Video: A Christian Family Embraces Politics

From Citizen Link Friday 5, a 7 minute video:

http://www.citizenlink.com/blog/2011/03/25/video-friday-five-jim-bob-and-michelle-duggar-on-juggling-family-and-politics/

Seven Principles of Compassionate Conservatism, Part 3 - Challenging

We're looking for a type of compassion that's Assertive, Basic, and...Challenging.

From Marvin Olasky's Compassionate Conservatism:

The tendency of affluent Americans has been to turn poor people into pets, giving them food and an occasional pat on the head, but not pushing them to be all they can be. Over time, bad charity has tended to drive out good, because people given a choice of pampering or needed pressure generally take the easy route. But those who consider the good of others as more important than their own satisfaction challenge clients (and themselves) to stretch perceived limits. Hard, character-building work is often particularly important in this process. Compassionate conservatives do not merely give the poor a safety net that may turn into a hammock; they provide a trampoline. The goal is to have the affluent stretch their limits also. It's easy to write a check but hard to check pride and arrogance at the door when dealing with those who don't get much respect, or to travel to a part of town that is outside the middle-class comfort zone. (p 17-18)

I think we all agree that there must be some sort of safety net in civil society. But government handouts are never going to solve the problem. The poor need skills and discipline to get economically productive jobs and keep them.

This is happening in decreasing measure in America today. The progressivism of the late 19th Century led to President Roosevelt's Social Security plan in the 1930's. In the desperation of the Great Depression, America took a sip of socialist tea. President Johnson added Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.


But the entitlement programs have taken our freedom without delivering us from poverty and sickness as promised. Our safety net has become a hammock, but the leisure it offers comes with ongoing poverty and entrapment in the cycle of depression and debilitation.


Is it well intentioned? Yes and no. Some have discovered how to remove the lid from the cookie jar, and taxpayer resources are being siphoned faster than wealth can be created. The welfare state and entitlements need to be reformed with an edge of challenge.


God send us a leader with the wisdom of Solomon!

Only We Can Prevent the Loss of Freedom in America!

Title links to Human Events article...

Freer Is Better

by  John Stossel 

10/13/2010

The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom lowers the ranking of the United States to eighth out of 179 nations -- behind Canada!

A year ago, it ranked sixth, ahead of Canada.
   
Don't say it's Barack Obama's fault. Half the data used in the index is from George W. Bush's final six months in office. This is a bipartisan problem.

   
For the past 16 years, the index has ranked the world's countries on the basis of their economic freedom -- or lack thereof. Ten criteria are used: freedoms related to business, trade, fiscal matters, monetary matters, investment, finance, labor, government spending, property rights and freedom from corruption.
   
The top 10 countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, the United States, Denmark and Chile.
    

Seven Principles of Compassionate Conservatism, Part 2 - Basic

The second principle of compassionate conservatism is much-needed in America today. The idea of "basic" is a bit like a police officer's use of minimum necessary force. If we don't agree to maintain minimum necessary government, we end up with a bureaucratic monster. Government is getting too big and a majority of Americans seem to be finally getting it.

Marvin Olasky puts it like this:

Compassionate conservatives choose the most basic means of bringing help to those who need it. The goal is to look within the family first; if the family cannot help, maybe an individual or group within the neighborhood can; if not, then organizations outside the neighborhood but within the community should be called on. If it is necessary to turn to government, compassionate conservatives typically look first to municipal, then to county, then to state, and only then to federal offices. At each governmental level, the basics should be in order before proceeding to the more complicated stages. For example, a group that protects teenage ex-hookers from camps should have adequate police protection. Good Samaritan laws should be enacted so that a person who helps a mugging victim does not have to fear a lawsuit. When such basic protection is in place and counterproductive regulations have been replaced, the next goal is improved information flow concerning an organization and to facilitate contributions. And it is time to bring in questions of direct grants, tax credits, and so forth, always looking to the most basic level of government that connect efficiently on a particular problem.

We're witnessing the opposite of this with the Obama administration today. President Obama is making good on many of the "I will provide" promises that he uttered during the 2008 presidential election campaign. And the Democratic House and Senate have been willing partners in rolling out trillions of dollars for national programs.

Republicans have done it to, in the not so distant past. It's not about party affiliation for me, it's about the conservative ideal of limiting spending and government power. That said, it is a badge of honor for the Republicans to be called more recently "the party of no." We need to roll back spending and government overreach, and on November 2 that means casting a vote for each common sense conservative on the ballot.

In central Wisconsin, that means Duffy for congress, Johnson for senate, Walker for governor, Eno for state assembly, and Galloway for state senate. I've met each of these candidates, and I believe they all stand with the ideal I've mentioned here. I believe they're our best chance to bring government back under control.

Alternative Reform for Healthcare from Paul Ryan

There have been plenty of distractions from the national debate on healthcare reform in recent weeks. We conservatives intend to continue to keep this issue relevant as the country moves toward the November elections.

Here's an update from congress's most articulate voice in opposition to the recently passed healthcare reform bill. Every time I hear Paul Ryan speak, I'm struck by the common sense solutions he brings to the table. Here's his latest.

