John H Armstrong

Both Political Parties to Blame for Our Deficits

Republicans blame Democrats and Democrats blame the Republicans but the truth is that both parties are responsible for our rising deficits. The numbers for the deficit that ended with the year on September 30 show that we had a deficit budget of $1.4 trillion over the last twelve months. This is the largest deficit in dollars ever and it is the largest deficit  relative to the economy since the U. S. emerged from World War II in 1945. Put in simple English the government borrowed 40 cents on every dollar it spent this last year. Could your family sustain such spending? Well, the leaders in Washington will hardly tell you the real truth here but neither can the U. S. government.

Advocates will say that all this spending was needed to avoid a depression. I largely agree but the problem is still so immense that this is not a solution, only an explanation of some sort. With tax revenue in sharp decline this deficit problem is even greater than it seems at first glance. Both the President and the Democrats refuse to remove various expenditures that are not really necessary. Why? They want to retain power. The White House budget director says once the recovery is secure they will unveil a plan to restore sanity to spending (next February). Seeing will be believing to my way of thinking.

But the Republicans have offered few real plans to fix a problem that they helped to create under their watch. The Clinton era left us with a large surplus but the Bush era spent it like a drunken sailor. Where was fiscal conservatism when the Republicans passed a massively expensive drug benefit program for seniors? Where was it when the Bush administration committed us to two long wars at such huge cost? If you know anything about how empires have collapsed in history you can readily see the connection to spending overseas under the plan of "nation building." Republicans tout tax cuts, with which I agree, but they hardly ever promote spending cuts since they think they will not win re-election with that approach. They show no courage on the whole.

So who is to blame? Everyone and no one. We have not learned, as a society that saying "charge it" will ruin us in the end. If you want to find a way to see how America could collapse under its own weight look no further than this financial mess that the Congress refuses to seriously address.

The Nobel Peace Prize Debate

It seems like everyone had a field day a few weeks ago about the granting of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. I admit I was stunned when I first heard the news. After reflecting on the prize, and who the committee has given it to over recent years, I was not so surprised. The whole flap did cause me to do a little research into the past winners of the prize and why they were apparently chosen. There have been some interesting winners in the history of this award, to say the least. The most interesting past recipient, at least to me, could be the least well-known of all the winners. I refer to the Christian leader John R. Mott. Mott, who directed the YMCA for some years, was the "father of the ecumenical movement" in the early twentieth century and a Christian of the greatest sort. Mott is featured in my forthcoming book, Your Church Is Too Small, because of his role in promoting unity among Christians for an entire lifetime.

Another winner of the award was Mother Theresa. She was not an international peace maker but stood as an iconic symbol of peace in her efforts to save lives and care for the poor and broken people of the world. Other Christians have won the award but these two stand out in my research.

So should Obama have been given the award? I really have no strong opinion. I lean toward the idea that he should have turned it down (there is a precedent) and waited until he had actually accomplished something in the world that would have warranted it. It seems he got the award based on "hope" more than anything else. While I admire his idea of "hope" I think his actions must match his rhetoric and only time will tell if this is the real case.

What fascinated me even more was the way the Right went after Obama for the award. They mocked him, the award and the hope for peace in no certain order. It seems that we will hear this for three more years so I guess I am getting used to it. We certainly heard it from the other side the previous eight years.

Cal Thomas, who I often read with interest, spoke of the award as "misnamed." He said the award was "an inside job in which liberal, wishful-thinking humanists give awards to each other." I think that is about right. But then Thomas writes about peace itself as if it is a foregone fact that peace is impossible because of sin. He cites Daniel 9:26: "War will continue until the end . . . "

Thomas' argument is that peace generally occurs where aggressive evil is defeated. "Give peace a chance" is, according to Thomas, an empty slogan. But Thomas then concludes, "The peace prize concept is flawed because the problem of war does not lie with those who would make peace, but with those who would make war." To me this is a fairly typical conservative mistake. I see this as the fallacy of a "false analogy." Let me explain.

While Cal Thomas is correct about the need to defeat evil, at least in certain contexts, his analogy seems to suggest that real peacemaking always involves making new wars against evil. If I read him correctly he is saying that the only way to defeat war-makers (potential or real) is by defeating them militarily. 

