If I Had Been Invited To The Healthcare Summit…..

I’m a little disappointed that I wasn’t invited to today’s healthcare summit in Washington. Because it would have been interesting to get the perspective of some typical Americans, instead of a lot of Congressmen, Senators and federal executives – none of whom will have to participate in the very healthcare legislation they are discussing (because they have their own health benefits system - which is far better than anything they propose to leave with us).

Anyway, had I been given the privilege to attend and ask a few questions, this is what I might have said:

1) If 30 million more people will have health care coverage than the number who have it today, AND the system will be administered by the federal government, why should I believe the claim that it will get less expensive?

2) If our healthcare system is so broken, why did the Premier of Canada’s Newfoundland recently leave his country and fly to Florida to have heart surgery?

3) What do you say to the majority of Americans who don’t want government interference in healthcare? Do you believe you are smarter than they are? Is this representative government…or something else?

4) Should I dump my pharmaceutical stocks now? What if I work for a health insurance company – should I start looking for a new line of work?

5) How does the current trillion dollar proposal fit with the campaign promise to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year?

6) Is there any reason to believe that today’s session was nothing more than posturing in an effort to place blame on others when things turn sour later?

Interestingly, President Obama had a run-in with Senator Lamar Alexander about whether or not premiums would rise under the plan. The President said this was a great example of where people didn’t have their facts straight – and it turns out that he was the one who was incorrect (and he has apparently admitted it). See the video below.

A Little Lesson On Economics, Mr. President

Workers are disgruntled, benefits are being cut, and the unemployment rate continues to hover around ten percent. All of this has occurred while our nation’s leaders have been increasing the government’s deficit spending and were wooed by expensive, job-killing myths like government-run healthcare and “climate change” legislation.

So this week, President Obama revealed his best idea for jobs reform. A $5,000-per-head tax credit to businesses for each job they create. Put simply, the government will pay employers $5,000 for each hire they make, as a way to provide incentive for them to bring on new employees.

This is government naiveté at its pinnacle. What Mr. Obama fails to understand is that businesses aren’t sitting back with too much work to do, and a fear of hiring more people to do it. The problem is that businesses feel too restricted and overtaxed by the government, and so collectively there is not enough work to go around.

Obama’s idea is tantamount to the concept of paying our children five dollars every time they smile – and thinking that this will make them truly happy children (okay, okay – I recognize that our children may think this is a great idea and that it will lead them to happiness – but we all know it won’t be true happiness, right?). Paying them a token amount for an outward expression of behavior does not change them fundamentally inside.

Similarly, Obama’s plan does nothing about the root of the issue - job creation. Even FDR in the 1930’s understood that building highways and bridges and railroads actually created work for people to do. The New Deal had at least the advantage that it struck at the heart of the matter – it put people to work. Still, I’m no fan of Keynesian economic theory that thinks it acceptable for government deficit spending to somehow spark private industry. I believe that less government intrusion is what is needed.

One more thing – let’s not forget about that $5,000. I point out an obvious question – where does it come from? Clearly, it comes from the taxes paid by people who already have jobs and can afford to pay taxes to the government. More simply put, Obama’s plan takes money from the pockets of people who have it, and puts it into the pockets of those who don’t. That sounds an awful lot like socialism to me.

I am stunned at the clear lack of basic economic understanding in play here. Again, if a business had enough work to hire someone new, they would likely do so. Obama’s plan creates the risk that less-than-honest employers will cut hours or benefits for existing employees so that they can bring on new employees – and collect $5,000 for each. At the root, a jobs plan needs to first create work – and jobs will follow. Better yet, get the government out of the “jobs plan” business, cut corporate and personal taxes, and free up businesses to do what they do best – innovate, produce and hire more people. It’s not rocket science.

Constitutional Law Degrees Must Not Be What They Used To Be

I know the biggest takeaway moment from President Obama’s State of the Union address has been his indecorous criticism of the Supreme Court. But I think there was another moment that deserves some attention as well. At one point, he said,

“We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.”

I find three things worthy of mention here.

1) Um, the Constitution says nothing about us being created equal – that would be the Declaration of Independence, Mr. President. Specifically,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

2) The Constitution is designed to protect U.S. citizens, even if they don’t abide by the law. Our civil protection is not jeopardized if we break the law. In fact, much of the law is written to ensure the fair treatment of those who have broken it. That makes us a pretty rare find in the political world. Or, at least, I hope it still does.