CONSTITUENT HOTLINE: 1-888-909-RYAN (7926) www.house.gov/ryan | RSS | YouTube | Twitter |  Facebook | A Roadmap for America's Future

Setting the record straight: How the health care bill will truly impact Medicare beneficiaries Seniors in Southern Wisconsin will soon receive a mailing from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that dramatically mischaracterizes the impact of the recently enacted health care overhaul. The taxpayer-funded mailing titled, "Medicare and the New Health Care Law: What it Means for You" does more to mislead beneficiaries than it does to educate them.  I've received a number of complaints and inquiries from seniors throughout Southern Wisconsin regarding this brochure and I think it is important to set the record straight. The mailer produced by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS], the agency directly responsible for managing the Medicare program, describes so-called "benefits" seniors can expect to see and additional "improvements" to the Medicare program. Unfortunately, many of the "benefits" in the mailer have already been explicitly refuted by the Federal government's own non-partisan experts.  Among the most troubling claims made in CMS' brochure: -Claim: "Your choice of doctor will be preserved".  -Reality: Because of the massive payment cuts to medical providers required by the health care law, more than 15 percent of Medicare physicians will go bankrupt and stop practicing within the next ten years. (Source: http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf, page 21)    -Claim: "If you are in a Medicare Advantage plan, you will still receive guaranteed Medicare benefits."  -Reality: This contradicts Medicare's Chief Actuary, who said the more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries who use Medicare Advantage would see their benefits cut and costs increase due to $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. (Source: http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf, page 11)    -Claim: "The new law creates a new voluntary insurance program called CLASS to help pay for long-term care and support at home".  -Reality: This new program has been described by Medicare's actuary as "facing a significant risk of failure" due to its dubious financing scheme that could create an "insurance death spiral".  (Source: http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2010/hc-ed-final-7apr10.pdf, page 6)    -Claim: The health care law makes "needed improvements that will keep Medicare strong and solvent."  -Reality: This stands in stark contrast to statements made last month by Medicare's own chief actuary that "the long-term viability of the Medicare Update Reductions is doubtful." Medicare - a critical program that provides health security for millions of seniors - is going bankrupt.  Medicare faces a $38 trillion shortfall - $38 trillion in future promises that the government cannot keep.  Far from making Medicare "strong and solvent," this law raids $528 billion from Medicare to fund a new open-ended entitlement.  (Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11005/01-22-HI_Fund.pdf, page 1) The inaccuracies and misleading statements contained in CMS' brochure hinder efforts to help seniors understand the law's complex maze of new mandates, taxes, and restrictions. Seniors don't need another sales pitch from this Administration. They deserve clarity, transparency and the truth.  My colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee have called for a full review of this mailing by the Government Accountability Office and vetted by the appropriate Congressional committees, as has been done in the past with similar publications.  As we fight to repeal and replace this ill-conceived overhaul with fiscally responsible, patient-centered alternatives, I will continue to push the Administration to honestly and accurately inform patients and doctors of how they will be affected by the health care bill.  I remain committed to supporting alternatives like A Roadmap for America's Future, which fixes what's broken in health care without breaking what's working. The Roadmap provides universal access to affordable health coverage, not by expanding government, but by reinforcing the role of consumers - patients - in a truly competitive marketplace. The plan also takes on the necessary task of restructuring the government's medical entitlements, making them sustainable for the long term. For additional information on A Roadmap for America's Future, please visit: www.americanroadmap.org or call 1-888-909-7926.

Seven Principles of Compassionate Conservatism, Part 1 - Assertive

What I'm looking for in a political system is the one that works most effectively and compassionately, regardless of how much compassion the people are feeling as they work within the system.

Let me lay out the foundation of Marvin Olasky's Compassionate Conservatism. This is not an attempt to return to the years of Bush the younger, though America did have a season of resonance with his message. It's more of a declaration that conservatism need not and should not yield the label of "compassionate" to liberals and progressives who primarily find their solutions and salvation in the government.

The U.S. economy continues to crumble under the weight of socialist ideals. That alone should show the emptiness of the government's claim to offer compassion. But this downturn is not shocking and we had better not lose the clarity of it's report: socialism doesn't work.

That message is starting to hit home, but what do we replace socialism with? If we stop charging toward centralized government power and financial control, where do we charge to next?

Marvin Olasky's version of conservatism needs to be considered. Yes, we can chew the meat and spit out the bones, but there's plenty of meat to be had. Let me outline his ABCDEFG principles.

Seven Principles of Compassionate Conservatism

(Compassionate Conservatism, pp 16-20)

Assertive

The preamble to the Constitution speaks of government promoting the general welfare but not providing it. Alexis de Tocqueville was astounded to see Americans forming associations to fight poverty and other social ills rather than waiting for government to act. Such assertiveness surprised to Europeans well into the 20th century.... compassionate conservatism is the opposite of how wimpy doctrine; it emphasizes a renewable of the Citizen assertiveness that so impressed the first great for a journalist to come here, de Tocqueville.

We're seeing this sort of assertiveness in the TEA Party movement of the last 18 months. There is a very real sense that the people still have a voice to remind our political representatives who is working for whom! In a free country, the government fears the people more than the people fear the government. This assertiveness is both historic and uniquely special in this time and place.

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Holding Obey Accountable for Under-performing Stimulus

David Obey authored the stimulus bill and staked his career on its success. That huge object in Obey's mirror is something he can't escape: his record.

ORPO (Obame-Reid-Pelosi-Obey) sold stimulus aggressively on the front end. Unemployment would be held below eight percent if we would just give them a blank check for nearly a trillion dollars.

This is a key issue in the race between Obey and challenger Sean Duffy this year. I want to publish a couple of resources that will help in evaluating Obey's track record in this area.

First a website: http://www.readthestimulus.org/. Note that zero conservative republicans supported the bill in the house and the senate

Then a new video containing an interview of Rep. Paul Ryan by Sean Hannity. Initial observation appears to show a clear, intentional misleading of the American people on jobs numbers related to stimulus investments.





Seems I've read a hundred reports of questionable dispersing of stimulus funds. And as a conservative, running more money through the government does not resonate as effective. How do you feel about the ORPO stimulus bill?