Shutdown or Shut-up?

Republicans have been accused by the President and Democrat party leaders of “shutting down the government.” I reject the Democrats’ deliberate and untruthful misrepresentation of the facts.

First, the Constitution establishes the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government as co-equals.  In this framework, the House has the sole right to grant or withhold money. All spending bills must originate in the House, which means that the House – in its sole discretion – proposes whether or not money should be spent on a particular government activity. If one wants further proof, read Federalist 58, written by James Madison, which states in part:

“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government … This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

Second, the Republican-controlled House – elected by the people of the United States, just like the President, who continually reminds us elections have consequences –   voted for a bill that would fund all aspects of the government except for the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.   This is a fact, documented in the Congressional Record, and is not a matter of opinion. 

Therefore, whether one favors or does not favor the healthcare law, the House of Representatives – by its constitutional authority – can determine what it wants to fund or not to fund.   It is the Senate’s prerogative to accept or reject the House’s proposal.  Differences are supposed to be worked out in conference, the bill amended and agreed by both bodies, and sent to the President for signature or veto.   This is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

The current unpleasantness arises because the Senate and the President – the Democratic party controlled branches of government – have refused to engage in their constitutionally mandated duty to bring the House’s bill to the Senate floor or negotiate a resolution. Instead, Harry Reid and President Obama decided that it was in their political advantage to do nothing. 

So, if you think talk is cheap, then apparently not talking is very expensive, and in this case, the cost can be laid at the feet of President Barack Obama and Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid.

EW Jackson for Lieutenant Governor, the Bible, and Progressive "Thought"

A text without a context is a pretext.  And so it is with recent ad hominem attacks by progressive democrats on Virginia’s conservative Republican gubernatorial ticket, especially those directed at EW Jackson, a Christian minister and candidate for Lieutenant Governor.    

The progressive left has chosen to attack Bishop Jackson on his personal Biblical beliefs not his political policy. Instead their approach is straight out of their “bible:” Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, a book dedicated to "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom--Lucifer."  

Alinksy’s Rule 13 – and by extension the approach of those who subscribe to his principles – is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” by eschewing any underlying facts, playing off public emotion at the moment, and leaving it open to the reader’s interpretation to draw a conclusion. Progressives are not interested in serious debate.  They are interested in only one thing: winning at any cost, whether the argument has any basis in truth or not. As Alinsky states in his book, “We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it.” Apparently, “good” like “truth” has no absolute basis in the progressive world.

You see, the attack on EW Jackson – and by extension the conservative Republican ticket – is not about policy, it is about protecting Republican and Democrat progressivism and its collectivist moral relativism from the existential threat posed by the resurgence of a vocal, grass roots, moral majority who subscribe to principle.   The real debate is about the progressives’ “bible” versus the “Bible.”  It is about replacing God with government as the author of our individual rights.  In short, it is about what progressive Democrats wish to do in 2013 “C.E.” but could not do in their last presidential nominating convention held in 2012 A.D. – carve the God of the Bible out of the Democratic platform, and by extension, out of both American culture and its Constitution. 

Specifically, the progressive left has chosen to label EW Jackson's views on homosexuality as being “extremely anti-gay” and trying to use those views to drive a wedge between other members of the ticket and, in the larger sense, all conservative candidates. They quote Bishop Jackson as stating "the homosexual movement is a cancer attacking vital organs of faith, family and military," and "homosexuality is a horrible sin, it poisons culture, destroys families, it destroys societies; it brings the judgment of God unlike very few things that we can think of." Similarly, they quote Virginia's current attorney general and candidate for Governor, Ken Cuccinelli as saying "when you look at the homosexual agenda, I cannot support something that I believe brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their soul."

 Jackson’s quotes ignore the context in which they were made and the facts upon which they are based. Jackson’s perspective on “homosexual marriage” is best expressed in a National Press Club press conference following the 2012 Democratic national convention, at which the democrats adopted a plank in their platform supporting “homosexual marriage” and carved God out of their platform, only to reinstate Him for political reasons, upon a voice vote of the membership. In context, Jackson’s NPC press conference comments were directed to Bible believing democrats calling on them to make a decision to follow their professed Biblical beliefs, not their party’s platform.