3) The President said that if we “adhere to common values”, then we should not be treated differently, and that this is “enshrined in our Constitution”. Again, a search on the word “values” or its synonyms turns up nothing like this in the document. And the idea of “common values” is completely in conflict with the first part of his statement – that “we find unity in our incredible diversity”. Even more disturbing, is he implying that some of us will lose the privilege of equitable treatment if we stray from this generic set of common values? Hmmmm…he may actually be right about that one. I’m thinking of Tim Tebow and the upcoming Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad.

One would think that a Constitutional law scholar from Harvard would have a better grasp of what the document actually says. But maybe, an Ivy League degree isn’t worth as much as it used to be. Perhaps he should consider sitting down for a moment to read the Constitution…

**********************

If you are interested in learning more about the principles in The U.S. Constitution, please visit the Constitutional Education series.

Ten Random Thoughts – Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

Incredibly, President Obama came away with the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. Was it deserved? Has he done anything to earn it? Were others more deserving than he? Does the prize have meaning anymore? Here are ten random thoughts I had yesterday about the issue.

1) I am told that submissions for the prize were due on February 1 (thanks to Carrie Cox for pointing this out to me). That was 11 days into Obama’s presidency. Someone must have had a lot of foresight to nominate him…or else you could conclude that the prize isn’t really going to the most deserving individual. Maybe it’s now just a popularity contest like those student council elections in junior high?

2) Clearly, we have witnessed the dumbing down of the Nobel Peace Prize in our lifetime. I doubt that the committee that awarded the first prize in 1901 would have given the award to someone with so “ethereal” a list of accomplishments.

3) At least the U.S. is going to see some additional tax money from the $1.4 million prize – assuming the President pays taxes. Which is kind of big assumption, considering the taxpaying records of many of his cabinet nominees. Thanks to Sweden and Norway for the cash.

4) Hillary must be livid. She’s the Secretary of State, and she is the one who has to travel to all of those peace-needing, oppressed places for the President. But once again, he gets the credit. The only thing funnier would have been if Bill Clinton had won the prize for his work to free the two journalists in North Korea back in August. That would really send Hillary over the top.

5) I would like to know what the other eligible winners for the prize had accomplished in comparison to President Obama. Unfortunately, the committee doesn’t release the names to the public for fifty years. Check back in 2059.

6) How do you win a prize for peace because you provided HOPE for the people needing it (but no peace as of yet)? That’s what the prize committee announced as their basis for the award. I mean that would be like awarding Al Gore a Peace Prize for making a movie about global warming. Oh, wait…

7) I assume this award was decided before Europe turned on Obama last week and denied him the Olympics in Chicago. Maybe the Nobel committee wishes they could change their mind.

8) This might actually hurt Obama when he comes up for re-election – it will further polarize those who didn’t support him, and will embarrass many of those who did. Even many of his loyal supporters admit that this award was not yet deserved. An astute political move would have been to turn down the award. Then, he would have still gotten the credit for winning it, but he could have silenced his critics who think it wasn’t deserved. Now, he just looks incompetent and arrogant.

9) I ‘m thinking Obama is probably the favorite to win the Heisman trophy this year. And maybe the FIFA World Cup in South Africa next year. After all, soccer really is an international sport.

10) And finally, on a serious note, it is clear to me that the world and its values are upside-down from what God intended. On January 23 – four days into his presidency, and a mere nine days before his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize was due – Obama signed into law an order reversing the ban on the funding of international abortions using U.S. taxpayer money (see picture above). While it was truly a global decision, it is hardly an act of peace. See my thoughts on that act here.

Thoughts on President Obama’s Education Speech

The President of the United States gave a fifteen-minute address to the school students of our country yesterday. Since I had read a lot of speculation about what he would say, and how he would say it, I decided to evaluate it myself. So, last night I opened up one computer window with the video clip, one with the text transcript, and one with Microsoft Word and I watched the whole thing, ready to make notes about the perceived fallacies in what he had to say.

After watching the whole thing, I have to admit that I didn’t come up with one single egregious statement worthy of intense criticism. So for those who think I may be an anti-Obama, all-the-time complainer, let it be known that I went into this video with an open mind and left with very little to say in the way of disparagement.

