The Private Sector's Doing Just Fine

Yesterday on national television President Obama announced that "The private sector is doing fine." This wonderful news has come as a great relief to the millions of middle and lower class families facing unemployment, collapsing home values, increased taxes, a stagnant stock market, and crushing national debt. Later in the day, President Obama offered a clarification of his statement in the form of a this stirring ballad, just in time for the annual Country Music Television Music Awards:

-Barry O and the Good News Band-

The private sector's doing just fine.
It was ruined by George Bush but it's much better since '09.
The middle class is feasting on caviar and wine,
'cuz the private sector's doing just fine.

The private sector's strong, as you know,
even if investor confidence is low.
Those bankers are the problem and they really need to go.
I'd love to get my hands on their dough.

Some claim that unemployment's too high.
That's only 'cuz we're lacking jobs and now I'll tell you why.
Republicans would rather that those jobless folk just die,
so I sit here in the White House and cry.

I've got re-election on my mind,
but the economic indicators indicate a bind.
So I'll simply say that things are getting better all the time, that's why
the private sector's doin' fine.

Yes, that Mormon fellow's causing my pearly whites to grind,
but the private sector's doing just fine.
We could use more public spending, let's increase my credit line,
but the private sector's doing just fine.


(All rights reserved.)

Busting out the economy -since 1934

 

1934 Cartoon from Chicago Tribune

"What's past is prologue." -William Shakespeare

Got Hope? The change will cost us another $1.9 trillion

Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit -Yahoo! News

"WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion.

The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats, who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation."

The Democrats' insatiable appetite for spending exceeds even the Republicans of the previous administration, who became intoxicated with the vision of a federal government as a limitless source of cash and solution to every problem.

But the Republicans apparently were Small Potatoes compared with the current Democrat administration, whose desire to control and consume All Things reminds me of a python preparing to swallow a goat.

Republican gives "Kennedy's seat" back to the people... White House yawns

White House: Mass. Vote Won't Change Anything -Newsmax

"One reporter suggested the political blowback in Massachusetts might indicate the administration was out of step with the American people.

[White House Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs replied: 'I think, according to any reasonable measure, the answer to that is, of course not.'"

While many democrats begin to abandon the burning ship of the Obama agenda in order to save their own skin, a few will remain defiant to the end, determined to carry on their course against a rising sea of popular opposition. Public opinion, outcry, and outrage will not deter the diehard radicals. No matter the cost, they will blindly pursue the most radical -and increasingly hated- elements of the Obama agenda, even if it brings about catastrophic losses for the Democratic Party.

For the radicals, it's not about the public good, and it's not even about their own party. It's about power, personal political power, the power to tear down and rebuild according to their own statist vision. To hell with democracy: they're in charge.

Caritas Internationalis clamors for climate control?

Caritas charges Japan, Russia attempting to subvert climate talks -Catholic Culture

Caritas Internationalis-- the consortium of Catholic relief agencies-- has charged that Japan, Russia, and other wealthy nations are attempting to subvert climate negotiations in Copenhagen by sidelining the controversial Kyoto Protocol. Referring to poorer nations' "fear that rich countries are trying to kill the strongest legal climate agreement we have," an Irish Caritas representative said, "As heads of state come to Copenhagen in this second week, it's up to rich countries to get the talks back on track by re-committing to the Kyoto Protocol."

"Abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be a step back for all countries, but especially for the world’s poorest. For them the negotiations are a matter of survival," added a Caritas representative from Scotland. "Vulnerable communities across the world need a fair, ambitious and binding climate agreement, of which the Kyoto Protocol is an essential element."

Caritas is pushing for the Kyoto Protocol? How will the world's poor be better off if the world's largest wealth-producing economies are strangled to death? Who, then, will provide the goods, services, and consumer markets that developing nations need in order to develop and prosper?

Why do I oppose the current Obama health care plan?

A few thoughts...

The "reforms" being pressed by the president and ruling party are very unpopular with the public... so much so that thousands of citizens who have never before been involved in political demonstrations are seeking out their congressmen to express their concerns, indignation, and anger. It's amazing to see the reaction of the public.

The democrats' plan is increasingly unpopular not because the plan is being widely misrepresented, but because people are increasingly realizing what the current proposals would bring. The plan is getting more public scrutiny than Congress and the president want, and the better people understand the plan the more they oppose it.

Public anger is increasing also because people who raise concerns or objections to the democrats' plan find they frequently are dismissed by elected officials and the media as misinformed freaks, lobbyists, or even racists. But the town hall videos I've seen recently show meetings attended mostly by intelligent, passionate, middle-aged and older citizens expressing their own concerns, not pawns operated by mustache-twirling lobbyists intent on putting down the poor.

Why are people so agitated about the "reforms"? Several big reasons:

• The democrats would like to provide health care coverage as a "right" to an additional 47 million individuals, and claim they will do so without increasing public debt. Does anyone believe this isn't a lie?
  
• Where are all the new doctors who will care for those 47 million individuals? Congress can't manufacture them.
  
• Many believe that under the proposed plan, their access to medical care and the quality of that care will decrease: millions more recipients will stretch thin the existing pool of medical providers.
  
• The so-called "public option" is hardly an "option". It would be the ONLY option permitted to people who don't already have coverage. They would be legally barred from buying private coverage.
  
• Who really believes that the government plan will not ultimately destroy the existing private providers, resulting in total government domination of health care? People increasingly view our federal government as insatiable in its appetite to nationalize one industry after another, and the medical industry is currently in the crosshairs.
  
• Does anyone really believe that the government can do a better job of providing health care than the private sector? In which countries has this been the case? Cuba? England? Canada?
  
