On 5/30/11, I posted a blog on how America needs to fund defense spending in favor of spending more money on entitlements. Today, I want to mention more about the severity of our national financial problem.
America now has a debt burden of $14 trillion. $4 trillion more than just 2 years ago. In 2008, the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product was 40%. Today it is 68%! Unless we make hard decisions now, in less than a decade every dollar of federal revenue will go to covering the costs of Medicare, Social Security, and interest payments on our debt. We will sink even deeper in debt to pay for everything else, from national security to disaster relief. Our country will fall behind the productivity of other countries. Our currency will be debased, and our influence in the world will wane. Our security will be more precarious.
In order to resurrect this failing state, we need new leadership, leadership that will not be afraid to institute programs to reduce, reform, and in some cases end government programs—include some popular but unaffordable subsidies for agriculture and energy. We need leadership that will cut this wild spending on Medicare and accept the fact that we can no longer fund Social Security our of a “trust fund” that has no money in it (And it never has—all the Social Security “trust fund” has ever had in it has been a bunch of IOU’s from the Federal Government.)
We need to pursue free trade agreements with other countries, just as other countries now do. 95% of the world’s customers live outside the U.S. We will not remain the most productive economy in the world if we embrace the mistaken belief that we can prosper by selling and buying only among ourselves, while the other countries seize the opportunity for economic growth that the global economy offers.
Let’s do something about this deplorable financial situation now—before it is too late!
This blog post was largely excerpted from the Wall Street Journal 6/1/11, page A19.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Will It Be Welfare or Defense for America?
Robert Gates is retiring from the office of Secretary of Defense after serving 2 years under President G.W. Bush and 2 years under President Obama. He has made several farewell speeches laying out his opinions about the U.S.’s ability to fund both defense and the welfare state. He has warned against cuts to weapon programs and troop levels that would make America vulnerable in “a complex and unpredictable security environment.”
This year, America is spending 4.5% of our gross domestic product (GDP) on defense when the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars are included. On the other hand, we spent 9.8% of GDP last year on entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security).
If the United States were to cut our defense spending by 10%, which would absolutely gut the Defense Department budget, the cost savings would be only $55 billion. With a budget deficit this year of $1.4 trillion, that saving would not even make a dent in our fiscal problem of over-reaching debt. The financial problem we have is not over the Afghan/Iraqi war or even general spending on defense, it is obviously entitlement spending!
The Obama Administration has cut and slashed our defense budget in the last 2 years. The money for the F-22 fighter has been stopped and several promising missile defense programs have been discontinued. All this in a world where foreign powers are building up missile and nuclear war capability. I think we are going to be sorry for these administrative decisions.
There is something wrong with our democratic system of government. We send our politicians to Washington with instructions to “bring home the bacon,” in the form of entitlement, welfare, benefits for our short-term enjoyment. But when the pig is dead, there is no more bacon to bring home.
America’s global power begins at home with a strong economy able to generate wealth. The push for defense cuts reflects the weak recovery from recession and a national debt that has doubled in the last 2 years. The Obama Administration has made conscious decisions to squeeze defense while pouring money on everything else.
I think we should get back on the right track of funding defense instead of trying to fund and maintain a faulty and expensive health care bill and support an indefensible Medicare entitlement program.
This blog post was partly excerpted from the Wall Street Journal 5/28/11, pages A14 and A15.
This year, America is spending 4.5% of our gross domestic product (GDP) on defense when the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars are included. On the other hand, we spent 9.8% of GDP last year on entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security).
If the United States were to cut our defense spending by 10%, which would absolutely gut the Defense Department budget, the cost savings would be only $55 billion. With a budget deficit this year of $1.4 trillion, that saving would not even make a dent in our fiscal problem of over-reaching debt. The financial problem we have is not over the Afghan/Iraqi war or even general spending on defense, it is obviously entitlement spending!
The Obama Administration has cut and slashed our defense budget in the last 2 years. The money for the F-22 fighter has been stopped and several promising missile defense programs have been discontinued. All this in a world where foreign powers are building up missile and nuclear war capability. I think we are going to be sorry for these administrative decisions.
There is something wrong with our democratic system of government. We send our politicians to Washington with instructions to “bring home the bacon,” in the form of entitlement, welfare, benefits for our short-term enjoyment. But when the pig is dead, there is no more bacon to bring home.
America’s global power begins at home with a strong economy able to generate wealth. The push for defense cuts reflects the weak recovery from recession and a national debt that has doubled in the last 2 years. The Obama Administration has made conscious decisions to squeeze defense while pouring money on everything else.
