New GSA Video demonstrates excesses and Racism
A video posted on Washington Wire, purportedly shows the excesses of of the Government Services Agency who paid for the video's production. At about the two minute mark, the video shows the tag ARRA (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act) as a headline, followed by two minorities receiving cash from the lead in the video. The third character is a middle-aged white male who is turned down for cash by the singer.
The point is subtle, but it creates the perception that the ARRA was only for minorities. It further demonstrates the careless disregard for the tax payor dollars the federal government collects for the "benefit" of the people.
I would ask that everyone who reads this take the time to ask their representatives to investigate the development of this scripted video to see if their was an overt attempt to promote this video and the covered programs as for minorities.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
WWJD?
This week, President Obama made a scriptural reference in a speech about taxing the rich. Quoting the Gospel of Luke, the President iterated the point about, "To whom much is given, much is required."
It is ironic that Mr. Obama would use a religious reference in a week that he has hammered religion, now requiring religious affiliated organizations to offer health care, despite objections of conscience that have always been honored in the past.
That irony still escapes the basic false premise in the scripture reference he used. Jesus was not intending that the much that would be required would be given to Caesar (even though he did say, "Render unto Caesar..." No, the Gospels were not intended to be a mechanism with which to fund the governments of the world. They were intended to encourage all of us to look within ourselves, to find a transformation of self, and in doing so, commit ourselves to help others. That means, me, doing what I can for someone or some people as I can. It does not mean that a government, overblown and bereft of capability to actually help people should become the vessel by which this help is delivered. More importantly, it was not intended by the founders to be the plan for our government.
President Obama has been around long enough for people to finally recognize the both sides of his mouth he talks out of. Perhaps, and just maybe, if the Federal government got out of the business of confiscating as much money as they do, that we all could do more to help our communities, churches and our own families.
It is ironic that Mr. Obama would use a religious reference in a week that he has hammered religion, now requiring religious affiliated organizations to offer health care, despite objections of conscience that have always been honored in the past.
That irony still escapes the basic false premise in the scripture reference he used. Jesus was not intending that the much that would be required would be given to Caesar (even though he did say, "Render unto Caesar..." No, the Gospels were not intended to be a mechanism with which to fund the governments of the world. They were intended to encourage all of us to look within ourselves, to find a transformation of self, and in doing so, commit ourselves to help others. That means, me, doing what I can for someone or some people as I can. It does not mean that a government, overblown and bereft of capability to actually help people should become the vessel by which this help is delivered. More importantly, it was not intended by the founders to be the plan for our government.
President Obama has been around long enough for people to finally recognize the both sides of his mouth he talks out of. Perhaps, and just maybe, if the Federal government got out of the business of confiscating as much money as they do, that we all could do more to help our communities, churches and our own families.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Turning on the hand that hasn't fed you
As the Republican Party enters the selection process for its national nominee for the Office of the President of the United States, two things have become very clear:
Mitt Romney is clearly the man to beat, and everyone else is determined to let their egos do as much damage to every frontrunner as possible.
The need for this nation is to become more jobs-friendly, less governmentally intrusive, less socially intrusive and return to the core principles the founders made is too great to ignore. Rather than spend like there is no tomorrow to keep the people enslaved in their dependence to the government dole, we need to adopt an old vision that saw hard work rewarded by success.
We have misread, through the commerce clause, the phrase, "...promote the general welfare," to mean a governmental guarantee for our existence. While borne out of a need to help those most in need decades ago, we now have expanded the definition of need to include a family of four making in excess of 50,000 per year. This isn't the only problem.
When sausage-making process that is the legislature in Washington, DC, rarely considers the long-term impact those laws have on the nation. When Barney Frank and Chris Dodd led the charge in the 90's for affordable home ownership, it was seen as a mechanism to increase home ownership among minorities. While home ownership is seen as a good thing, in order to make homes more affordable, banks and the MACs corrupted the system to use ARM mortgages and zero down qualifier language. In order to diversify risk, banks began bundling these high risk mortgages with "safer" ones and thus began the eventual collapse of the housing and banking industries.