So the question is not about Jackson’s opinion of homosexuality, but what does the Bible actually say about homosexuality.  Is Jackson’s characterization, as a minister, accurate?  For the sake of brevity, I offer two passages from the Bible, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament.  I encourage the reader to do his or her own study and place these quotes in the context of the cited passage as well as the overall Biblical context of sexual sin.

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” [Leviticus 18:22,  NASB]

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened [Romans 1:21, NASB] … Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.  Amen. [Romans 1:24-25, NASB] For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. [Romans 1:26-27, NASB]”

One is entitled to their own opinion about homosexuality and how we should address it in civil society; however, from a Biblical perspective, the facts are clear.  All sexual sin (both homosexual and heterosexual sin) is an affront to God and has serious consequences – consequences that are entirely consistent with Bishop Jackson’s remarks on this matter. If one believes in a just and righteous God, then these consequences extend to society as a whole.  Simply read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 18 & 19].  

My conclusion is that the stories reported in the media have little to do with Jackson’s actual statements.  The real question posed by the media has everything to do with who do you believe: God or government?  Words form ideas and ideas have consequences. Policy follows principle.  I think we know where EW Jackson stands, and it is on God’s side. 

It’s time to choose between Alinsky’s “bible” and God’s Bible, a book that was dedicated to all of us.

Dangling the Stick in Front of the Donkey and Beating Him with the Carrot

Gov. Bob McDonnell has resisted expanding Medicaid in Virginia, despite decisions by GOP governors in six states, including, most recently, Michigan and Ohio, to expand their programs. However, The Virginia Senate has cleared the way for the state to expand its Medic­aid program to hundreds of thousands of uninsured Virginians, but the House of Delegates stands firmly in the path.  On a voice vote, the Sen­ate approved a budget amendment that would al­low Virginia to expand Medicaid on Jan. 1 if the state is able to make signif­icant reforms in how it delivers and pays for health care under the pro­gram.

Virginians should oppose any legislation that will expand Medicaid coverage in the Commonwealth and support the Federal government’s expansion of medical healthcare exchanges.  Proponent’s arguments are the moral equivalent of “dangling a stick in front of a donkey, and beating him with a carrot” in order to encourage him to move.

The carrot is the federal government’s promise to provide $23B over nine years to expand Medicaid in Virginia.  The stick is Virginia must opt into the federal health care exchanges.  According to the Richmond Times Dispatch (http://bit.ly/XsLGLR), opting in will ostensibly expand Medicaid to hundreds of thousands of people, while providing politicians with a politically expedient path to balance the budget by “saving” $51 million next year and $114 million the following year.

Unfortunately, the facts are these.  The United States government borrows forty-six cents on every dollar it spends: it is broke.   There is no guarantee that $23B will be there over nine years.  Second, as humanitarian as expanding the program seems, it only provides access to health care: it does not create one new doctor.  Neither benefit will be realized, and the citizens of the Commonwealth will be left with hundreds of thousands of more dependent people, relying on a broken health care system, and no way to pay for it.

It's time to take our medicine and deal with these issues on a state level and not a federal level.

Exactly what problem are we trying to solve, Mr. President?

“Mr. Obama is likely to signal he wants to move beyond proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules on emissions from new power plants and tackle existing coal-fired plants, people familiar with the administration's plans said. 

The EPA has prepared rules for existing plants to minimize pollution from particulate matter, mercury and other toxins. But this would be the first time the agency regulates existing plants to curb emissions of the greenhouse gases scientists believe contribute to global warming.” - WSJ

So what problem are we trying to solve, Mr. President?  Is it to protect and defend the earth from man or is it simply the next step in your administration’s managed decline of America?  It cannot be the first, because engineering science does not support your prospective actions. So it must be the second.

The Engineering Science Says

Man-made carbon is not the driver of global warming (climate change).   The sun is.  