I think we should get back on the right track of funding defense instead of trying to fund and maintain a faulty and expensive health care bill and support an indefensible Medicare entitlement program.
This blog post was partly excerpted from the Wall Street Journal 5/28/11, pages A14 and A15.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Same-Sex “Marriage”, Why Not?
Many in our country ask the question, “What is so wrong with same-sex “marriage”? I do not see that it is harming me. If someone wants to marry a person of the same gender, let him do it. It really makes no difference to anyone but himself.”
These arguments do not stand the test of careful scrutiny. Following are the reasons why same sex “marriage” is not good for our people:
1. For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow same-sex “marriage”, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples.
2. Same-sex “marriage” violates what is obviously biologically abnormal.
3. Many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender. Under same-sex “marriage” arrangements, more children will grow up fatherless and confused about what constitutes a normal marriage.
4. The role of marriage in society is a major topic taught in public schools. If SSM (same-sex “marriage”) is legalized, schools would be required to teach that SSM is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, starting as early as Kindergarten. That would violate the beliefs of many parents.
5. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will force government, industry, and business to financially subsidize an institution to which they have moral objections, thereby intruding on the people’s ability to make moral judgments. Business will have to raise prices in order to insure significant others.
6. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will lead to the legalization of polygamy and other abnormal forms of “marriage.”
In his 1934 work, Sex and Culture, British anthropologist, J.D. Unwin studied 80 societies, analyzing their cultural beliefs and practices, especially as related to sex and marriage. He concluded that the more sexual opportunity a society had—that is the fewer restraints placed on sexual habits—the less energetic that society would be. In other words, the more sexually promiscuous a society is, the less it will accomplish constructive works in literature, law, inventiveness, etc. When sexual opportunity began to be extended in both pre-marital and extra-marital sexual freedom, Unwin found that such cultures began to decay.
Our society, today, is playing loose with our sexual morals, including allowing same-sex “marriage.” We can expect on the basis of Unwin’s discoveries that our society will, also, suffer cultural loss as a result of these social mistakes.
I can testify that in my personal experience, the above conclusion is true. Nancy and I have been largely occupied fighting sexual infidelity since the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in America in 1973. We have spent untold hours and dollars combatting perversions of sexual practice, including abortion. Those hours and all that money might have been better used if we had not had such a blatant offence to common decency operative in America.
Would that morality would return to the shores of America once more, so that those of us involved in the Pro-Life movement could spend our time and resources on something else!
These arguments do not stand the test of careful scrutiny. Following are the reasons why same sex “marriage” is not good for our people:
1. For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow same-sex “marriage”, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples.
2. Same-sex “marriage” violates what is obviously biologically abnormal.
3. Many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender. Under same-sex “marriage” arrangements, more children will grow up fatherless and confused about what constitutes a normal marriage.
4. The role of marriage in society is a major topic taught in public schools. If SSM (same-sex “marriage”) is legalized, schools would be required to teach that SSM is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, starting as early as Kindergarten. That would violate the beliefs of many parents.
5. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will force government, industry, and business to financially subsidize an institution to which they have moral objections, thereby intruding on the people’s ability to make moral judgments. Business will have to raise prices in order to insure significant others.
6. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will lead to the legalization of polygamy and other abnormal forms of “marriage.”
In his 1934 work, Sex and Culture, British anthropologist, J.D. Unwin studied 80 societies, analyzing their cultural beliefs and practices, especially as related to sex and marriage. He concluded that the more sexual opportunity a society had—that is the fewer restraints placed on sexual habits—the less energetic that society would be. In other words, the more sexually promiscuous a society is, the less it will accomplish constructive works in literature, law, inventiveness, etc. When sexual opportunity began to be extended in both pre-marital and extra-marital sexual freedom, Unwin found that such cultures began to decay.
Our society, today, is playing loose with our sexual morals, including allowing same-sex “marriage.” We can expect on the basis of Unwin’s discoveries that our society will, also, suffer cultural loss as a result of these social mistakes.
I can testify that in my personal experience, the above conclusion is true. Nancy and I have been largely occupied fighting sexual infidelity since the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in America in 1973. We have spent untold hours and dollars combatting perversions of sexual practice, including abortion. Those hours and all that money might have been better used if we had not had such a blatant offence to common decency operative in America.
Would that morality would return to the shores of America once more, so that those of us involved in the Pro-Life movement could spend our time and resources on something else!
Saturday, May 21, 2011
You Can Help Cut Health Care Costs, Yourself!
Often, patients do not realize that doctors have no idea what their medical orders and prescriptions actually cost. Helping your doctor understand what his orders cost you will help cut health care costs.
