Now that the press has stopped its continual hammering of George W. Bush and focused its energy on praising Obama, it gives me an opportunity to collect my thoughts on his presidency. I felt myself defending Bush during the latter part of his presidency because some of the attacks were so extreme and unfounded. Now that I can view him objectively, I would say that of any Administration that began and ended during my life, his is clearly the worst. As I gain focus, I see just how bad he was. His presidency will go a long way to preventing me from ever wanting to officially associate with the Republican Party.
If you have read my political posts, you would know that my primary focus concerning our government is our fiscal stability and responsibility. Bush did an immense amount of damage to both during his tenure. In social issues such as abortion, gun control, same sex marriage, and the death penalty there are points and counterpoints. The issues are not black and white. To me, the deficit spiraling out of control and the numbers that indicate the troubles we are in are not subjective, they are fact. That is why I expend most of my energy in this arena. The single most destructive thing that the Bush administration did was to let paygo lapse. Paygo was established under his father's service as president and basically stated that any increase in spending must be matched by a corresponding increase in revenue (taxes) and any decrease in revenue (taxes) must be matched by a corresponding decrease in spending. This was instrumental in controlling the budget during George H Bush's presidency and Bill Clinton's presidency. George W Bush began manipulating paygo in 2001 in the face of the 9/11 disaster. He skirted the rules while formally complying with them to give his tax cuts. In 2002 paygo needed to be extended. It was not. Since then the budget has gotten out of control. While I believe that Obama is spending excessively, the table was set by Bush for him to do so. Bush had already spent well beyond our country's means, so Obama is just layering on top of that. Plus, Bush's presidency was so poor that it created a situation where a liberal Democrat could beat a moderate Republican for the White House and bring with him dominating control of both the Senate and House of Representatives.
Why did Bush allow the budget to reach such a state? The focus of his presidency was the war on terror. It was a war, by the way, which I opposed from the start. I asked the question at the time, "what do we do when we beat their military?" The answer was not a good one. The war following the defeat of the Iraq military was poorly managed and it was one that had very long odds to win. A democracy cannot be handed to a group of people. They have to want and be willing to fight for it. Over the next few decades Iraq, if left on its own, will have a controlling person or party similar to Sadam. He may be "elected", but it will not be a true democracy or republic. Bush did keep us safe from another terrorist strike, though, and that seemed to be his only objective. As more people became impatient with the war he turned to political tricks. He gave more and more tax cuts, reducing the burden of the rich and the middle class and poor to make everyone happy. He refused to veto spending bills put forth by his Republican congress no matter how obscene. He then signed the prescription drug bill that added a large burden to federal budget. Every action he took, whether militarily, tax, or spending grew the nation's deficit. We saw runaway deficits in times when the economy was stable and then when we were faced with a crisis he turned over leadership to a liberal free spender. If you just look at their attitude towards our deficit, Bush and Obama have much more in common than they have differences. Both pay it lip service but leave it for somebody else to deal with.
So, Bush receives poor marks on the war, on the budget, on his Medicare prescription bill, and (I'll throw this one in without comment) on No Child Left Behind. It's pretty easy to grade his presidency from my perspective, very poor. Did he do anything right? He kept us safe and he appointed Judge Roberts to the supreme court which seems like a decent choice. However, that was not his first choice. His first choice was somebody in his own personal circle that was not qualified. Would we have been better off with Gore? With Kerry? I don't think so. Politics is about now not the future. To satisfy the people you have to reduce taxes (revenue) and at the same time give them more benefits (increase expenses). This creates a huge deficit for which we will eventually pay. This does not excuse Bush. He did a great deal of damage to his party. He also did no favors for the long term health of this country, which should be put above everything else.
As a note, fiscally there were great times during the Clinton administration. I give little credit to him for those good times. He was restricted by paygo and a Republican controlled congress. He would have loved to spend lavishly on such things as universal health care, but his hands were tied. He also benefited from the technology boom that created large revenues for the government. A boom that busted at the end of his presidency.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Politics - The American Dream
The "American Dream" has changed over our history. The American Dream at one time gave the promise to immigrants of a government who would not impede their financial success. A person could accomplish as much as his talent and drive would allow him to do and he would be able to reap the benefits of that talent and work ethic. The American Dream was not handed to a person at birth or upon stepping foot inside America, it was to be earned. The American Dream has shifted to a more European sort of dream over the last half century or so. We are likely to see another step toward the European Dream with some form of universal health care. We are moving further towards a society that believes everyone is entitled to the same rewards regardless of talent or work ethic. The successful are taxed excessively to pay for services for the middle class and poor to level the American Dream.