Obama’s speech really consisted of a few well-worn messages. Stay in school, do your homework, mind your teachers, and work hard. And my favorite – be sure to wash your hands often so you don’t get the flu this winter. That’s it. It wasn’t terribly presidential – in fact, it was pedantic. It wasn’t even that well written or delivered. It was…just a speech. I doubt many kids walked away from it with any more inspiration than they had going into it.

The whole thing got me to thinking about whether or not I would want my children to watch the speech (they did, at home, over the Internet). But was the uproar from many sides about his speech right or wrong? Little was said in his words, and the speech was largely devoid of politics, religion, (petitions for healthcare votes), or moralizing. It was…just a speech.

But consider this – does who my children listen to matter as much as what my children listen to? To this, I have to answer “Yes”. If Michael Vick was giving a benign and pleasant speech at the local Humane Society, would I want my kids to go? With Vick’s background of endorsing dogfights and animal abuse, I would have to say that his character would overshadow any words that he might have to say. Even if they were good words, I do not want my kids idolizing someone who lacks character.

“But you surely can’t compare our President to Michael Vick!”, I hear some people say. Well, in some ways, I suppose that is right. Our president has openly supported policies which enable and further the practice of abortion. The killing of innocent babies is far worse to me than the abuse of animals. So our president’s policies offend me even more than those of Vick. Truly, they do. And I do not want my kids watching a benign speech by the president and coming away thinking that everything is really okay with him – that he’s a decent sort of fellow, and one we would like to imitate in many ways. So, we train them to consider the character, as well, when listening.

Some people will think I’m crazy making such a comparison. But consider the numbers when comparing the Nazi holocaust alongside the abortion rates occurring in our country – right now. Six million Jews were killed during the holocaust. But in the United States alone, between 800,000 and 1,400,000 abortions are performed every year. Approximately the same number of abortion deaths will occur in one-and-a-half presidential terms as occurred during the entire holocaust. And our president, among many, many others (including the president before this one), does not have the courage to stand up to this atrocity and make it stop. Instead, he works to make access to abortion easier. He continues to allow my tax dollars to go toward the funding of this abomination – in this nation and beyond. Can I stand by while he allows this to happen? Will people look back on our nation in fifty years, and compare this time to the Jewish holocaust? And back to the topic at-hand, is this the kind of person that I want my kids to look up to and admire?

The point I make is this – at least as important as the words delivered by a speaker is the character of the speaker. Does his life honor God? Does he glorify God in his actions? The longer I look at politics and character, the more I believe that the next time I cast a vote for president, it will not be for Republican or Democrat. If I could not choose the man to be an elder in my own church, how could I vote for him to lead this great nation?

Please continue to be in prayer for our president, our leaders, our nation, and our children.

I Am Offended

Our president recently visited Turkey, and said these words:

"One of the great strengths of the United States is we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

As most prepared statements doled out by government officials are prone to be, this one is carefully constructed to be populist, to cast a wide net, and to be inoffensive.

But I am very offended.

In a nation that was built on Christian ideals (not one bound by an ethereal “set of values”), President Obama’s statement demeans our forefathers who unashamedly proclaimed Christ. The very reason that the Puritans boarded the Mayflower and set sail for America was to escape a king who had abandoned Christian morals and had become oppressive to their clear mandate – to bring Christ to the world. Our founding fathers had this in mind when they wrote the Constitution and when they governed our nation. If you doubt this, take a look at some of these quotes:

“Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.” – Benjamin Franklin

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it tied together in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” – John Quincy Adams

“God has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers” – John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Patrick Henry

I ask you to compare these words, spoken by men who founded this nation and who were not ashamed of Jesus Christ, to the words of our leaders today. There is a difference between a watered-down mass appeal and a true conviction.

Two thousand years ago, a man named Peter also denied Jesus’ supreme authority when approached directly by others. His motivation was exactly the same as that of our leaders today. Don’t offend… and save your skin. While churches and Christians all over this land consistently claim that Peter’s denial was treacherous, many of those same people see Obama’s words as being “inclusive”, “visionary”, and “tolerant”. But I see little difference between Peter’s denial and Obama’s politicking.

Do you?