In the May issue of Archives of Surgery, a study was published from Rhode Island Hospital in Providence. The authors simply informed the staff doctors of the cost of “routine” lab tests, which the doctors were ordering.
At the beginning of the 11 week study, the daily cost per non-intensive care patient was $147.73. At the end, the daily cost had dipped to $108.11.
Staff doctors were not coerced into ordering fewer tests. They were only informed of the cost of the lab tests. This simple procedure decreased hospital costs dramatically.
You can do essentially the same thing with your doctor. Just let him/her know how much his prescriptions are costing. Tell him how much out-of-pocket money it cost you, and tell him what the actual, total, cost of the medicine was, which was paid by your insurance.
You might be surprised how this simple action will decrease your health care costs.
In the May issue of Archives of Surgery, a study was published from Rhode Island Hospital in Providence. The authors simply informed the staff doctors of the cost of “routine” lab tests, which the doctors were ordering.
At the beginning of the 11 week study, the daily cost per non-intensive care patient was $147.73. At the end, the daily cost had dipped to $108.11.
Staff doctors were not coerced into ordering fewer tests. They were only informed of the cost of the lab tests. This simple procedure decreased hospital costs dramatically.
You can do essentially the same thing with your doctor. Just let him/her know how much his prescriptions are costing. Tell him how much out-of-pocket money it cost you, and tell him what the actual, total, cost of the medicine was, which was paid by your insurance.
You might be surprised how this simple action will decrease your health care costs.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Should Christians Be Political?
(A reprint from the pen of Jordan Sekulow and posted in the Washington Post 5/13/11)
Christians often struggle with Romans 13:1-5, which talks about a Christian’s duties to the state.
“Everyone must submit to the governing authorities,” the passage reads, “for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God.” After reading that passage, some ask “why, then should we be involved in politics, support wars, or campaign for human rights?“ If we stop reading there, it is easy to conclude that not only is it unimportant but that it is actually wrong for Christians to be active in politics, whether through grassroots electoral efforts, lawsuits protecting religious freedom or questioning the government.
Eric Metaxas, author of the celebrated, comprehensive biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer shed some light on this tension on my radio show this week.
“God forbid that the church would just hide in little religious issues and say, you know, ‘That’s not my business, I can’t get involved in politics,’ ” Metaxas said. “Not getting involved in politics is just as bad, just as heretical, as making an idol of politics.”
How do we get from Romans 13:1 to calling the church’s political silence heretical?
Bonhoeffer himself, as well as the verses that follow Romans 13:1, help us get there. Let’s begin with the Scripture:
“So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. For government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong.”
The government in Romans 13 is a godly government. This does not mean that to meet this definition a government needs to be Christian, nor should it be a theocracy. A Romans 13 government promotes justice, provides security, and protects the freedom of its people, regardless of religious belief or background. In the United States, we shape the government with our votes. Thus, it is our responsibility to do what we can to ensure that our government lives up to these basic principles.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and outspoken opponent of the Third Reich. When the Nazis found out that he was assisting Jews, he was thrown in jail and later transferred to and executed in a concentration camp because of his role in a plot to kill Hitler.
Fortunately, many of Bonhoeffer’s speeches, personal notes, and letters are accessible to all of us thanks to Metaxas. As he worked to build church opposition to the Reich, Bonhoeffer offered “three possible ways in which the church can act towards the state.” Metaxas explains:
First: The church must, Bonhoeffer says, “continually ask the state whether its action can be justified as legitimate action of the state, i.e., as action which leads to law and order, and not to lawlessness and disorder.” In other words, it is the church’s role to help the state be the state…
If the state is creating “excessive law and order,” then “the state develops its power to such an extent that it deprives Christian preaching and Christian faith . . . of their right . . . The state which endangers the Christian proclamation negates itself.”
Second, the church must “aid the victims of state action.” We have an “unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the Christian community.”
Third, the church should not merely “bandage the victims under the wheel, but … put a spoke in the wheel itself.” As Metaxas explains,
“It is sometimes not enough to help those crushed by the evil actions of a state; at some point the church must directly take action against the state to stop it from perpetrating evil. This, he [Bonhoeffer] said, is permitted only when the church sees its very existence threatened by the state, and when the state ceases to be the state as defined by God.”
In America, individual Christians and the church have an “unconditional obligation” to be involved in politics. The government of the United States is a direct reflection of the people of the United States. We elect our leaders and are to a great extent responsible for their conduct. Unlike Bonhoeffer and others who to this day are forced by their conscience to put their lives at risk and join resistance movements, in America, we can “put a spoke in the wheel” of our government by simply casting a vote and speaking out for what we believe in.