In some ways it is surprising that we would follow the lead of the European nations. Europe has the guilt of the feudal system it lived under for centuries, one where those in power oppressed the average citizen and made sure there was a ceiling to their financial possibilities. It then is not surprising that national historic guilt would lead them to a system where wealth is taken from the rich and given to the common people as if to make up for past mistakes. It is similar to the United States' laws of affirmative action. Our guilt over slavery has caused us to tip the scales in the other direction to make amends for our sins. Yet the United States has no guilt of oppressing the poor and preventing them for raising themselves up. We have a history of immigrants flocking to this country with nothing and acquiring the American Dream through hard work. Many immigrants may not have obtained much wealth in their lifetime as they learn a new language and culture, but they likely saw their children have the success that validated their decision to move to our free capitalist society.
Our capitalist economy led us to be the world power. Wealth creates power. True wealth is measure in terms of production. Nobody could out produce a growing capitalist economy. We are turning more toward socialism. Socialist societies will produce less due to economic laws. Less production will mean less wealth. Less wealth will mean less power. Combine the less wealth with the fact that socialist governments have much higher expenses and it creates a government that will eventually spend itself into bankruptcy, such as the Soviet Union did. The United States is about to embark on a universal health care program. It surely is a comforting thought to know that every man, woman, and child in the United States could receive the health care he or she needs. Many would argue that the quality of health care will drop in a universal program, which certainly stands to reason. Leaving that issue aside, everyone would be forced to acknowledge that it will cost the government a great deal of money, money which it does not have. Obama has talked repeatedly about his efforts to find cost reductions within the health care industry as if this were part of his health care plan. Even if we could reduce costs in the health care industry those actions are independent from universal health care. It is a completely separate discussion. Yet he is trying to combine the two to hide the tremendous burden universal health care will be to the government budget.
I understand that the numbers are so large now that they mean nothing to the average citizen. How are we to understand trillions? It is too much to fathom, so we cannot be concerned about that which we do not understand. So, try this out. We are entering a time when for every dollar that the government spends, fifty cents is borrowed. That is astonishing. It makes me very nervous and, to be honest, a little nauseated. I worry for my children and my grandchildren. What country will they inherit? Our quality of life is dependent upon the Chinese government and others subsidizing all our government spending. Eventually that will end. The United States is not in a position to take on more welfare projects such as Universal Healthcare. We are going to have to scale back our quality of life, because we have borrowed our quality of life, we have not earned it. All things must be paid for. We will pay for spending beyond our means eventually. We can scale back slowly or we can wait for one huge fall that could make the Great Depression look rosy. When the Soviet Union went bankrupt things turned ugly quickly.
It is nice and idealistic to want everyone to have high quality of life, but things must be earned, they are not simply plucked from a government tree. We could move towards higher taxes, but people do not want that because it will reduce their quality of life. Nobody wants to pay for the unearned benefits. Tax the rich is familiar chant. However, the rich will first pass much of that cost on to employees by either firing people or reducing their pay and then secondly will quit expanding and possibly even go out of business. We are a connected society. I can tell you that I want my employers to make a lot of money because I understand that my earnings, to a certain extent, are tied to their earnings. If you soak the rich it will affect the middle class and poor. It's time to get our government spending under control. Instead we are about to take on another huge expense that, once we have, we will never be able to reduce or eliminate. That light at the end of the tunnel is coming quicker now. It's not hope that we will find though, it's a bankruptcy train that will run over us before we know what hit us. We need to turn around and head the other direction. We will realize it before it's too late? California did not. In about forty years they went from the Golden State to the bankrupt state. A testing ground for the liberal socialist movement, it has been run into the ground. It has the highest individual tax rate, pays its teachers 25% more than the national average (unions have huge power), and provides services to anyone with a hand out. It is now blowing up. High tax individuals are moving to Nevada. California is among the lowest scoring states in the nation in education and California has no money to provide any services. It's the model our nation is following. We had better understand it.
