It’s the Size of Government, Stupid!

This presidential campaign is getting STUPID! We see the candidates catching at straws to gain the attention of the electorate in the hope that voters will elect “me—I can do the best job.” Their campaign pitches are becoming more and more ridiculous. For instance:

Now Governor Romney is criticizing the President for not attending a single meeting of his Jobs Council in months. He says that if the President were really interested in jobless Americans, he would be all over that Council to learn what he could do to get Americans back to work.

The truth about this campaign ploy is that the Jobs Council has made 60 recommendations in the past year about jobs in America; and the President has either implemented or is working on implementation of 52 of those recommendations, according to Politico.com.

About this issue, voters should realize that the President does not need to attend the meeting of all of his advisory councils. He can stay in contact with them by phone or by sending a representative to the meetings.

On the other side of the election debate, we see the President kicking at Governor Romney about his involvement at Bain Capital—sending thousands of jobs overseas. This argument is equally stupid. Romney has had no administrative dealings with Bain Capital that had anything to do with this issue since 1999. That fact has been painfully verified by several of the President’s own supporters on the Bain board of directors.

The real issue in this election is the size of our government. Obama believes in a large government establishment and Romney believes in a small government—it’s as simple as that! All these “issues” we hear about on TV are just a rubric of smokescreen in attempts to make voters believe they are getting to know something new of real value.

Personally, I believe in small government. Large government saps away our freedoms and hamstrings the genuine drivers of our economy, the private entrepreneurial spirit of American business and industry. We would do much better with a smaller government.

All that being said, I must admit that there is another issue that divides conservatives and liberals in this election; and that is the issue of moral integrity. The Democrats are on the side of moral rot with their endorsement of abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, etc., etc. Conservatives are more or less on the side of traditional marriage, stable families, sexual continence, and other issues that have stood the test of time in producing a morally healthy America.

I’ m voting for Governor Romney.

Catholics and Evangelicals Stand Together For Religious Liberty.

Although Catholics and Evangelicals do not stand together on several theological issues, on one issue we are solidly united—our need and our right to religious liberty.

We are seeing presently an important demonstration of Catholic/Evangelical unity in that both Catholic University of America and Wheaton College are together sponsoring a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services protesting a recent requirement of the Affordable Care Act. That Act requires that all religious institutions except churches, which carry health insurance on their employees, must provide in that insurance, payment for abortion-inducing drugs as well as contraceptives.

Although Catholics and Evangelicals are not completely united on their opposition to contraception, we are united on the issue of induced abortion. We both strongly believe that live begins at conception; and no government has the right to violate that right by the application of abortion-producing drugs or surgical procedures. We are most certainly united in our belief that the government has no right to interfere with our right to practice our religious beliefs; and that issue is the sticking point in this whole matter. The Affordable Care Act, as interpreted by the Executive Branch of our Federal Government, is requiring a limitation on our right to freedom of religion.

In 1943, Justice Robert Jackson wrote in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, “it is that no official . . . can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." This belief in the freedom of religion must apply to all Americans who gather in voluntary association for distinctively religious purposes, such as Christian education.

Chuck Colson and John Neuhaus have written concerning our American Constitutional system, "[T]his constitutional order is composed not just of rules and procedures but is most essentially a moral experiment. . . . [W]e hold that only a virtuous people can be free and just, and that virtue is secured by religion. To propose that securing civil virtue is the purpose of religion is blasphemous. To deny that securing civil virtue is a benefit of religion is blindness."  

This blog post was redacted from the Wall Street Journal of 18 July 2012 in the opinion section.

Obama's Imperial Presidency

The following is a complete test of an editorial written by Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal of 7/5/12, titled Obama's Imperial Presidency. If we do not understand this, we miss something vital to our understanding of our present political situation.

Now that ObamaCare litigation is history, with the president's takeover of the health sector deemed constitutional. Now we can focus on the rest of the Obama imperial presidency.

Where, you are wondering, have you recently heard that term? Ah, yes. The "imperial presidency" of George W. Bush was a favorite judgment of the left about our 43rd president's conduct in war, wiretapping and detentions. Yet say this about Mr. Bush: His aggressive reading of executive authority was limited to the area where presidents are at their core power—the commander-in-chief function.

By contrast, presidents are at their weakest in the realm of domestic policy—subject to checks and balances, co-equal to the other branches. Yet this is where Mr. Obama has granted himself unprecedented power. The health law and the 2009 stimulus package were unique examples of Mr. Obama working with Congress. The more "persistent pattern," Matthew Spalding recently wrote on the Heritage Foundation blog, is "disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision making without—and often in spite of—congressional action."

