The Message of Peace and Redemption: Why Is It Such A Bad Thing? Really!

Tell me which of these are NOT good things to live by: love others, don't commit adultery, don't steal or cheat, don't lie, don't envy or covet others' property, and don't murder?

Regardless what non-Christians think of Christians, I think an honest person has to admit that the Christian belief in the Ten Commandments and loving others (regardless whether they're Christians) is not such a bad message at any time of year. It's not a message reserved for just Christmas after all.

Long before I became a Christian I found the message appealing. I saw it as a message that embraced a good way to live and deserving of respect for that reason if no other. Taking the words of the Ten Commandments and love at face value, they are good things to live by (irrespective of 'religion'), are they not? Take any of the Ten Commandments. Which of those would not contribute favorably to a more civil and peaceful society? Even the ones about not worshipping false gods is not such a bad thing for non-Christians. After all, materialism and money are 'worshipped' by many and that's not such a good thing! What other religion has such a fundamentally positive foundation?

Whether you believe in/about Christ as we do, what's not to like about what we're accountable to live by? Most people value honesty, truth, integrity, fairness, and such. Those principles are fundamental to what Christians are supposed to live by so why do such principles and beliefs deserve attack, criticism, disdain, hostility, hate, etc when it's Christians saying that's what we want to live by and want to share with others?

Sure, we try to 'spread the Word' to others but it's done out of a desire to share the peace it can bring to one's life (not to mention what we call salvation). That we go about that in peaceful ways should account for something (other than hostility and disdain). After all, we don't seek your submission to our will and we do not consider it our duty to kill you if you reject the message.

It's what we believe and we encourage you to do that also but if you choose(!) not to, that's between you and your maker. We're not God's 'enforcer'. Whatever 'judgement' is rendered as a result of your choice is not ours to deliver. In fact, we're commanded to love you anyway! Go figure!

Okay, so you can find lots of hypocrites among Christians. It's true we're not perfect. But that's why we need salvation. Human nature tends not to do the right thing after all. (Check out the Adam and Eve story where it all began.) Self-control is not an easy thing! We often don't follow the commands we espouse but it's what we are expected to continue seeking. We keep trying to self-correct to those commands even though we stray from them due to forces of human nature we cannot always control very well. Isn't that a better goal than any other you can think of? What's so wrong and contemptable about wanting to live that way?

Compare our objectives for living life, the Ten Commandments and loving others with other religions' stated goals and their actual actions. One prominent religion even says it's okay to lie about anything, including one's belief as long as it advances that religion. Completely objectively, taking religion out of the equation for all of them, which one's principles seem most geared toward real peace and good principles? In fact, they're not such bad principles on which to base a country's constitution, don't you think?

It's the time of year when we celebrate the birth of the one we call Savior. By celebrating Him, we're celebrating all He stands for, including peace and love. Is that such a bad message? For any time of year? We Christians pray God Bless you and yours now and throughout the year! We wish you peace and love. We won't try to force it on you. It's your choice and it's yours for the asking.

'Only' Unfit? More Importantly, Unprepared For Life!

A new Pentagon study shows that 75% of Americans ages 17 to 24 do not qualify for the military because:

1. They're physically unfit (note that's a disqualification regarding fitness, not disabilities),
2. Have criminal records and/or
3. Didn't graduate from high school.

Huh?

Anyone who knows anything about the military knows the physical requirements for getting into the military are not all that rigorous. And the other two requirements are just things that shouldn't be going on in ANY civil society to this extent.

As bad a commentary on our youth as the first sentence above is, I think that such a few number of people qualifying for military duty is the least of our country's issues. Those aren't simply qualifications for military service, they're qualifications for getting by in life.

Sad, sad statement about our youth!

President Obama Does NOT Have Constitutional Authority To Insist The Senate Accept The START Treaty As-Is!

So now President Obama is telling the senate NOT to change anything in the START treaty he recently sent to them for approval. Got news for you sir. The constitution gives you no such power to insist on that. In fact, the constitution says you may make treaties (only!) "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate".

Pardon me, sir, but the constitution does NOT say the senate is to be a rubber stamp for treaties you want to make. You do NOT have the power/authority to force them to accept it as-is from you. In fact, you have a constitutional responsibility to hear them out and negotiate compromise in good faith. It has to do with the whole balance of powers thing so that tyranny has a better chance of being prevented.