In some ways it is surprising that we would follow the lead of the European nations. Europe has the guilt of the feudal system it lived under for centuries, one where those in power oppressed the average citizen and made sure there was a ceiling to their financial possibilities. It then is not surprising that national historic guilt would lead them to a system where wealth is taken from the rich and given to the common people as if to make up for past mistakes. It is similar to the United States' laws of affirmative action. Our guilt over slavery has caused us to tip the scales in the other direction to make amends for our sins. Yet the United States has no guilt of oppressing the poor and preventing them for raising themselves up. We have a history of immigrants flocking to this country with nothing and acquiring the American Dream through hard work. Many immigrants may not have obtained much wealth in their lifetime as they learn a new language and culture, but they likely saw their children have the success that validated their decision to move to our free capitalist society.
Our capitalist economy led us to be the world power. Wealth creates power. True wealth is measure in terms of production. Nobody could out produce a growing capitalist economy. We are turning more toward socialism. Socialist societies will produce less due to economic laws. Less production will mean less wealth. Less wealth will mean less power. Combine the less wealth with the fact that socialist governments have much higher expenses and it creates a government that will eventually spend itself into bankruptcy, such as the Soviet Union did. The United States is about to embark on a universal health care program. It surely is a comforting thought to know that every man, woman, and child in the United States could receive the health care he or she needs. Many would argue that the quality of health care will drop in a universal program, which certainly stands to reason. Leaving that issue aside, everyone would be forced to acknowledge that it will cost the government a great deal of money, money which it does not have. Obama has talked repeatedly about his efforts to find cost reductions within the health care industry as if this were part of his health care plan. Even if we could reduce costs in the health care industry those actions are independent from universal health care. It is a completely separate discussion. Yet he is trying to combine the two to hide the tremendous burden universal health care will be to the government budget.
I understand that the numbers are so large now that they mean nothing to the average citizen. How are we to understand trillions? It is too much to fathom, so we cannot be concerned about that which we do not understand. So, try this out. We are entering a time when for every dollar that the government spends, fifty cents is borrowed. That is astonishing. It makes me very nervous and, to be honest, a little nauseated. I worry for my children and my grandchildren. What country will they inherit? Our quality of life is dependent upon the Chinese government and others subsidizing all our government spending. Eventually that will end. The United States is not in a position to take on more welfare projects such as Universal Healthcare. We are going to have to scale back our quality of life, because we have borrowed our quality of life, we have not earned it. All things must be paid for. We will pay for spending beyond our means eventually. We can scale back slowly or we can wait for one huge fall that could make the Great Depression look rosy. When the Soviet Union went bankrupt things turned ugly quickly.
It is nice and idealistic to want everyone to have high quality of life, but things must be earned, they are not simply plucked from a government tree. We could move towards higher taxes, but people do not want that because it will reduce their quality of life. Nobody wants to pay for the unearned benefits. Tax the rich is familiar chant. However, the rich will first pass much of that cost on to employees by either firing people or reducing their pay and then secondly will quit expanding and possibly even go out of business. We are a connected society. I can tell you that I want my employers to make a lot of money because I understand that my earnings, to a certain extent, are tied to their earnings. If you soak the rich it will affect the middle class and poor. It's time to get our government spending under control. Instead we are about to take on another huge expense that, once we have, we will never be able to reduce or eliminate. That light at the end of the tunnel is coming quicker now. It's not hope that we will find though, it's a bankruptcy train that will run over us before we know what hit us. We need to turn around and head the other direction. We will realize it before it's too late? California did not. In about forty years they went from the Golden State to the bankrupt state. A testing ground for the liberal socialist movement, it has been run into the ground. It has the highest individual tax rate, pays its teachers 25% more than the national average (unions have huge power), and provides services to anyone with a hand out. It is now blowing up. High tax individuals are moving to Nevada. California is among the lowest scoring states in the nation in education and California has no money to provide any services. It's the model our nation is following. We had better understand it.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Religion - Everything in Moderation