This failure to foresee phenomenon is called blow back. It is a failure of strategic leadership to not consider what things look like when scaled out or up to hundreds of thousands of units. Although started under Bill Clinton, the program was not monitored properly under George W. Bush and magnified intensely to the point that a blip in the economy as experienced in late 2007 (I discussed this when the TIF plan was brought forward for Prairie Winds Subdivision at Sidney City Council), namely the "freeze" period in these ARM loans was expiring, people began to default on their mortgages due to the exorbitant increases in their monthly payments. Multiply this times hundreds of thousands and you get where we have gotten.
This nation needs fiscal conservatism more that social conservatism. While possible to coexist, the hugely divisive electorate since 2000 means that left and right are further apart than ever in our history. Mitt Romney would be better served to sit a little taller in his conservative saddle by realizing that swift action to reform entitlements, including the eventual dissolution of social security (replaced by some other government monitored, but private plan) would be in the long-term best interest of the nation. Get government out of the practice of certifying marriage for tax purposes. Don't fight civil unions for gays and lesbians.
Romney would do well to take what is appealing from his rivals and integrate it into his strategy. He must do so in a thoughtful way that does not alienate his challengers or their supporters, because we know how good Barack Obama is at making speeches. We, as conservatives, need not give the President any greater opportunity to wreak greater havoc on the country.
A friend mine had a bumper sticker once that had the message, "Visualize no liberals." Nearly four years of empty promises later, I hope for the nation's sake that the liberals turn on the hand that hasn't fed them.
Mitt Romney is clearly the man to beat, and everyone else is determined to let their egos do as much damage to every frontrunner as possible.
The need for this nation is to become more jobs-friendly, less governmentally intrusive, less socially intrusive and return to the core principles the founders made is too great to ignore. Rather than spend like there is no tomorrow to keep the people enslaved in their dependence to the government dole, we need to adopt an old vision that saw hard work rewarded by success.
We have misread, through the commerce clause, the phrase, "...promote the general welfare," to mean a governmental guarantee for our existence. While borne out of a need to help those most in need decades ago, we now have expanded the definition of need to include a family of four making in excess of 50,000 per year. This isn't the only problem.
When sausage-making process that is the legislature in Washington, DC, rarely considers the long-term impact those laws have on the nation. When Barney Frank and Chris Dodd led the charge in the 90's for affordable home ownership, it was seen as a mechanism to increase home ownership among minorities. While home ownership is seen as a good thing, in order to make homes more affordable, banks and the MACs corrupted the system to use ARM mortgages and zero down qualifier language. In order to diversify risk, banks began bundling these high risk mortgages with "safer" ones and thus began the eventual collapse of the housing and banking industries.
This failure to foresee phenomenon is called blow back. It is a failure of strategic leadership to not consider what things look like when scaled out or up to hundreds of thousands of units. Although started under Bill Clinton, the program was not monitored properly under George W. Bush and magnified intensely to the point that a blip in the economy as experienced in late 2007 (I discussed this when the TIF plan was brought forward for Prairie Winds Subdivision at Sidney City Council), namely the "freeze" period in these ARM loans was expiring, people began to default on their mortgages due to the exorbitant increases in their monthly payments. Multiply this times hundreds of thousands and you get where we have gotten.
This nation needs fiscal conservatism more that social conservatism. While possible to coexist, the hugely divisive electorate since 2000 means that left and right are further apart than ever in our history. Mitt Romney would be better served to sit a little taller in his conservative saddle by realizing that swift action to reform entitlements, including the eventual dissolution of social security (replaced by some other government monitored, but private plan) would be in the long-term best interest of the nation. Get government out of the practice of certifying marriage for tax purposes. Don't fight civil unions for gays and lesbians.
Romney would do well to take what is appealing from his rivals and integrate it into his strategy. He must do so in a thoughtful way that does not alienate his challengers or their supporters, because we know how good Barack Obama is at making speeches. We, as conservatives, need not give the President any greater opportunity to wreak greater havoc on the country.
A friend mine had a bumper sticker once that had the message, "Visualize no liberals." Nearly four years of empty promises later, I hope for the nation's sake that the liberals turn on the hand that hasn't fed them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)