If the Russians want to bluster over this treaty and threaten us over any attempt to negotiate a change or two, that's their problem. We are a constitutional democracy which means any treaty the Russians desire to make must be done within our laws. They have no basis or right to assume, much less dictate(!), otherwise. If they want to be our partner in international relations they should respect our laws. Yielding to them would be a capitulation of weakness on our part.

When the president heard from the senate that they want to discuss one element of the treaty he should have told the Russians that he supports that instead of telling the senate to butt out and rubber-stamp the treaty. In effect, the president is disrespecting both the constitution and the senate in favor of submitting to the will of the one power on earth that could anhililate us in a heartbeat if we're ever foolish enough to allow them a significant upper hand. It's not good for our republic for a president to be behaving this way.

The discussion about the element of contention is very interesting. Several members of the senate are saying that the opening statements of the START treaty would limit our development of DEFENSIVE missile systems, even of missile systems for the purpose of defending ourselves from countries other than Russia! The President responded by saying it would NOT limit such development. But guess what? The Russians(!) have CONFIRMED it WILL limit our development of defensive missile systems. That is their objective in that wording! Good grief Mr. President. If the biggest superpower threat to us has admitted they ARE trying to limit us that way in a wording of their choosing, doesn't that validate our senate's concerns? Isn't it therefore their constitutional duty to consider the implications of that? For that matter shouldn't YOU consider the implications too if even the Russians believe it to be true?

For a guy who taught constitutional law President Obama has amazing ignorance of the extent of his authority and too little respect for either the senate or the constitution that he swore to uphold (ie, enforce).

Lame "Pig" Session

This congress does not deserve the title of lame duck. It has earned the title of Lame Pig Session due to all the pork it has rammed through or tried to ram through congress with little serious scrutiny or openness.

Didn't these guys 'get' the November message? Don't they understand the seriousness of the problem we face? Obviously not! We Americans want no more new debt! Period!

Tax Cuts For The Rich: Democrats Care More About Idiology Than The Truth

ALL we hear about Obama's tax framework proposal from Democrats is how it's a giveaway to the rich (ie, extending the 'Bush Tax Cuts' for the rich) and to the GOP. Here are some facts about that compromise (in case you're interested in the truth!) that BOTH parties are being dishonest and irresponsible about (all info is from USA Today, 12/8/2010, page 2B):

1. Democrats are saying that extending the tax cuts for the rich irresponsibly increases the debt. The way Dems carry on about it, the average American probably thinks that's BY FAR the most debt-hostile aspect of the compromise.
2. In fact, extending the tax cut for the rich will increase the debt by $80 Billion and we'd all agree that's not a trivial piece of change.
3. The way Democrats are carrying on you'd think that Obama totally caved into Republicans demands and are getting very little of what they'd want ... a big giveaway to the GOP, right?
4. The fact you won't hear is the compromise includes other debt-increasing spending totalling $900 Billion!
5. In Obama's compromise, 5 items totalling $544 Billion have bipartisan agreement.
6. Of the items that have only partisan support, Democrats get 4 things totalling $336 Billion.
7. Of the items that have only partisan support, the GOP gets 2 things totalling $103 Billion.

Let's see. On just the partisan items, Democrats get more than three times as much ... $336 Billion versus $103 Billion. How exactly does that translate into Obama "totally caving" into the GOP when Dems get a higher percentage of the partisan items than the percentage of congress they control?

Dems carry on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how the $80 Billion cost of extending the tax cut for the rich will blow up our debt but they don't have any problem adding over $900 Billion of OTHER stuff, $336 Billion of which is stuff only they wanted? Huh?

As annoyed as I am with how Democrats are reacting to Obama's compromise, I hafta say that all these people in congress who are willing to add this much debt are crooks and irresponsible spenders. Don't they understand how big a problem our debt is without even adding A TRILLION DOLLARS MORE TO IT? Weren't ANY of them listening in the November elections?

GOOD GRIEF!

Estate Tax: A Tool With Which Democrats Want To 'Redistribute The Wealth'

Unearned gain. That's what Democrats are calling an estate that family members inherit from a deceased parent.

