The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There
is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it
steadily." --George
Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
After Shutdown: Administration Gives $445,000,000 to
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
On
the first day of the “shutdown” of the federal government, when members of the
U.S. Senate were going to the well of their house to point out that the
shutdown would prevent the National Institutes of Health from starting clinical
trials for cancer patients and others facing possibly terminal illnesses, the
administration was giving $445,000,000 to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, according to the Daily
Treasury Statement. That means PBS News Hour, National Public
Radio and Sesame Street got a taxpayer subsidy during the shutdown, but not
would-be cancer patients at the NIH. Not to mention blockading the WWII
Memorial.
~~~~~~
Why, those irresponsible Republicans, risking the full
faith and credit of the United States?
One thing: It's as
common as the day is long. In fact, more than half of all the debt ceiling
increases since 1979 came with conditions, and no party attached conditions
more than the Democrats. Writing today in the Wall Street Journal, Kevin
Hassett and Abby McCloskey tell you what the mainstream media would have told
you two years ago if it was not merely an Obama propaganda outfit:
Congressional
Republicans who want legislative conditions in exchange for a debt-limit
increase are following a strategy that has been pursued by both parties the
majority of the time. Of the 53 increases in the debt limit, 26 were
"clean"—that is, stand-alone, no strings-attached statutes. The
remaining debt-limit increases were part of an omnibus package of other
legislative bills or a continuing resolution. Other times, the limit was paired
with reforms, only some of which were related to the budget. In 1979, a Democratic Congress increased the debt
limit but required Congress and the president to present balanced budgets for
fiscal years 1981 and 1982. In 1980 the debt limit, again increased by a
Democratic Congress, included repeal of an oil-import fee. In 1985, the debt
limit that was raised by a divided Congress included a cigarette tax and a
provision requiring Congress to pursue an alternative minimum corporate tax in
the next year.
Hassett and
McCloskey also make a good point about the usefulness of the debt ceiling as a check
against executive power. A party that controls only one house of
Congress can't really govern per se, but its assent is still needed by the
president for certain essential actions. A president who thinks he is above
consultation with Congress could use a little reining in, and the need to
raise the debt ceiling is a useful reminder that if he goes too far cramming
his own agenda down the throats of the nation, the opposition party does indeed
have an ace to play. As Hassett and McCloskey demonstrate here, the
Democratic Party has not been shy about playing that ace frequently over the
course of the last generation. I would ask why the mainstream news media
have not called Obama on his insistence that this is all so unprecedented and
shocking, but the question answers itself so I won't bother. I would
say this, though: If you don't want the opposition party holding you hostage
with conditions for raising the debt ceiling, why don't you try balancing the
budget? Then you won't need to borrow, and they won't be able to
exercise that check on you. Debt presents all kinds of complications in
life that people who pay cash don't have to deal with. If this situation is
bothering Obama that much, he should give it a try.
~~~~~~
Who Locked Little Johnny Out Of Yellowstone Park? By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
The
ObamaCare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths, the most egregious of which
concern the substance of the fight, the identity of the perpetrators and the
origins of the current eruption.
(1) Substance
President
Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend ObamaCare are
unseemly because it is "settled" law, having passed both houses of
Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court. Yes,
settledness makes for a strong argument — except
from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed ObamaCare five
times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of
the employer mandate. Article 1 of the Constitution grants the
legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has
Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives
undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for
suspending the other mandate — the individual mandate — this is portrayed as
some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment
to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the
executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
(2) Perpetrators
The
mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown
on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore
funding to national parks, veterans and the District of Columbia government.
Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required
a two-thirds majority.) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't even
consider these refunding measures. And the White House has promised a
presidential veto. The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add
to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP.
They are confident the media will do a "GOP makes little Johnny weep at
the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11" despite Republicans having
just offered legislation to open them.
(3)
Origins
The
most ubiquitous conventional wisdom is that the ultimate cause of these
troubles is out-of-control Tea Party anarchists. But is this really where the
causal chain ends? The Tea Party was created by Obama's first-term overreach,
most specifically ObamaCare. This frantic fight against it today is the
fruits of the way it was originally enacted. From Social Security to civil
rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has
major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote. Never. In
every case, there was significant reaching across the aisle, enhancing the
law's legitimacy and endurance.
~~~~~~
As a Christian and a Conservative living in this day of
history in America, my fears are numerous.
Some
of those fears revolve around the economy and the tremendous debt being thrust
upon our children and on their children, and so on. I’m concerned about the
path of our government as it relates to society.
We
are quickly becoming a nanny state in most every arena. The government is
devouring the private sector at an alarming pace. Whether you’re talking about
welfare, the systematic takeover of the banking industry or the automotive
industry, Education or Healthcare, the overriding feeling is that the
government exists to save us from ourselves in every aspect of our lives. But
in the midst of being consumed by these social concerns, a certain truth brings
me to my senses; God cares little for governments or powers. God’s business is the human
soul.
Some
have been lulled into believing social good outweighs the significance of the
spirit of man.
How many trees must you save, how many soup kitchens do you have to serve in,
how many carbon offsets does it take? Or, if you’re of the conservative
mindset, exactly how fiscally conservative do you need to be to rescue your
soul from Hell? Neither the struggle
over strict constructionist judges nor reliance on rugged individualism was
meant to take the place of being in right standing with the Creator. As
Americans, the answer should be simple for us. But a failure to come up with
the correct answer only leads us further down the path of Humanism and
increasingly further away from God and the America imagined by the Founders.
You
could be Ronald Reagan incarnate… you may be the most thoughtful, humble
Conservative on the planet and still be a world away from God. Conservatism
without Christianity is hollow from its inception and disastrous at its
conclusion. To this point in history, the complacency of Christians has
been largely responsible for the incremental loss of both our Nation’s freedom
and its original, stated purpose. In the void, appeasers and so-called
“Conservative atheists” have begun to assume the leadership of the movement.
Deniers
and scoffers labor in vain as this Nation’s glories fade into the ether. Unless
the remaining Christian element takes the helm, these unbelievers will continue
to spread their Fiscal-Conservative message. And if they are allowed to
continue in this course, we will all be peering into the rear view mirror
questioning what became of the Country we once knew. America absent the God
of the Bible is not the “America” the Founders’ envisioned and never will be.
~~~~~~
"The same prudence which in
private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects,
forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys." –Thomas Jefferson, letter to
Shelton Gilliam, 1808
No comments:
Post a Comment