In the book Unstoppable Global Warming, by Dr. Fred Singer, the history of climate science is presented.  In it, Dr. Singer chronicles the discovery of a 1500 year warming-cooling cycle (plus or minus 500 years) for at least a million years.  Discovered by Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland, their analysis of oxygen isotopes in the ice cores extracted from Greenland was first published in 1984.  In 1996, they and Clyde Lorius were awarded the Tyler Prize (the “environmental Nobel") for their work.  They found a clear cycle occurring about every 2,550 years, which was later clarified to be 1,500 years.  The global heating and cooling cycle was correlated to other physical evidence: (a) ice cores in the Antartic’s Vostok Glacier, (b) advance and retreats of glaciers in the Arctic, Europe Asia, North America, Latin America, New Zealand, and the Antartic, (c) seabed sediment cores in the North Atlantic, Sargasso Sea, the South Atlantic, and the Arabian Sea; (d) cave stalagmites from Ireland, Germany, South Africa, New Zealand; (e) fossilized pollen; (f) tree rings, et cetera.  Statistical correlation of the warming-cooling cycle data to atmospheric CO2 content shows that CO2 rise follows a warming trend. In other words, the earth contains large amounts of CO2 in solution, much like carbonation in a soda can which is driven out of solution when a chilled can of soda can is opened and left on the counter.  Similarly, as the earth heats, CO2 is driven out of solution. Man’s contribution to these huge cyclical changes is minimal (it is estimated that man-made carbon represents 0.16% of all carbon). Last, these cycles have been occurring for a million years … long before coal fired generation.  So if man-made CO2 is the source of all our ills, what caused that?

The Political Science Says

If the engineering science suggests that man-made generation of carbon gases is an immaterial contribution to global warming and climate change, what does the political science say?

To misquote Al Gore, the “convenient truth” is that the public’s irrational fear over climate change gives our progressive government a reason to regulate energy production, the life blood of a free, productive people.  But why regulate it?  If it is not because of the engineering science, it is because of the political science.

Progressive ideology demands control.  Control requires large government.  Large government requires a lot of money and a dependent population.   Where do you get a lot of money?  You borrow it and secure the loan against assets: the country’s oil, gas, and uranium natural resources.  So you tell the American people the earth has a temperature. To secure the assets, you set aside “open space” to mitigate the nasty carbon based technologies. You shut down productive sources of energy for non- productive sources of energy. You acquire large expanses of natural resources by transferring private property rights through regulation and conservation easements and converting large expanses of wilderness to protected habitats. You do all this while telling the people that this property taking is necessary to mitigate the effect of phantom man-made climate change.  You continue to promise the American people things they cannot afford until the system can no longer support itself.

You see, this is not about climate change.  This is about whether we will remain a free and independent people or a dependent, socialist state.

“Bill” Board – Day 14: turn in your test

Time is up.  Time to decide. Time to turn in your test papers, as my government teacher in the 11^th grade use to say.

This is the last post in this series. The last “Bill” Board for me. I leave you with this thought: words form ideas, ideas drive elections, and elections have consequences. 

In 2008, the words were “hope and change.” Today, the word is “forward.”  Both slogans convey positive ideas, but upon reflection, are nothing more than empty shells into which the average voter can project his or her own meaning.  In 2008, few looked beyond the rhetoric to discover what then Senator Obama and his merry band of “critical theorists” meant by those words.  In the name of political correctness, his ethnicity trumped any serious discussion about his ideology, his circle of friends, or his track record.  Instead, we left it to him to define how those words would “fundamentally transform America.”  We were satisfied to believe, with no basis in fact, that the election of a black President would prove once and for all we had achieved the civil rights era objective of a post-racial America in which, as Barack Obama said, “There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.”   Instead, what we elected was the first post-American president, who has accomplished – if nothing else – dividing America by race, by economic class, by religious belief, and by political party. 