I am not a pacifist. I do believe there is a time and place to fight. I do not, however, think that many of the wars of the twentieth century had to be fought. Most of America's wars could have been avoided with the possible exception of World War II. The historical facts are troubling. We entered more than one war because various political forces wanted war. We have even found a way to get around the Congress in terms of making war and this has cost us dearly as a nation.

As a Christian my first call is not to war, or to help fan the flames of conflict, but rather to be a "peacemaker." It seems to me that most conservative Christians forgot this principle. The rush to war is so strong that it defies logic at times. Even following 9/11 the vast majority of us wanted to make someone pay for what "they" did to America. "They" got broader and broader as we rattled our sabers. To be very honest about this I found my patriotic emotions really super-charged in the days that followed 9/11. I am not ashamed of that emotional reaction. What I am ashamed of is that I felt war was the first response. I have changed my mind and honesty compels me to say so. Defending our homeland did not mean we had to invade Iraq. I am prepared to say we should have entered Afghanistan but I am quite unsure that we should attempt to "build a nation" there (if it can even be done). My big question is rather simple: "Why do we Christians adopt one side or the other of this debate as if things are always so black and white when it comes to war?" Where are the real peacemakers, those who may think war is sometimes necessary, but who insist that we be very, very careful about when and where we use military force?

President Obama's Speech in the Classroom: Where's the Poison?

Well, the president that some conservatives call the personal representative of fascism and evil gave his "infamous" education speech yesterday to mark the beginning of a new school year. If this is the first wave in the president's effort to build support for an American version of the Hitler Youth movement then I guess I missed the point. President Obama said and did nothing offensive in these words. Clearly, this was an inspirational lesson from America's highest elected leader. Read the words for yourself. Forget what the right wing talk show hosts told you about this controversy and read the words. Ask yourself one simple question: "What was the great harm in this speech?" And if you took your children out of school because of this speech I have only one question: "Why?" If you are a Christian does your fear increase the likelihood that your children will grow up to be responsible and mature people?

I think the best response to this flap was given by former first lady Laura Bush. She praised Obama for his speech and said she was glad that he gave it. She also said that her husband would not become a critic of this president. How about those who appreciated Bush so much following the example of the former first lady.

Look, there is plenty of room for politics in America. We will have another election cycle next year. I will look critically at the direction of those in power and make a choice for or against their leadership. But between now and then I refuse to engage in the hateful and uncivil speech that I hear coming from so many on the right. Again, my greatest sadness is that this has penetrated into the spiritual life of thousands of our local churches. This very same poison kills ministers and slowly drains the spiritual life right out of a church. It violates the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. If the Apostle Paul wrote about those in authority, and how Christians should respond to them in a vile and violent Roman Empire, why have we stopped listening to Paul and chosen rather to follow people like Beck, Limbaugh and Coulter?

A few weeks ago a good friend of mine, who studies these things rather carefully, noted to me that this president has specifically referred to Jesus Christ by name more than any previous president in his memory. I have not been counting references to Christ, and don't plan to begin, but my sense of things is that this statement is true.

I know, I know. You might say to me, "Yes, he uses the name of Christ but he is doing it with evil motives or purposes." I have no interest in bothering to answer this kind of response. Oppose the man politically for some of his positions, especially his radically pro-choice stance when I find reprehensible. But do not tell me that everything he does is always and only evil. By this standard no one could stand except the hypocritical critics who continue to sow hate and react with fear.

One suggestion: Turn off all the television and radio talk show hosts, left and right, and fill your mind with grace and truth. Your soul will be better for it and your mind will actually begin to experience a calm that you presently do not know from day-to-day. In fact, once you do this tell some of your good friends and urge them to do the same. Listening to these folks is a really serious addiction. The problem is that the addicts need to get off the juice if they are to become healthy again. Be courageous and tell them. They may resent you but if they love grace and truth they might also repent and thank you.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN A NATIONAL ADDRESS TO AMERICA'S SCHOOLCHILDREN

Wakefield High School
Arlington, Virginia

12:06 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. All right, everybody go ahead and have a seat. How is everybody doing today? (Applause.) How about Tim Spicer? (Applause.) I am here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we've got students tuning in from all across America, from kindergarten through 12th grade. And I am just so glad that all could join us today. And I want to thank Wakefield for being such an outstanding host. Give yourselves a big round of applause. (Applause.)

