew religion was important to the formation of our laws and our moral standing. This is why the said Congress should never stop the free exercise of it.

So Dems, I ask you to seriously think about your intolerance towards Christianity. We were here first, and our Father's acknowledged it in our Constitution. So keep up the good work by continuing to actually take the Constitution seriously and using it as it stands not as you wish to interpret it.

President Obama and My Hopes

I watched with joy the inauguration of our newest president. I can say the joy is not from knowing his desires for our country but for all those who thought becoming president was impossible.

Here are my hopes for the next 100 days:

• That the Republican party will soon embrace all races and hear what they are saying
• That the Democratic party will stop looking down on everyone as if they were really that high and mighty
• That the Democratic party would stop being intolerant
  
• That President Obama listens to the counsel of those wanting the FairTax
• That President Obama will truly stand up for the principles our nation was founded upon - in Christ
• That President Obama would accept the principles of the Pickens Plan
• That President Obama would listen to the AMA and work with them to lower our insurance rates and find a better way for people to pay for their own insurance
• That President Obama would remember Christ as His Savior and govern in a manner that reflects the moral standings of our nation
• That President Obama will not give in to the homosexual agenda
• That our government will put education back into the hands of the people at the local level
  

I could go on. If you have read this blog, you know that I strongly support the FairTax, the Pickens Plan, and the AMA's attempt to help everyone get medical coverage.

I have spoken a little about education. I just want to mention that we cannot compare ourselves to nations who have smaller populations as if they had answers for us. We are a large and diverse nation. We have many differing religious and moral views. You cannot put education in the hands of our incompetent federal government and expect everyone to look the same.

Education needs to be put back into the hands of the local population, at most with a set of standards. It must be privatized or at least allow parents to use funding to send their children to which ever school they choose (even if it is a Christian school).

Anyway, that is my hope list for the next 100 days.

I Have a Dream - Martin Luther king, Jr.