(And now, a note from myself: In America the people ARE the state. We absolutely MUST take part in the deliberations and activities of our government. Ed Manring)
Christians often struggle with Romans 13:1-5, which talks about a Christian’s duties to the state.
“Everyone must submit to the governing authorities,” the passage reads, “for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God.” After reading that passage, some ask “why, then should we be involved in politics, support wars, or campaign for human rights?“ If we stop reading there, it is easy to conclude that not only is it unimportant but that it is actually wrong for Christians to be active in politics, whether through grassroots electoral efforts, lawsuits protecting religious freedom or questioning the government.
Eric Metaxas, author of the celebrated, comprehensive biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer shed some light on this tension on my radio show this week.
“God forbid that the church would just hide in little religious issues and say, you know, ‘That’s not my business, I can’t get involved in politics,’ ” Metaxas said. “Not getting involved in politics is just as bad, just as heretical, as making an idol of politics.”
How do we get from Romans 13:1 to calling the church’s political silence heretical?
Bonhoeffer himself, as well as the verses that follow Romans 13:1, help us get there. Let’s begin with the Scripture:
“So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. For government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong.”
The government in Romans 13 is a godly government. This does not mean that to meet this definition a government needs to be Christian, nor should it be a theocracy. A Romans 13 government promotes justice, provides security, and protects the freedom of its people, regardless of religious belief or background. In the United States, we shape the government with our votes. Thus, it is our responsibility to do what we can to ensure that our government lives up to these basic principles.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and outspoken opponent of the Third Reich. When the Nazis found out that he was assisting Jews, he was thrown in jail and later transferred to and executed in a concentration camp because of his role in a plot to kill Hitler.
Fortunately, many of Bonhoeffer’s speeches, personal notes, and letters are accessible to all of us thanks to Metaxas. As he worked to build church opposition to the Reich, Bonhoeffer offered “three possible ways in which the church can act towards the state.” Metaxas explains:
First: The church must, Bonhoeffer says, “continually ask the state whether its action can be justified as legitimate action of the state, i.e., as action which leads to law and order, and not to lawlessness and disorder.” In other words, it is the church’s role to help the state be the state…
If the state is creating “excessive law and order,” then “the state develops its power to such an extent that it deprives Christian preaching and Christian faith . . . of their right . . . The state which endangers the Christian proclamation negates itself.”
Second, the church must “aid the victims of state action.” We have an “unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the Christian community.”
Third, the church should not merely “bandage the victims under the wheel, but … put a spoke in the wheel itself.” As Metaxas explains,
“It is sometimes not enough to help those crushed by the evil actions of a state; at some point the church must directly take action against the state to stop it from perpetrating evil. This, he [Bonhoeffer] said, is permitted only when the church sees its very existence threatened by the state, and when the state ceases to be the state as defined by God.”
In America, individual Christians and the church have an “unconditional obligation” to be involved in politics. The government of the United States is a direct reflection of the people of the United States. We elect our leaders and are to a great extent responsible for their conduct. Unlike Bonhoeffer and others who to this day are forced by their conscience to put their lives at risk and join resistance movements, in America, we can “put a spoke in the wheel” of our government by simply casting a vote and speaking out for what we believe in.
(And now, a note from myself: In America the people ARE the state. We absolutely MUST take part in the deliberations and activities of our government. Ed Manring)
Saturday, May 14, 2011
National Health Preview
I have been all in favor of several features of the new ObamaCare bill at one time; but now I am beginning to have second thoughts. The state of Massachusetts has a law called CommonwealthCare, which is an almost exact copy of the new ObamaCare bill. We can learn a lot about how ObamaCare will work by looking at CommonwealthCare.
A survey of medical care delivery in Massachusetts was recently done by the Massachusetts Medical Society. Following are some of the results of the survey:
Fewer than half of the state’s primary care practices are accepting new patients, down from 70% in 2007 before the Massachusetts law came into being. The average wait time for a check-up with an internist is 48 days. It takes 43 days to secure and appointment with a gastroenterologist for chronic heartburn, up from 36 last year. It now requires 41 days to secure an appointment with an OB/GYN, up from 34 last year.
Health insurance premiums in Massachusetts are among the highest in the nation.
Emergency room visits jumped 9% between 2004 and 2008, due, probably, to lack of access to primary care providers.
Medical care providers are refusing to accept CommonwealthCare payments for treating patients. Only 43% of internists and 56% of family physicians accept CommonwealthCare in payment for their services. The respective figures for acceptance of price-controlled Medicaid are 53% and 62%.