As Abraham Lincoln famously stated in his second inaugural address, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” a fact on which this President is counting – but in a negative sense – to achieve his goal of fundamental transformation.  In his speech, Lincoln made the case that the struggle against slavery would determine the outcome of a free people.  If President Obama were to give Lincoln’s speech, he would make the case that the struggle against our republican form of government will determine the outcome of the socialist / Marxist ideal of a one-world government.  The speech might go something like this:

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave [social democracy] and half free [a constitutional republic]. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery [social democracy] will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.^[1]

Fortunately for us we do not have to opine about what the President might say. It is 2012, and we have the President’s track record and his own words we can examine.  Here is his track record:

• Net U.S. jobs lost since 2008: up 5 million (“Bill” Board – Day 1)
• Food stamp recipients since 2009: up 65% (“Bill” Board – Day 2)
• Price of gas since 2009: up 93% (“Bill” Board – Day 3)
• 2010 deficit: 3^rd largest in U.S. history - $1.294 Trillion (“Bill” Board – Day 4)
• 2011 deficit: 2^nd largest in U.S. history - $1.298 Trillion (“Bill” Board – Day 5)
• 2009 deficit: largest in U.S. history - $1.416 Trillion (“Bill” Board – Day 6)
• Borrowed federal spending – 40% (“Bill” Board – Day 7)
• Your family’s share of the U.S. Total Debt - $684,000 (“Bill” Board – Day 8)
• Your share of the U.S. Total Debt - $181,000 (“Bill” Board – Day 9)
• Unemployment for 43 months: > 8% (“Bill” Board – Day 10)
• Household net worth: down 35% (“Bill” Board – Day 11)

We also have the President’s own words. In a 2001 WBEZ.FM Chicago Public radio interview, when Mr. Obama – then an Illinois State Senator – said this “… the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of the redistribution of wealth and the more basic issue of political and economic justice in this society.  … The Warren Court … did not break free of the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the constitution.”  President Obama concludes,  “Generally, the constitution is interpreted as a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the state government or the federal government must do on your behalf.” 

Taken in its in entirety, the WBEZ interview reveals a President who sees himself and his “coalitions of power” as the mechanism to bring about “fundamental change” to America rather than working through Congress and the Constitution.  The President’s thinking is foreign to me and seems to me to be an abrogation of the constitutional “contract” between the federal government, the states, and most importantly the citizens of the United States.

To me, the choice seems clear. I pray it does for you also.

Turn in your test.  Vote November 6^th.

“Bill Board” Day 13 – Two Clear Choices

The “Bill” Board advertisements over the past two weeks chronicle in numbers failed Obama administration policies and the impact on American families.  His “transformation” of our constitutional republic into a failing social democracy is almost complete. For example, if the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (viz., Obamacare) is not repealed, fully more than 40% of the American economy will be controlled by the federal government. And, for the first time in American history to be a law-abiding citizen, you will be mandated to buy a product from the government. Sadly, if the government can mandate you to buy healthcare, they can mandate you to do anything.

The choices before us are clear. Do you believe our inherent individual rights come from God and are to be protected by the government, or do you believe they come from the government? Do you believe in the rule of law and that the government can exercise only those specific powers granted it by Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution?  The record shows that our current President does not.

In a 2001 WBEZ.FM Chicago Public radio interview, when Mr. Obama  -- then an Illinois State Senator – said this “… the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of the redistribution of wealth and the more basic issue of political and economic justice in this society.  … The Warren Court … did not break free of the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the constitution.”  President Obama concludes,  “Generally, the constitution is interpreted as a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the state government or the federal government must do on your behalf.” 

Taken in its in entirety, the WBEZ interview reveals a President who sees himself and his “coalitions of power” as the mechanism to bring about “fundamental change” to America rather than working through Congress and the Constitution.  The President’s thinking is foreign to me and seems to me to be an abrogation of the constitutional “contract” between the federal government, the states, and most importantly the citizens of the United States.

When historians look back on this election, they will see it as a point of strategic inflection in America’s history: did we meet the challenge and remain a constitutional republic or did we succumb to the socialists’ siren call? I do not know, because I do not hold the future; only God does.  But I do know I have a vote, and I know how I will cast it.

Who and what will you choose?

Vote November 6^th.

“Bill” Board Day 11 – Feel Poorer? It’s because you are poorer.

Four years after the new era of “hope and change” started are you feeling poorer?  Maybe, it is because you are.

In June 2012, the Federal Reserve released its 3-year Survey of Consumer Finance.  The median family net worth in 2010 was $77,300, down from $126,400 in 2007 –levels last seen in 1992. A drop in home prices is a big reason behind this loss.