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it's your first day in a new school, so it's understandable if you're a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now -- (applause) -- with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you're in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer and you could've stayed in bed just a little bit longer this morning.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived overseas. I lived in Indonesia for a few years. And my mother, she didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school, but she thought it was important for me to keep up with an American education. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday. But because she had to go to work, the only time she could do it was at 4:30 in the morning.

Now, as you might imagine, I wasn't too happy about getting up that early. And a lot of times, I'd fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I'd complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and she'd say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster." (Laughter.)

So I know that some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I'm here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I'm here because I want to talk with you about your education and what's expected of all of you in this new school year.

Now, I've given a lot of speeches about education. And I've talked about responsibility a lot.

I've talked about teachers' responsibility for inspiring students and pushing you to learn.

I've talked about your parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and you get your homework done, and don't spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with the Xbox.

I've talked a lot about your government's responsibility for setting high standards, and supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren't working, where students aren't getting the opportunities that they deserve.

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, the best schools in the world -- and none of it will make a difference, none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities, unless you show up to those schools, unless you pay attention to those teachers, unless you listen to your parents and grandparents and other adults and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. That's what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education.

I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something that you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide.

Maybe you could be a great writer -- maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper -- but you might not know it until you write that English paper -- that English class paper that's assigned to you. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor -- maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or the new medicine or vaccine -- but you might not know it until you do your project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a senator or a Supreme Court justice -- but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life, I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You're going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You cannot drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You've got to train for it and work for it and learn for it.

And this isn't just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. The future of America depends on you. What you're learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.

You'll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You'll need the insights and critical-thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You'll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

We need every single one of you to develop your talents and your skills and your intellect so you can help us old folks solve our most difficult problems. If you don't do that -- if you quit on school -- you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country.

Now, I know it's not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.

I get it. I know what it's like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mom who had to work and who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn't always able to give us the things that other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and I felt like I didn't fit in.

So I wasn't always as focused as I should have been on school, and I did some things I'm not proud of, and I got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.

But I was -- I was lucky. I got a lot of second chances, and I had the opportunity to go to college and law school and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, she has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn't have a lot of money. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don't have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job and there's not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don't feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren't right.

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life -- what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you've got going on at home -- none of that is an excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude in school. That's no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. There is no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up. No one's written your destiny for you, because here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

That's what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.

Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn't speak English when she first started school. Neither of her parents had gone to college. But she worked hard, earned good grades, and got a scholarship to Brown University -- is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to becoming Dr. Jazmin Perez.

I'm thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who's fought brain cancer since he was three. He's had to endure all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer -- hundreds of extra hours -- to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind. He's headed to college this fall.

And then there's Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods in the city, she managed to get a job at a local health care center, start a program to keep young people out of gangs, and she's on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.

And Jazmin, Andoni, and Shantell aren't any different from any of you. They face challenges in their lives just like you do. In some cases they've got it a lot worse off than many of you. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their lives, for their education, and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same.

That's why today I'm calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education -- and do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending some time each day reading a book. Maybe you'll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you'll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all young people deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you'll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, by the way, I hope all of you are washing your hands a lot, and that you stay home from school when you don't feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

But whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

I know that sometimes you get that sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star. Chances are you're not going to be any of those things.

The truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject that you study. You won't click with every teacher that you have. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right at this minute. And you won't necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That's okay. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who've had the most failures. J.K. Rowling's -- who wrote Harry Potter -- her first Harry Potter book was rejected 12 times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. He lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that's why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understood that you can't let your failures define you -- you have to let your failures teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently the next time. So if you get into trouble, that doesn't mean you're a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to act right. If you get a bad grade, that doesn't mean you're stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.

No one's born being good at all things. You become good at things through hard work. You're not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don't hit every note the first time you sing a song. You've got to practice. The same principle applies to your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right. You might have to read something a few times before you understand it. You definitely have to do a few drafts of a paper before it's good enough to hand in.

Don't be afraid to ask questions. Don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength because it shows you have the courage to admit when you don't know something, and that then allows you to learn something new. So find an adult that you trust -- a parent, a grandparent or teacher, a coach or a counselor -- and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

And even when you're struggling, even when you're discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you, don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn't about people who quit when things got tough. It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

It's the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and they founded this nation. Young people. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google and Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.

So today, I want to ask all of you, what's your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?