• Many people do not believe it is just or fair to grant comprehensive medical benefits to illegal aliens -many of whom pay no taxes- and expect taxpaying citizens to pay the cost, especially when so many citizens are already struggling to provide for their own families.
  
• The American medical industry is the greatest in the world, despite its flaws. Who thinks that a government takeover really will improve it?
  
• Many people -myself included- deeply mistrust the federal government's ability to administer medical benefits fairly without violating the basic human rights of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. The danger is that government will have a strong financial motivation to make medical decisions not to benefit individuals, but according to some other criteria.
  
• And why have the president and Congress been pressing for such rapid passage of such a monumental bill? If it's so important to get it right, why did they press so hard to pass it before the August recess, even before many members had had a chance to read it?
  

These are a few of the big concerns I have about the democrats' plan for the federal government to take over the health care industry, and they are reasons why I oppose the current plan. I'm persuaded that there are some things government should do to improve the health care system, but a massive take-over, a government-run "public option" would badly damage our system of health care which is second to none in the world.

To each according to his need -Karl Marx gets religion

To Each According to Need - Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." (Acts 4:32-35)

The Acts of the Apostles describe the Christ-like spirit of the first days of the Church. Acts 4:32-35 accounts for how the community provided for the material shortcomings of its members. How marvelous this scripture is to set side-by-side with the resentment of the tea partiers...

It's notable that the title, "To Each According to Need", while taken from Scripture, has also been used by others to justify coercive government programs which confiscate private property supposedly for the "common good".

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -Karl Marx

These programs view citizens not as virtuous and generous individuals ready to voluntarily assist others, but as greedy "haves" from whom revenue must be squeezed to support the "have-nots".


The author acknowledges,

"It would be mistaken to read the text's argument for possessions "in common" as in some way equivalent to our contemporary notions of political ideas such as socialism."

Very true. Yet the author does not seem to let this fact enter his thinking when he directs his contempt toward "a pathetic and mean-spirited outpouring of resentment" by thousands of citizens at the recent "Tea Parties". Their offense? Many attended to demonstrate their opposition to super-sized government programs that perpetuate poverty and dependence, depleting the resources of the many while failing to effectively meet the needs of the few they claim to benefit. How dare they oppose ever-increasing deficit spending for social programs that are based on the false and unchristian premise that private property should be managed not by its owners, but by the state, and must be forcibly redistributed by politicians! How mean-spirited to insist on one's right to act as responsible stewards of the fruits of one's own labor!

As government spending increases and our taxes increase, this right of private ownership of property is increasingly denied. And as government takes a larger and larger portion of our income, we gradually lose the ability to support families, and provide help to those causes and individuals that conscience and discretion show to be most in need of our help. Can government do this better than the individual? Should government be permitted to usurp this responsibility?

The early Christians willingly donated money to the Church, which used it to assist the poor according to prudent Christian principles. Why do some Catholics now argue that this responsibility to care for the poor should be fulfilled primarily by the state? Why should the biblical model of voluntary alms for the poor, administered by the Church according to right moral criteria, be overturned in favor of morally flawed, wasteful government programs that depend on coercive taxation instead of willing generosity?

U.S. bishops push comprehensive healthcare plan for illegal aliens

US bishops back comprehensive health coverage for illegal immigrants - Catholic World News

The American Catholic bishops have apparently thrown their support behind a proposal to offer comprehensive health care to illegal immigrants.

In a May 20 letter to members of the US House of Representatives, Bishop William Murphy-- writing in his capacity as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)-- argues that the federal government should ensure 'comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.' Bishop Murphy writes that individuals' access to comprehensive coverage should not depend on 'where they live or where they come from.' -CWNews.com

How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.

Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?

The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.

But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.

Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.

What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.

If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.

ABCnews: where propaganda is called news

"Troubled Times for Republican Party -GOP Divide

We're going to take a closer look at an intense debate within the Republican Party: whether it can attract new voters by becoming more conservative or more moderate..."

-Charles Gibson, World News Report, 5/13/2009

ABC proposes a political spectrum whose endpoints are "conservative" and "moderate".

The adjective "moderate" can be defined as "kept within due bounds; observing reasonable limits; not excessive, extreme, violent, or rigorous..." -Dictionary.net

For ABC, the reasonable, not-extreme "moderates" are opposed by "conservatives", who, obviously, are not "observing reasonable limits", and by contrast are "excessive, extreme,..." perhaps even "violent".

What happened to the familiar "conservative / moderate / liberal" model, or "right / centrist / left"?

Many liberals -including those largely dominating the media- don't want to view themselves as living near the extreme of any political spectrum. They prefer to view themselves as inhabiting the reasonable, high ground above and in opposition to one extreme: conservatism, that radical fringe. Appropriating to themselves the term "moderate" redefines political discourse, obviously in their favor.

Liberals are the new "moderates". They can't be criticized for being "too liberal", because "liberal" no longer defines a political extreme. And of course, nobody can be "too moderate".

For them, today's "moderates" embrace all that was once considered "leftist", "liberal", or "progressive". Those who don't, can't be "moderate", and belong to an immoderate and even extreme fringe.

Clearly this is the premise of the entire ABCnews report: that the Republican Party is too conservative, and needs to become more moderate in order to attract voters.

Could the Republican Party be floundering because it has failed to be clearly and enthusiastically conservative? That it has become too liberal and too much like the Democratic Party? That it has compromised its conservative principles and become nearly indistinguishable from its opponents, and consequently has alienated large numbers of conservative voters? ABCnews may have considered this possibility, but didn't find it worth addressing in their report.