Moreover, the forced shift to unwilling part time work has contributed to declining real family incomes.  So has the shrinking labor force, with more and more people giving up the search for work.  In August, the labor force participation rate for men was the lowest on record, which goes all the way back to 1948.  The overall labor force participation rate was the lowest since September, 1981, before the Reagan recovery.

In addition, jobs being created are not replacing the incomes of the jobs being lost.  As economist John Lott reported at FoxNews.com on October 3, “Mid-wage occupations accounted for 60% of the jobs lost during the recession, but low-wage occupations accounted for 58% of hiring during the recovery.”

As a result, since President Obama entered office, annual median household income has declined by $4,019, or 7.3%.  Moreover, the decline has been greater since the recession supposedly ended in June, 2009, than it was during the recession.  In the three years from June, 2009, until June, 2012, median household income declined by 6%.

Closer to home, in Virginia Beach where I live, using publicly available data for a Virginia Beach family-of-four^[1], over the period 2009 to 2011 (this is the last period for which I did a detailed analysis of the Virginia Beach City budget (2011-2012)), the average Virginia Beach family saw its annual disposable income decrease by $9,500 (14%) and its home’s value decline by up to 17%:^[2]

·       Median Virginia Beach household income decreased from $65,776 to $59,298,^[3] a decrease of approximately $6,000.

·       Gasoline prices increased from $1.88 per gallon to $3.71,^[4] an increase of $1,400 per year. ^[5]

The monthly food budget for a family of four has increased from $770^[6]  to approximately $950 per month,^[7] an annual increase of $2,160. In May 2011, the last month prior to my analysis, food prices soared 3.9 percent, the biggest gain since November 1974.

So, while the median wage earner is struggling, what is the government doing?  The federal government is in gridlock and the Bush Tax cuts look like they will expire. On top of this, the City of Virginia Beach has passed a 2012-2013 budget that raises personal property tax $0.06 per $100 of assessed property value.

If the federal payroll tax break expires this December, and the Bush tax cuts expire Jan. 1, new, higher rates will take effect the following year. Since payroll taxes are deducted from wages every week, the effect there will be immediate, whereas the income tax rate increases only affect income starting in 2013. If employers adjust withholding, the effects could come sooner.

In addition, proposed sequestration cuts will take effect starting in January too, meaning their impact, like the payroll tax cut’s expiration, will be more immediate. The cuts are evenly split, with $27 billion each in 2013 for defense and non-defense spending, plus $12 billion in cuts to Medicare.

Using the Tax Foundation tax calculator, for the average Virginia Beach family (2 wage earners earning about $32,000 each and 2 dependents under 17), expiration of the Bush tax provisions, with no action by the President or Congress, will result in an increase of the family tax bill by $2,200 per year. For a small business owner (S-Corp) making $300,000 per year in business income, the additional tax bill will be an additional $11,000 per year.  Add to this the effect of sequestration on the military in Hampton Roads – fewer jobs – and the effect would be divesting on the economy.

So if you are feeling poorer, you are.  And while you are making cuts to make ends meet, the government is raising taxes and borrowing more to make their ends meet.  When the government taxes and spends, it reduces the capital available to business.  Without capital, business cannot grow.  When businesses do not grow, they do not hire.  Without  jobs, there is nothing to tax.

Vote November 6^th.

---

[1] Assumes $12,500 tax burden: federal Income tax (estimated at $4,000), state tax (estimated at $1,500), and employee’s portion of payroll tax (estimated at $3,500), Virginia Beach City Tax ($3,500).  This data was obtained from online tax calculators, federal state, and local websites.

[2] Case Schiller Home Price Index, January 2011

[3] Virginia Beach 2011 – 2012 Proposed Budget Executive Summary

[4] 24 Month Average Retail Gas Prices in Virginia Beach, GasBuddy.com

[5] Assumes 1.5 vehicles in a family, at 10,000 miles per vehicle-year or 15,000 miles at 20 miles per gallon.

[6] Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels, U.S. Average, February 2008

[7] USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.