FAMILY BUSINESSES, especially the family farm, were key to making this country successful. Upon the parents' death, the federal estate tax will require spouses, sons and daughters to give up what their family worked a lifetime to create together. In case you haven't figured out why, it's because the estate tax is based on net worth and few small business owners have enough money in the bank to pay it. Most of their net worth is tied up in the physical property associated with the family business ... real estate, inventory, machinery, etc. Therefore, the only way to pay the estate tax will be to sell the family business.

Never mind that the whole family made the business/farm successful and productive! The government has decided that the rest of the family HAS NO RIGHT to the net worth and will force them to give it up to pay federal taxes that the government has decided they have more right to than the remaining family that helped create that net worth.

THIS IS SICK!!!! IT IS CONFISCATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT WAS MEANT(!) TO BE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION!

All parents worth their salt strive to provide a better future for their kids than they had themselves. They pour heart, soul and resources into their family business, their family home, and other items of material value so that their kids will have a more comfortable life before and after the parents' death. Most of us parents work hard to have a better life for ourselves AND to give our kids a leg up in life. WE PAY OUR TAXES ON ALL THAT WE EARN. Our net worth has been taxed already. So, when we die, the government thinks they have a right to ANOTHER BIG percentage of that net worth just because we die.

That means that net worth got taxed at about 35% when it was earned and ANOTHER 35% when the 'earners' die and try to pass it on to their kids. Why does the government think that they have a right to that much of our personal property? Why do they think they have a right to CONFISCATE some 2/3 of our net worth and give it to people who people who'd rather live on the welfare of others?

Democrats say they have a right to that money because it is like a 'windfall' to the heirs ... unearned!?!? The government has a right given to them by The People to collect taxes on profits from a person's labor ... NOT, I SAY NOT(!), FROM THE ACT OF DYING!!! GADS! The profits on that business have ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE PARENTS! Taxing that profit again upon a person's death is wrong and just plain stupid! What is it about Democrats that make them think this is either moral OR constitutional?

Of course this is ALL ABOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Nothing more nor less. Democrats will find many creative ways to justify taking one person's created wealth and GIVE IT TO OTHERS WHO HAD A WHOLE LOT LESS TO DO WITH IT'S CREATION THAN SURVIVING FAMILY MEMBERS ... AND WHO, TO A GREAT EXTENT WOULD RATHER LIVE OFF THE HARD WORK OF OTHERS THAN WORK AS HARD THEMSELVES. Taxing it once is one thing. Taxing a family's business into insolvency and bankruptcy is totally another.

A large estate tax is immoral, period! Democrats should not be allowed to get away with passing such a heartless, businesses-killing, family-destroying tax.

Idiology That Achieves Progress: The 'Art' And Necessity Of Compromise

In Federalist Paper #1, Hamilton admonishes Americans to be circumspect about our own idiological tendencies for the sake of the Republic. [Check out the Federalist papers, especially #1 at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp]

The Founders spent much time considering man's nature because they knew that, to ignore it would lead to a consitution and form of government that would ill-serve the causes of freedom and liberty. They knew that man's nature would, for various reasons and repeating at various times, motivate him to seek something on the whole not in the best interest of real liberty and freedom. They knew they needed to 1) establish some protections against that while at the same time, 2) base the new Constitution on truths and principles that are fundamental to the cause of liberty. They desired for this new Republic to be self-correcting to its intended goals, avoiding the pitfalls of momentary emotions and idiology du jour.

To his credit, while announcing his concern about the dangers of mindless idiological pursuits, Hamilton acknowledged his own idiological biases in Federalist #1. He did that not only to be fair and open in defending the proposed new Constitution but as an exercise in practicing what he admonished us to do likewise. That is, to be circumspect about, acknowledge AND ACCEPT THE FACT OF our own biases, the reasons for them and whether, while seeking some perceived perfection, those biases, if too strongly held, might do more harm than good in advancing the cause of true freedom and liberty.