ObamaCare looked good at first to many people; but I think we should all take a hard second look. This thing will begin to effect the health care delivery system in the whole nation exactly as it has affected Massachusetts.
A survey of medical care delivery in Massachusetts was recently done by the Massachusetts Medical Society. Following are some of the results of the survey:
Fewer than half of the state’s primary care practices are accepting new patients, down from 70% in 2007 before the Massachusetts law came into being. The average wait time for a check-up with an internist is 48 days. It takes 43 days to secure and appointment with a gastroenterologist for chronic heartburn, up from 36 last year. It now requires 41 days to secure an appointment with an OB/GYN, up from 34 last year.
Health insurance premiums in Massachusetts are among the highest in the nation.
Emergency room visits jumped 9% between 2004 and 2008, due, probably, to lack of access to primary care providers.
Medical care providers are refusing to accept CommonwealthCare payments for treating patients. Only 43% of internists and 56% of family physicians accept CommonwealthCare in payment for their services. The respective figures for acceptance of price-controlled Medicaid are 53% and 62%.
ObamaCare looked good at first to many people; but I think we should all take a hard second look. This thing will begin to effect the health care delivery system in the whole nation exactly as it has affected Massachusetts.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Is Your Ideology Transcendent?
Or, in other words, does everyone believe your world view? Is your way the way everything should work? Almost all of us human beings have pre-set opinions of how things should be; and we almost always react to changes in public policy, ethical changes, moral issues, etc. with a knee-jerk response conditioned by our pre-set opinions. As we grow older, our responses become even more stereotyped—we do not waste any more time carefully evaluating the things we do and say. In other words, we have made up our minds about what we think.
We all like to think that we rationally evaluate all the choices we see washing over us in the media; but, in truth, we are usually dominated by our preconceived ideological determinants. Once fully formed, our ideologies are durable things; but sometimes we will have second thoughts.
How are our world views (ideologies) formed in the first place? Most of us adopt the views of our parents. Not a few, however, adopt just the opposite views from their parents, because they have not liked what they have seen in their primary families. Of course, there are also other influences, e.g., economic and social interests, racial and ethnic characteristics, religious convictions, genetic predispositions, the influence of peers and respected authority figures (especially college professors), and last—but not least—there may be some rational thinking.
We need to remember that other people go through the same processes in forming worldviews; and we must consider their views. We must, also, learn to doubt our own views to some extent, at least, if we are to live in a social world and come to the best consensus.
One thing the Enlightenment thinkers added to our armamentarium of useful ideas was that in the aftermath of Reformation wars about religion, it was necessary to develop a domesticated Christianity purged of the doctrinal certainties and intensities that had torn Europe apart for decades. Society had to learn that it was not God’s will that we kill each other over disagreements about God’s will.
We should, of course, always try to keep our eye and heart on God’s revealed word in making decisions and always try to apply the Golden Rule in our thoughts and actions. But…we must, also, at the same time recognize that there is a broad scope of civilizing tasks before us. We must do the best we can, using common sense, in the attempt to solve our every-day problems as they arise.
This blog post was excerpted from First Things May 2011, pages 3 & 4.
We all like to think that we rationally evaluate all the choices we see washing over us in the media; but, in truth, we are usually dominated by our preconceived ideological determinants. Once fully formed, our ideologies are durable things; but sometimes we will have second thoughts.
How are our world views (ideologies) formed in the first place? Most of us adopt the views of our parents. Not a few, however, adopt just the opposite views from their parents, because they have not liked what they have seen in their primary families. Of course, there are also other influences, e.g., economic and social interests, racial and ethnic characteristics, religious convictions, genetic predispositions, the influence of peers and respected authority figures (especially college professors), and last—but not least—there may be some rational thinking.
We need to remember that other people go through the same processes in forming worldviews; and we must consider their views. We must, also, learn to doubt our own views to some extent, at least, if we are to live in a social world and come to the best consensus.
One thing the Enlightenment thinkers added to our armamentarium of useful ideas was that in the aftermath of Reformation wars about religion, it was necessary to develop a domesticated Christianity purged of the doctrinal certainties and intensities that had torn Europe apart for decades. Society had to learn that it was not God’s will that we kill each other over disagreements about God’s will.
We should, of course, always try to keep our eye and heart on God’s revealed word in making decisions and always try to apply the Golden Rule in our thoughts and actions. But…we must, also, at the same time recognize that there is a broad scope of civilizing tasks before us. We must do the best we can, using common sense, in the attempt to solve our every-day problems as they arise.
This blog post was excerpted from First Things May 2011, pages 3 & 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