 

Put another way: Mr. Obama proposes, Congress refuses, he does it anyway.
For example, Congress refused to pass Mr. Obama's Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for some not here legally. So Mr. Obama passed it himself with an executive order that directs officers to no longer deport certain illegal immigrants. This may be good or humane policy, yet there is no reading of "prosecutorial discretion" that allows for blanket immunity for entire classes of offenders.

Mr. Obama disagrees with federal law, which criminalizes the use of medical marijuana. Congress has not repealed the law. No matter. The president instructs his Justice Department not to prosecute transgressors. He disapproves of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, yet rather than get Congress to repeal it, he stops defending it in court. He dislikes provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, so he asked Congress for fixes. That effort failed, so now his Education Department issues waivers that are patently inconsistent with the statute.

Similarly, when Mr. Obama wants a new program and Congress won't give it to him, he creates it regardless. Congress, including Democrats, wouldn't pass his cap-and-trade legislation. His Environmental Protection Agency is now instituting it via a broad reading of the Clean Air Act. Congress, again including members of his own party, wouldn't pass his "card-check" legislation eliminating secret ballots in union elections. So he stacked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with appointees who pushed through a "quickie" election law to accomplish much the same. Congress wouldn't pass "net neutrality" Internet regulations, so Mr. Obama's Federal Communications Commission did it unilaterally.

In January, when the Senate refused to confirm Mr. Obama's new picks for the NLRB, he proclaimed the Senate to be in "recess" and appointed the members anyway, making a mockery of that chamber's advice-and-consent role. In June, he expanded the definition of "executive privilege" to deny House Republicans documents for their probe into the botched Fast and Furious drug-war operation, making a mockery of Congress's oversight responsibilities.

This president's imperial pretensions extend into the brute force the executive branch has exercised over the private sector. The auto bailouts turned contract law on its head, as the White House subordinated bondholders' rights to those of its union allies. After the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Justice Department leaked that it had opened a criminal probe at exactly the time the Obama White House was demanding BP suspend its dividend and cough up billions for an extralegal claims fund. BP paid. Who wouldn't?

And it has been much the same in his dealings with the states. Don't like Arizona's plans to check immigration status? Sue. Don't like state efforts to clean up their voter rolls? Invoke the Voting Rights Act. Don't like state authority over fracking? Elbow in with new and imagined federal authority, via federal water or land laws.

In so many situations, Mr. Obama's stated rationale for action has been the same: We tried working with Congress but it didn't pan out—so we did what we had to do. This is not only admission that the president has subverted the legislative branch, but a revealing insight into Mr. Obama's view of his own importance and authority.

There is a rich vein to mine here for GOP nominee Mitt Romney. Americans have a sober respect for a balance of power, so much so that they elected a Republican House in 2010 to stop the Obama agenda. The president's response? Go around Congress and disregard the constitutional rule of law. What makes this executive overreach doubly unsavory is that it's often pure political payoff to special interests or voter groups.

Mr. Obama came to office promising to deliver a new kind of politics. He did—his own, unilateral governance.

Tax Effect on Government Income

Thomas Sowell has published on Townhall.com that raising taxes on the rich does not usually increase income for the government, as President Obama has told the American people it will.

Many people are under the impression that those who oppose higher taxes claim that if taxes are lowered or not increased, the money left in the coffers of the wealthy will “trickle down” to the rest of the population. Nobody seems to know where this claim for “trickle down” effect came from; but it has never been the claim of knowledgeable economists. And…“trickle down” is not the reason conservatives want the Bush tax cuts to stay in effect for everyone.

Several presidents, including President Obama, know that raising taxes does not usually increase government income. As President Kennedy once explained, investors' "efforts to avoid tax liabilities" made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made "certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings" for the country.

The Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.

As far back as the 1920s, a huge cut in the highest income tax rate -- from 73 percent to 24 percent -- led to a huge increase in the amount of tax revenue collected by the federal government. Why? Because investors took their money out of tax shelters, where they were earning very modest rates of return, and put their money into the productive economy, where they could earn higher rates of return, now that those returns were not so heavily taxed.

This was the very reason why tax rates were cut in the first place -- to get more revenue for the federal government. The same was true, decades later, during the John F. Kennedy administration. Similar reasons led to tax rate cuts during the Ronald Reagan administration and the George W. Bush administration.

All of these presidents -- Democrat and Republican alike -- made the same argument for tax rate reductions that had been made in the 1920s, and the results were similar as well. Yet the invincible lie continues to this day that those who oppose high tax rates on high incomes are doing so because they want to reduce the taxes paid by high income earners, in hopes that their increased prosperity will "trickle down" to others.

 Well…all this nonsense about “fairness” we are hearing from the President is just election year propaganda. The top 10% of present day earners already pay 50% of the federal budget—where’s the “fairness” in that figure?