Being human, the Founders (especially the authors of the Federalist Papers) knew that actions deriving from human nature, albeit for good intentions, could derail our country from the course on which they set it. Indeed, they had to overcome idiological differences themselves to achieve the Constitution in the first place. The course to a new Constitution was, indeed, not smooth sailing. Similar idiologies existed then as exist today. There were fairly equal numbers of liberals and conservatives among the Founders. (It just doesn't seem so from the fact of what they achieved as NO country had ever done before. They weren't as like-minded as most of us think today!) In the process of dealing with their idiologies, they set a good example both for the fact of idiologies existing as well as their commitment to not let that stop overall good progress toward the goal. Thankfully they did a good job documenting their experiences and beliefs so we could learn from them ... if we choose to do so. The BIG questions is, WILL we so choose?

The good news is that human nature, besides having the capacity (tendency?) to derail things, was also the diving force behind a real commitment to achieve a more perfect union for the purpose of freedom (ie, in spite of human nature). They believed that the human desire for freedom and liberty could remain the engine that keeps righting the ship as it rolls to the right and to the left. If keeping the ship afloat remains the primary focus of all effort, we can stay the course on which they set us, toward the ever more (although never) perfect union.

For the past ten years, especially the past four since Democrats took control of congress, idiology has too much trumped the overall good. The Founders sought to establish balance within and between the branches of government. However, it has become increasing partisan over the past ten years. While a Republican congress under Bush was fairly idiological and selfish, the Democratic congress of the past four years has become idiology on steroids. The Founders knew and we should recognize(!) that this is folly for our country.

We need to recognize that President Obama's compromise tax proposal is a VERY NEEDED step back from the idiological nonsense that has become too standard and too accepted by The People!

Instead of each side, when in power, creating idiologically biased legislation that the other side is duty-bound to spend valuable time UNdoing the next time it is in power, we need them all work to achieve some balance that will stand for a while. If both sides spend all their energy undoing what the other side did while it was in power, we'll go nowhere fast. While they're busy rearranging the deck chairs the ship of state WILL run aground.

I commend President Obama for backing away from his idiologically myopic pursuits of the previous two years in creating a tax change framework last week that achieves imperfect progress. Better imperfect progress than none at all. That's the model our Founders set in place and it worked pretty well for two hundred years. Question remains whether the Democratic congress will join President Obama and, in the process, ascede to the obvious will of The People who last month sent them a clear message. To them I say, serve the will of The People and our future prosperity, not your narrow idiology.

Al Gore's Ethanol Push: Truth Loses Out To Special Interests And Politics As Usual

Al Gore had a major role in getting ethanol added to gasoline, justified as benefitting national security and the environment. Likely, it wouldn't have been accomplished had he not championed for it so hard. Opponents, including me, opposed it for several reasons:

1. Subsidizing corn grown for the production of ethanol would raise the price of all other corn-based food products because less corn would be available for human and livestock consumption. Prices for cereals and meat for example.
2. Subsidizing corn would drive up the price of non-corn agricultural products too because farmers would switch from other agriculture products to corn.
3. The production and transportation of ethanol would still require the consumption of almost as much oil-based energy as it saved. The result: it did little to decrease the demand for oil.
4. Vehicles get worse mileage using gasoline supplemented with ethanol. The result: The use of ethanol would increase the consumption of gasoline.
5. Gallon for gallon, ethanol is much more expensive to produce than straight gasoline.
6. Ramping up corn production depletes groundwater faster than many other crops. Not so environmentally friendly, eh?
7. Corn requires more intensive herbicides and pesticides than many other crops. That's not so environmentally friendly, eh?
8. Corn depletes soil of its nutrients quickly. Not so environmentally friendly, eh?

We who kept harping on these disadvantages were called alarmists, stupid, anti-environmentalists, and worse all these years, especially by Al Gore. Well, guess what? He just announced that all the above are true. He also just admitted that he pushed for corn ethanol subsidies primarily to benefit the large agriculture industry and related special interests(!) in his state.

To quote the Oregonian (12/06/2010), a known liberal newspaper from one of the most liberal regions of the country (Portland), "[Congress] needs to sober up on ethanol and cut or eliminate [Gore's] tax scheme(!) built for a dream that just keeps refusing to play".

This begs one ask, if 'Mr. Environment' misled us on ethanol in favor of special interests, rather than real science (agricultural as well as others) that was well known at the time, what else has he misled us on knowingly or based on flawed/incomplete science?

It's INSANE To Require Americans To Work Longer When No One Wants To Hire Them!

