It was reported today that one of Obama's appointees, Arleen Ocasio, director of the National Cemetery for Houston, TX has decided that people honoring their military dead at funerals cannot mention God, or Jesus. They are not allowed to offer up prayers unless approved by the director. Others cannot offer condolences or blessings if God or Jesus are mentioned.
This is an affront to Christians of any denomination. This is an offense to military personnel and families. It is an insult to the men and women who have given their lives to defend our country and Constitution.
The director, Arleen Ocasio, should be fired. An apology from her is not enough. The Veterans Administration must give an apology to the veterans in Houston, and to veteran families nation-wide.
If these actions do not tell you how low in this administration's esteem both Christians and the military are, you aren't paying attention. Call, or email your congressman and senator to demand action. It is time for us to let the offenders know we are offended by this treatment. For too long we have been quiet, when atheists (ACLU) demand no prayer in schools, no Ten Commandments in court rooms, no manger scenes at Christmas, no mention of Christmas or Easter, and so on and so on. We have been quiet when told, mistakenly I believe.
It is time to 'stand and deliver.'
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Can We Trust the Oregon Politicians with our Tax Kicker?
The State of Oregon is required to return money to the tax payers, in addition to any refunds they may have earned, if the taxes collected is greater than two percent of the official estimated revenues.
The voters of Oregon approved this after 1979. The politicians have rued that day ever since. They have whined, pleaded and threatened cataclysmic events if the ‘kick-back’ wasn’t eliminated. Now they want to establish a ‘rainy day fund’ by keeping about one-half of the mandated refund. The politicians want to keep the money to stabilize the amounts the government can spend.
This proposal was brought forward by two Oregon state senators: Frank Morse and Ginny Burdick. My family and his family are from the same town in the Willamette Valley. I feel I know Frank and believe I can trust his motives. I don’t know Ginny, and don’t trust her – she’s Democrat, after all (my bias is obvious). Ginny and her party have been in the power in the legislature and governorship for the last several decades – and as one editorial put it “government spending … ballooned”. It didn’t matter if the times were good or were bad, the spending ballooned. It didn’t matter whether the tax revenue was above or below estimate, spending ballooned. It didn’t matter if the government had the money or not, spending ballooned.
The basic problem we have with the politicians is they can’t be trusted to live within our means, or budgets. Knowing the revenues were going to be down in a down economy they still spent the money. We have learned that those we are supposed to trust have proved otherwise. We are not being represented – we are being ruled.
It will always be a rainy day – always. The Legislature will not limit spending - have they so far? Both Morse and Burdick noted the Legislature chooses to spend money, even if it isn’t there. This is especially troubling when they set up programs that cannot be supported. The state needs to limit spending – it needs to be locked into the Oregon Constitution, but that is for a different discussion.
The voters, if we get the opportunity, should tell them ‘NO!” To quote a commercial, “It’s my money, and I want it now!” The only way to keep the state of Oregon from spending us into oblivion is to keep them from getting the funds – and replace the spend-thrifts with responsible legislators.
The voters of Oregon approved this after 1979. The politicians have rued that day ever since. They have whined, pleaded and threatened cataclysmic events if the ‘kick-back’ wasn’t eliminated. Now they want to establish a ‘rainy day fund’ by keeping about one-half of the mandated refund. The politicians want to keep the money to stabilize the amounts the government can spend.
This proposal was brought forward by two Oregon state senators: Frank Morse and Ginny Burdick. My family and his family are from the same town in the Willamette Valley. I feel I know Frank and believe I can trust his motives. I don’t know Ginny, and don’t trust her – she’s Democrat, after all (my bias is obvious). Ginny and her party have been in the power in the legislature and governorship for the last several decades – and as one editorial put it “government spending … ballooned”. It didn’t matter if the times were good or were bad, the spending ballooned. It didn’t matter whether the tax revenue was above or below estimate, spending ballooned. It didn’t matter if the government had the money or not, spending ballooned.
The basic problem we have with the politicians is they can’t be trusted to live within our means, or budgets. Knowing the revenues were going to be down in a down economy they still spent the money. We have learned that those we are supposed to trust have proved otherwise. We are not being represented – we are being ruled.
It will always be a rainy day – always. The Legislature will not limit spending - have they so far? Both Morse and Burdick noted the Legislature chooses to spend money, even if it isn’t there. This is especially troubling when they set up programs that cannot be supported. The state needs to limit spending – it needs to be locked into the Oregon Constitution, but that is for a different discussion.
The voters, if we get the opportunity, should tell them ‘NO!” To quote a commercial, “It’s my money, and I want it now!” The only way to keep the state of Oregon from spending us into oblivion is to keep them from getting the funds – and replace the spend-thrifts with responsible legislators.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Being 'Pro-School' in Oregon
I read an editorial by S. Nielsen about a new definition of being ‘Pro-Schools’ in the 20-Mar Oregonian paper: the article indicated that Oregon liberals tend to “lock arms with teachers and lobby for more money, They’d fend off most reforms as divisive or anti-union…” But now there’s a whole new approach.
