Thursday, July 16, 2009
A big thanks to my father-in-law for helping me to be a part of that.
Monday, April 20, 2009
...if it actually happens. I really hope that the current administration is serious about this. I know that he says there will be no "sacred cows" as he calls them, though I doubt he really would cut some of the larger departments that are mismanaging their funds and lack importance. I am quite interested to see the outcome of this call for fiscal responsibility.
Perhaps what intrigues me more and causes me a bit of cynicism is that this announcement came directly following the controversy concerning the President's upcoming budget. The proposed budget was, I believe, even larger than previous President George Bush's which drew much criticism from Democrats. Interesting that they are not in an uproar about even more money being spent by one of their own. It seems to me that President Obama made this announcement only in response to the budget controversy and not because he really wanted to do it. The budget was a test to see if people were really paying attention or if they were still just so excited to have a charismatic, and (as much as I'd like it not to be an issue it still is) black president. This has proven to the administration that ctizens are still watching closely. We've been offered the promise of Change, and we want it. Even if it is not the same change I personally desire, the people want change and so far have been offered nothing. i really do hope that the President and cabinet do take the opportunity to effect some real change and help restore the confidence American citizens should be able to have in their elected officials.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
One of the main reasons that people always give me for needing government intervention in our lives is that things would not get done were it not for the government. I almost always will respond to this by saying that is not true and professing my optimism towards people in general. I have had no concrete examples of man vs. government to share until now. Recently during my daily news search on CNN I came across this article out of Hawaii. I hope you all read it but I will briefly relate here what it says. It seems that a road was washed out that provided entrance to a State Park. Since building roads is government territory the plan was laid to rebuild the road. It was revealed that the funding was lacking and that the project would probably not take place for at least two years. Several businesses relied on the road being open and feared bankruptcy inevitable. The government did nothing to help them. They were going to lose their investments and be forced to close down. Is that what happened? If so, I would have nothing to write about. The people who relied on this road united in a common cause and did the work that the government could not. They fixed the road and did it in 8 days with no government money. Even had the funds been available it assuredly would have taken much longer than 8 days to finish the project. Plus I am sure that the price tag at the end of the 8 days was much less than the $4 million price tag that the government had placed on it.
This is the kind of example I am looking for. The government need not interfere in most aspects of our lives as we possess that ability to do it ourselves and should be given that chance. Private companies and individuals could complete every task the government does for much less money and in much less time, not to mention that personal fulfillment of each individual who knows they helped complete something worthwhile. We can do it without the government and in fact were meant to be in charge of our own lives. If you doubt that, read the Constitution again.
PS. I hope people realized that my previous post about the Constitution being figuratively thrown in the trash was written in jest since it was April Fool's Day. I hope that everyone also realizes that that is the way our country is going. We must cling to and fight for our rights and beliefs. The founding fathers knew what they were doing and left us a legacy to uphold.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Ever the optimist, I wish everyone a wonderful and fearful April the first.
Friday, March 6, 2009
What does the free-market say to do to save our economy? I found this article published on CNN as a commentary by Mitt Romney. I believe that had he run on these principles he would have made more headway with conservative voters and those that believe in the government our founders set up. His main point is that using the government and tax money to stimulate the economy will do nothing but stimulate the government which is already bloated. The number one thing that Romney advocates is cutting taxes to stimulate. These won't be your normal tax cuts, but the drastic ones that most government officials cringe at the mention of. What could be better for the economy than for Americans to suddenly have 25% more income? That's more money for consumers to use on things they need and want. This could mean the abolition of the income tax. I'll allow a second for the collective gasp at what I just said.
Some will inevitably say, "What will the government use to function if they don't have the income tax?" Truth be told, the income tax does little by way of making our government run. That also happens to be number two on Romney's list: belt-tightening in Washington. Who would actually say they think the government should spend more money? No one. Government should be held accountable for the money they use and need to cut back a little. Were they to do that, they would have absolutely no need for the income tax anyway, not to mention the money they would save from not paying the IRS and handling tax refunds.
I realize that this debate could go on forever...and will. Please comment if you have something to say. I am continuously learning about economics and am always on the lookout for more knowledge on the subject. I completely agree with Romney that if we are to stimulate the economy it must be done outside of government control or it will do nothing but make government larger which will only prolong our pain.
This next week during my spring break, my family and I are traveling to a place I've longed to go for some time now. We will be visiting Washington DC. I am extremely excited because we will get to see all the sights, monuments, museums, etc. Walking in places where excellent men and women trying their best to establish and serve a country meant for freedom and awesome things. N0 matter my thoughts or rants about current political practices, next week I will almost certainly be in a never ending state of euphoria, punctuated by the fact that I get to share it with my family. No doubt, my little daughter will know that we are in an important place.
There is one thing that sets this trip above almost anything else that we could be otherwise doing...the National Archives. We will be able to see the original Constitution of the United States of America. As I sit here writing this I find myself fighting back tears as I find myself every time I hear the document well referenced in the past year or so. Trying to prepare myself for that moment is proving difficult as I am not sure how I will react. I'm not sure that sobbing quietly in the National Archives is allowed. I guess we will find out.
The more that I have been thinking about the Constitution and what it means to me and my life I've been pondering what it means to live as one devoted to the Constitution. I know that most members of the government take oaths to defend the Constitution but I feel that most don't have any clue what that means. I recently came across an article by Chuck Baldwin, the 2008 Constitutionalist party candidate for President. He, in Jeff Foxworthy-like style, shares his thoughts on the matter as You Might Be a Constitutionalist If...
Here is some of what he says.
1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that elected leaders should really obey the U.S. Constitution.
2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.
3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.
4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is neither patriotic nor does it make the country more secure.
5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.
6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three coequal branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.
The rest of the article can be found here and I believe he does an excellent job of examining the Constitution and enumerating its precepts. I hope you will all take the time to read the article and the Constitution for that matter, if for no other reason than it is of importance to me.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Those who loved the sound of much of what Obama said during his campaign should love this next tidbit. Sometimes I don't think politicians realize the power they hold over the American public, particularly the ones in high profile positions such as Presidential candidates. Some would probably find it odd that people voted for them based on the campaign promises that they made. "I want to be realistic here," Obama said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace that we had hoped." I would hope that would cause some doubt among his followers. He promised to do something and now is saying it can't be done in the timeframe he desired. The reality is that most of it will never be accomplished. Politicians should choose realistic goals instead of overinflated ones that will get them elected.
The last thing I hoped to mention here is just an interesting thought that should make Americans a little more leary of the economic bailouts that are being doled out like halloween candy. This article lets us know that another industry is searching for a bailout, I would assume more for the reason that "everyone else is doing it". The Porn makers of the US want a handout as well. To most Americans this will hopefully illustrate the futility and idiocy of handing out taxpayer dollars, mind you those taxpayers are not buying the products offered by those companies in the first place, to save companies the government feels needs saving.