While I'm on the subject of social security reform (ck previous blog), the insanity of moving out the retirement age without another key reform needs to be addressed.

It is a FACT that age discrimination in hiring and firing is RAMPANT in our country, more in some professions than others. No one wants to talk about it for lots of reasons. Be resonable for a second. The social security retirement age is already well beyond the age when most companies are willing to hire older Americans. Moving the retirement age from 67 to 69 will do what exactly? Two things:

1. It will help keep social security from going bankrupt and
2. It WILL plunge many, many elderly Americans into poverty, some of it desperate poverty.

How many people do you know over the age of 65? How many of them do you think are having difficulty staying employed until social security's new retirement age of 67? How many people you know who will have to work until age 69 will be able to find work? What do you think is the real truth?

Note that I am NOT lobbying for keeping the retirement age at 67. 'All' I want to see is for a level playing field in employment for all Americans over the age of 50, most especially for those over 65.

Social Security reform MUST INCLUDE an EFFECTIVE resolution to rampant employment age discrimination. We must not require elderly Americans to work longer while ignoring the fact that few people/companies will hire them. In fact, something must be done about age discrimination if we do NOT move out the retirement age. Ignoring the fact(!) of age discrimination is irrational, uncivil, uncompassionate, irresponsible, and fundamentally immoral.

Yes Reform Social Security But What About Retirement Plans We Can Afford Even Less?

Social Security is set up so that, during retirement, recipients get back approximately what they put in. It used to be they'd get back quite a bit less. Not long ago it became break-even. Now they receive, on average, somewhat more than they put into it. Now that they are just beginning to get more out of it than they put into it, everyone is declaring that it must be reformed.

Okay, I'll say at the outset that I agree it needs to be reformed. It IS costing more than retirees have put into it and, therefore, it will bankrupt the country if benefit payments stay on this course. We all know the reason for this situation has everything to do with our elected representatives mismanaging the program and stealing the money we put in but that's not what I want to get into in this blog. But it IS worth this aside: we retirees didn't create this problem ... our and your(!) representatives created this mess by mismanaging and outright stealing the money they TOOK from us. We didn't create the SS program and we aren't the ones who screwed it up. So give us a break when you feel like criticizing us! Now to the reason for this blog.

I have to ask the following because common sense begs the question. What about all the unaffordable (non-SS) pension plans across the country? Those on social security already have to wait until age 67 to retire and they end up collecting only slightly more than they put into it. What about the other retirement plans around the country? On those plans one can retire at age 50, some with very generous medical and other benefits included. Oh, and most of them can ALSO collect social security. So those on pension plans can collect a bigger retirement check for twice as long as SS recipients. I invite you to do the math on which person collects more of other people's money ... those on SS or those on other pension plans.

Will the average (non-SS) pension plan employee contribute into their plans anywhere close to what THEY collect in retirement? Hardly! After 30 years of employment, their monthly pension income will be relatively close to what they were earning while employed. Will SS recipients collect anywhere close to what they were earning during their working years? Hardly! And SS recipients collect retirement money for half as long as pension retirees. Bottom line: private and public retirement plans pay way more in benefits to their retirees than those retirees contributed. Those retirement plans are FAR more underfunded than SS is (vis a vis the retirees' own contributions).

So, who pays for all the benefits paid to non-SS pension plan retirees above what they contributed? In the end, it's the rest of us one way or another .. in increased product costs, decreased product quality and, worst of all, direct bailouts from taxpayers to prop up bankrupt pension plans.

I agree that SS needs to be reformed but without apologies I have a big problem with people who have pension plans being so critical of the SS program when their own pension plans are less well funded by them to begin with. That's not 'free money' they are getting once they begin getting more back in benefits than they contributed.

Social Security is easy to pick on because it has an actual, rather simple balance sheet at the national level that's clear to everyone in the country. What other pension plans would stand up to such a balance sheet examination? Answer: NONE. Our country needs reform of ALL pension plans, not just social security.

Next time you feel like ragging on Social Security recipients as unfairly resisting deep reforms, please consider that we're getting way less 'free money' (ie, that we didn't put into the system) than retirees who also have a pension plan. Most of those who have non-SS pension plans are very hypocritical for complaining about SS.