Now, your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books and the equipment and the computers you need to learn. But you've got to do your part, too. So I expect all of you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down. Don't let your family down or your country down. Most of all, don't let yourself down. Make us all proud.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. Thank you. (Applause.)

Is Obama's Popularity About to Unravel?

President Obama has been riding a wave of immense good will and popularity. His poll numbers have been very high, though they have declined in recent weeks. Some of this is fairly typical for a new president. Some of it is unique to the incredible popularity that this new president has enjoyed. He is a remarkable campaigner and a unique communicator. It is hard not to like him unless you are disposed that way in the first place. His relaxed, good-natured way of engaging with people combined with his obvious brilliance make him a most appealing leader on the national and world stage. Unless you are deeply partisan you give him every benefit of the doubt because he is our president. I often disagree with him but then I disagree with most presidents. There was a lot to disagree with during the last eight years so I wanted to give Obama a chance to become a new leader with new ideals and ideas.

During the 2008 campaign the issue was economics. Let’s face it, Obama and McCain were neck-and-neck in the polls until the economy fell apart. I know there were other factors in the race but this one plainly overshadowed them all. I am not sure why this is so often the case but American voters turn on politicians when the economy takes a serious down turn and respond with a ho-hum when things are good. Every present poll says that Americans are watching the health care debate with more interest than any other issue (by far) on the present docket. Why? They want solutions to real health insurance problems but they are very deeply concerned about the economy and the future of the economy as it relates to a massive new spending bill on health care reform.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that President Obama’s treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, said the White House cannot rule out higher taxes to help bring under control the exploding budget deficit. No surprise there. But the next lines surprised me. Geithner said that a tax hike on the middle class could not be ruled out as part of a health care overhaul. I read this sentence four times to make sure I got it. I did. Obama has not said it but you can be sure that he knew Geithner would. He seems to be floating a huge balloon to see how the public will respond. Yesterday, the president was quick to say that he would not raise taxes. I think the trial balloon idea may be close to reality. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs covered the White House response to the controversy.

Both Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers sidestepped questions about Obama’s intentions regarding tax increases but Geithner made it very clear that a middle class tax increase is possible. Geithner said, “If we want an economy that’s going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it’s going to be difficult . . . And the path to that is through health care reform.” I have two responses.

First, I am not really surprised that we have reached this place only a little more than six months into Obama’s term. I am not a macro-economist but I do understand what creates federal deficits. Major spending on government health care will do it every time. This is not that complicated. The president promised that he could deliver a new massive spending program and not raise taxes on the middle class. Pure myth! Political snake oil. Voters should have known it but when did voters refuse this rhetoric of promise with simple facts? And remember, candidate Obama promised all this major new spending in the middle of the deepest recession since the 1930s. You cannot grow money. You have to create revenue streams or cut spending, or better yet, both. There are several ways to do this. At some point Joe the Plumber will be proved right if this president gets his way.

Second, during the campaign this president said over and over, “You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.” He said this so often that independent voters believed him and provided his margin for his victory. His margin was not huge at all. These same independent voters will be back in 2010 and 2012. In 2012 they will be reminded of his promise about taxes for sure. If the president raises taxes on the middle class his popularity will plunge and my guess is that he will be another one term president. The first President Bush, riding a wave of immense popularity, dramatically promised: “Read my lips. No new taxes!” He later raised taxes and Bill Clinton became the next president. This only happened, however, after Ross Perot used Bush’s words to undo him politically. I am not a political prophet but I tell you this: If President Obama raises middle class taxes people will remember and it will be his political undoing.

I believe raising middle classes taxes is inevitable if Congress continues to spend and Obama continues to promote this spending and sign the bills Congress passed. I also believe the president will try every way that he can to use his considerable skills to assure us that he did not break his campaign promise. I also believe that millions of voters in the middle will not buy it. Many will defend him because they like him and/or believe in his ideas. But millions who voted for him do not embrace these ideas about spending and taxes. They wanted a new president. They still like this man. I do.

I didn’t expect to say this but the tax and spend issue will undo this president if he goes down this path. His popularity will plunge and it will be very hard to re-elect him if a decent candidate surfaces to challenge him on the tax and spend issue. Remember, as they say in politics "a few months can be an eternity." The next few months are huge for this president. His ideology will finish him unless he adapts and then moves away from some of the radical spending plans that require the new revenue of taxes that he promised not to raise. Even if Geithner spoke only for himself on Sunday then one wonders just how long this president can raise government spending and simply keep telling us that only the rich will pay for all these programs. The truth is this: taxes of various sorts impact us all since taxes come through many means other than income taxes. Somehow this is almost never mentioned.