Now if the truth were to be told, that’s not quite true. Note none of the ‘approaches’ suggested came from the teachers’ unions. Schools in communities across the state are forced to close schools, lay off teachers. Where are the teachers stepping up to solve the problem? They must be picking who gets fired first, being grateful that seniority will protect them another year. Waiting and hoping for more ‘stimulus funds’ – which provides little long term economic benefit. There is no smiley face – the inevitable crash has just been delayed – these are not remedies, purposely ignoring the problem.
Oregon has big problems, and taxing the few to death to support even fewer is not the solution. Our problem is not vilification of the teachers. (BTW: almost all of the vilification of Wisconsin teachers and unions was self-inflicted. Their actions betrayed their character. It did not require the governor or the legislature to say one bad thing about them. It is difficult to find denigration of the teachers coming from the Republicans. It was the Democrats that ran away rather than face the fact their agenda had been rejected by the voters.) Yet the financial problem remains – the teacher and public service unions stubbornly balk at helping by making reasonable concessions.
Look at the examples shown in the editorial: the Black Parent Initiative wants better teachers to be retained to improve the education of their children. I would bet the teachers’ union wants no part of this. The Portland Business Alliance demands ‘major oversight’ if billions of dollars are going to be dredged up for the education system. I would bet the teachers’ union wants no part of this. Oversight and getting rid of mediocre employees involves taking responsibility for the end product. This concept is an anathema to entrenched unions - which hold to the concept of ‘it all pays the same’ whether you work hard or not. And as for the last example – that the legislators have finally seen the light – maybe not so much. The Oregon legislators are still knee deep in figuring out how to get more taxes (e.g., reducing the kicker) than in cutting expenditures. I have yet to see an attempt to decide that not “everything we want (zoo! arts! children’s levy! libraries! streetcars!)” is on the chopping block. Are the legislators truly taking a hard look at what is required, what is constitutional, rather than what makes them feel good?
“None of this is comfortable.” It will not be easy to reduce the size of a bloated, run-away government, one that wants to control minute pieces of our private lives. This control is not free – it costs money (more taxes) and more public employees (more taxes) to implement the soft tyranny. Churches and charities face oversight – remember, most of these organizations do not have the ability to force you to pay, your contribution is voluntary and they eventually must answer for their decisions. The schools need to adopt best practices, accountability, and responsibility, because the schools are not underfunded. They may not be Scrooge McDuck, swimming in cash, but they are fully funded, under-performing, and unwilling to change. This is an unsustainable triumvirate. The schools might deserve more money when they start providing an acceptable product – educated children - and quit shoving the blame on the parents, the buildings, the tax payers. “It’s not my fault” just won’t cut it any more.
Now if the truth were to be told, that’s not quite true. Note none of the ‘approaches’ suggested came from the teachers’ unions. Schools in communities across the state are forced to close schools, lay off teachers. Where are the teachers stepping up to solve the problem? They must be picking who gets fired first, being grateful that seniority will protect them another year. Waiting and hoping for more ‘stimulus funds’ – which provides little long term economic benefit. There is no smiley face – the inevitable crash has just been delayed – these are not remedies, purposely ignoring the problem.
Oregon has big problems, and taxing the few to death to support even fewer is not the solution. Our problem is not vilification of the teachers. (BTW: almost all of the vilification of Wisconsin teachers and unions was self-inflicted. Their actions betrayed their character. It did not require the governor or the legislature to say one bad thing about them. It is difficult to find denigration of the teachers coming from the Republicans. It was the Democrats that ran away rather than face the fact their agenda had been rejected by the voters.) Yet the financial problem remains – the teacher and public service unions stubbornly balk at helping by making reasonable concessions.
Look at the examples shown in the editorial: the Black Parent Initiative wants better teachers to be retained to improve the education of their children. I would bet the teachers’ union wants no part of this. The Portland Business Alliance demands ‘major oversight’ if billions of dollars are going to be dredged up for the education system. I would bet the teachers’ union wants no part of this. Oversight and getting rid of mediocre employees involves taking responsibility for the end product. This concept is an anathema to entrenched unions - which hold to the concept of ‘it all pays the same’ whether you work hard or not. And as for the last example – that the legislators have finally seen the light – maybe not so much. The Oregon legislators are still knee deep in figuring out how to get more taxes (e.g., reducing the kicker) than in cutting expenditures. I have yet to see an attempt to decide that not “everything we want (zoo! arts! children’s levy! libraries! streetcars!)” is on the chopping block. Are the legislators truly taking a hard look at what is required, what is constitutional, rather than what makes them feel good?
“None of this is comfortable.” It will not be easy to reduce the size of a bloated, run-away government, one that wants to control minute pieces of our private lives. This control is not free – it costs money (more taxes) and more public employees (more taxes) to implement the soft tyranny. Churches and charities face oversight – remember, most of these organizations do not have the ability to force you to pay, your contribution is voluntary and they eventually must answer for their decisions. The schools need to adopt best practices, accountability, and responsibility, because the schools are not underfunded. They may not be Scrooge McDuck, swimming in cash, but they are fully funded, under-performing, and unwilling to change. This is an unsustainable triumvirate. The schools might deserve more money when they start providing an acceptable product – educated children - and quit shoving the blame on the parents, the buildings, the tax payers. “It’s not my fault” just won’t cut it any more.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)