Last night we continued in Matthew, but first we took a brief break and discussed 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 verse 12 where Paul says that all things are permissible, but not profitable and he will not be mastered by anything. To be mastered by something means you cannot say no to it. You have lost control. We should have only one master, God. Most things that people are mastered by are addictive behaviors such as drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, cutting, and eating disorders. Small steps one day lead to total surrender. We should be on the look out for addictive behaviors. Driving home after the lesson, I began to think about fasting. We are to fast so that we can leave things of this world behind and focus on God. Every time you have a hunger pang you are forced to think of the reason for your hunger, your commitment to God. Fasting does not need to be only for food though. During Lent many people "give up" something. It could be food, drink, hobby, or a behavior. If there is something in our lives to which we feel we may be addicted it would be a good idea to test it. Fast from that food, drink, hobby, or behavior for a week. Go without and see how you feel. Do you become very anxious and tense? Do you become angry at things that would normally not bother you? Do you feel that thing which you are fasting from calling you, luring you back in? If so, you may need to address the situation before it turns into your master. Addictions can hold a power of our lives. They can hold us in bondage. It could be television, sports, internet, gossip, fashion, or any number of normal things that are not bad for us in moderation. If we bow to them, however, we are not helping ourselves in this life or the next.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Politics - Health Care
The debate over Health care is getting close. The Democrats have control over congress and Obama and his comrades are giddy over the likelihood of nationalizing health care. The Democrats have been here before with Clinton and failed, so this time they will attempt to be coy. They will talk of protecting private insurance all the while knowing they are taking a huge leap towards federalized care. It will be interesting to see how much resistance the Republicans can produce. Perhaps the Democrats will go too far with their requests due to limits of Republicans or maybe they will get everything they could dream of. I imagine I will go on many rants during the summer about nationalized health care as the debate gains clarity. For now, the question I would ask is of all the government's responsibilities, what does the government manage efficiently and well? I can think of nothing that the government does better than the private sector. From education to courier services to construction, the private sector outperforms the government because of all the bureaucratic rules and regulations the government operates under. The old phrase goes "good enough for government work". Why would we want to turn our medical care over to the government? The government is also experiencing staggering debt because of all the entitlements it already has and now we are proposing another one. Medicare and Medicaid are an enormous burden on our country and yet those programs cover only a certain demographic. We are now to open these programs up to everyone. Who is to pay for it? I know, the rich. As if the rich were some renewable source of wealth. The tax increase Obama proposes combined with increasingly high state taxes are already weighing heavily on our entrepreneurs. Add much more and there will be few who take a big risk to start or expand a company for an decreasingly small reward due to the higher taxes. National health care seems to be a disaster waiting to happen. Everyone will have health care for a while until our economy finally collapses under our mountain of debt and then the masses will be without jobs or health care as the government will no longer be able to pay for it. If a person was on the fence on the issue, I would ask them to consider this - once an entitlement has been enacted, it will not be revoked. If we nationalize health care, there will be no going back until our country is bankrupt. Social security has been criticized for its increasing costs without funding, but it cannot be taken away. To do so would be political suicide for the party who suggested it. If we do not nationalize now, we could do so later. If we nationalize now, we cannot go back to the private sector system no matter how bad the results are and I think they'll be pretty bad.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Religion - Holding our Heads above water
On Wednesday we looked at Matthew Chapter 14. The part that struck me was near the end of the chapter when the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water. The disciples likely found this amazing and definitely very cool. Peter asked Jesus if he could try it. Jesus told him to come.
While this verse is often discussed in church, when I read it again this time I had a little bit different understanding of what took place. Peter stepped out into the water and he really did it, he walked on water. However, the winds came, Peter became afraid and he began to sink. Jesus had to rescue him. As He did, Jesus said "You of little faith. Why do you doubt?" Yet Peter did not sink immediately. Peter initially stepped out of the boat and walked on the water. Just by stepping out of the boat Peter demonstrated tremendous faith. Then, as Jesus says over and over throughout scripture, it was done to Peter according to his faith. His faith held him there on top of the water. His faith combined with the power of Jesus was defying the laws of physics. So, why did he sink? Why did Peter lose faith? The wind came.
I think what happened to Peter was not as much as loss of faith as a lack of focus on his faith. It wasn't as if Peter made a conscious decision that Jesus could not hold him on that water anymore. In fact, it would seem that Peter should have had even more belief that he could walk on the water because he had already done it. He just lost his focus. As Peter stepped out onto the boat, he was probably thinking "it's just you and me Lord; through you I can do all things!" He was totally focused on Jesus and excited to be a part of the life of Jesus and His miracles. He walked on the water. Then he heard the wind. I can picture his head turning. It had previously been looking straight ahead at Jesus, now it was searching for something that cannot be seen. He looked toward the sounds of the wind and began to wonder "what's this wind going to do to me, will I sink?" At that moment he did sink because he doubted. Something in the world grabbed his attention and took his focus and trust off Jesus and immediately he was in trouble.
Lives of Christians are similar. It's not that at times we do not believe in Jesus and in His power, it's that we lose focus. There are so many things going on in our world that it is hard to keep our focus and trust on Jesus. We worry about the potential dangers and problems in our lives and that worry holds our faith and trust captive. When things go wrong for us we may ask where Jesus where He was. His response may be to ask us where our faith was, where was our focus? We learn many lessons through our struggles. The one lesson that Peter learned here and that we may need to learn is that in times of stress and worry if a person focuses on the danger and not on God, Jesus may not hold you above the water. Over and over Jesus says, "Be it done according to your faith." What's the first thing you think of in a moment of crisis? Is it on you figuring out a way to resolve the crisis yourself? That's usually mine. Is it "please God, can you help me get through this?" I would say it should be "Thank you God, because I KNOW you will see me through any situation. See me through this one. Take the lead." After thinking that, then you may go about trying to resolve the problem with the guide of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,
While this verse is often discussed in church, when I read it again this time I had a little bit different understanding of what took place. Peter stepped out into the water and he really did it, he walked on water. However, the winds came, Peter became afraid and he began to sink. Jesus had to rescue him. As He did, Jesus said "You of little faith. Why do you doubt?" Yet Peter did not sink immediately. Peter initially stepped out of the boat and walked on the water. Just by stepping out of the boat Peter demonstrated tremendous faith. Then, as Jesus says over and over throughout scripture, it was done to Peter according to his faith. His faith held him there on top of the water. His faith combined with the power of Jesus was defying the laws of physics. So, why did he sink? Why did Peter lose faith? The wind came.
I think what happened to Peter was not as much as loss of faith as a lack of focus on his faith. It wasn't as if Peter made a conscious decision that Jesus could not hold him on that water anymore. In fact, it would seem that Peter should have had even more belief that he could walk on the water because he had already done it. He just lost his focus. As Peter stepped out onto the boat, he was probably thinking "it's just you and me Lord; through you I can do all things!" He was totally focused on Jesus and excited to be a part of the life of Jesus and His miracles. He walked on the water. Then he heard the wind. I can picture his head turning. It had previously been looking straight ahead at Jesus, now it was searching for something that cannot be seen. He looked toward the sounds of the wind and began to wonder "what's this wind going to do to me, will I sink?" At that moment he did sink because he doubted. Something in the world grabbed his attention and took his focus and trust off Jesus and immediately he was in trouble.
Lives of Christians are similar. It's not that at times we do not believe in Jesus and in His power, it's that we lose focus. There are so many things going on in our world that it is hard to keep our focus and trust on Jesus. We worry about the potential dangers and problems in our lives and that worry holds our faith and trust captive. When things go wrong for us we may ask where Jesus where He was. His response may be to ask us where our faith was, where was our focus? We learn many lessons through our struggles. The one lesson that Peter learned here and that we may need to learn is that in times of stress and worry if a person focuses on the danger and not on God, Jesus may not hold you above the water. Over and over Jesus says, "Be it done according to your faith." What's the first thing you think of in a moment of crisis? Is it on you figuring out a way to resolve the crisis yourself? That's usually mine. Is it "please God, can you help me get through this?" I would say it should be "Thank you God, because I KNOW you will see me through any situation. See me through this one. Take the lead." After thinking that, then you may go about trying to resolve the problem with the guide of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