Obamacare and Ending the Bush Tax Cuts, Part Two

President Obama has made the rich a popular target in his rhetoric ever since he began his campaign for the presidency in 2008. He plays on the desires of the poor and the middle class for fairness and argues that they already pay enough. It is the rich who should carry more of the burden for the rest of us. So, how will the proposed federal health care program be paid for? We need to know. The president tells us we can have great health care and pay absolutely nothing.

Basic Armstrong Premise: Anyone who tells me that I can have something great and pay nothing, at least if they represent the government, is not telling me the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is more here than meets the eye. The rich 1.2% will pay for the rest of us! In Obama's own words, “I think the best way to fund (health care) is for people like myself who have been very lucky, to pay a little bit more.” But a “little bit more” is the problem Where does it stop? Will Congress curtail spending? You know the answer. Neither party has shown such commitment to this end at all.

There is one huge oversight in Obama’s flowery rhetoric. President Bush did cut the tax rate for the rich but he also cut the tax rates for the middle class and the poor. (Most of the poor pay no federal taxes at all so we need to be really honest about this!) Federal taxes are at a 30-year low. It seems clear now that no matter what happens with health care this is all about to change and change rather significantly. Time will tell if the economy suffers further damage from these decisions but everything in my experience says that a huge federal expenditure will not only harm economic recovery but create monster programs that will be poorly and inefficiently administered by a government work force that is already too big. The private sector is still where real growth must come in any healthy national economy.

This problem of the federal income tax only scratches the surface of our problem. In Illinois the governor wants to more than double our state income tax. In addition, almost everything that we purchase is taxed; especially gasoline, automobiles, appliances, books, computers, etc. The president can tell us that the middle class is not impacted by this plan but most of us know better. Our government cannot spend the money that it spent in the last twelve months and not raise income taxes to pay the debt. By the way, all our communities are suffering too. We spend less, thus there is less revenue from sales tax, and our real estate taxes are declining in the next year or two which will have a trickle-down impact on local services and education. The problem is rather simple—we are not raising new income levels while congress votes to spend huge amounts of money on new programs that we are constantly assured will be paid for by the rich! (We can supposedly feel good about this answer since we feel like we are getting what belongs to us and not to the rich!) Most of us have this very uneasy feeling about this kind of class rhetoric. If it sounds like smoke and mirrors that is because it is smoke and mirrors. This is why Joe the Plumber’s words became an issue in the last presidential election. Instinctively we know Joe is right. We’ve been here before and this script is one that we know too well.

If we wanted a truly fair and revolutionary approach to taxes we would either adopt the “flat tax” or the “fair tax” approach. (Illinois is one of five states that had a flat tax in 2008.) Either the flat tax or the fair tax would change the whole ball game and give us a system that was genuinely fair. I expect no Democrat in Congress will ever pursue this idea. Governor Jerry Brown (D.-CA) actually did agree with the flat tax, as do Republicans like Trent Lott (R.-Miss) and Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.) in the Senate. Steve Forbes, a thoughtful champion of tax ideas that really make sense, championed the idea in the 1996 and 2000 elections. The appeal of the flat tax is in its simplicity and fairness. You fill out one or two simple forms and that’s it. Flat tax ideas leave the wealthy with more money to invest, which in turn generates a healthier economy. They also create a sense of fairness which is fundamental in our society.

Russia, and other nations in Eastern Europe, adopted a flat tax in order to slow corruption and tax evasion. Liberal Western politicians see this as proof that we do not need this idea in the West. But the day will come, at least in my view, when we may reap the whirlwind of these massive new programs we are now creating. Someday the ordinary American will likely become engaged in a grass roots tax payer’s revolt and only then will we likely see serious change.

I am increasingly persuaded that the younger generation will lead this revolt. Why? They are the very ones with the massive college bills. They are also the ones with the bad jobs or with no job at all. And every day they face more government interference in their lives in terms of taxes and crushing burdens. When they realize this, and see how big the tax burden they bear is in terms of millions of baby boomers who took advantage of this bad system, I think we will then see positive change. It could be too late but I think this nation is pretty resilient. I think we are very likely to find a way to correct the major mistakes of the past generation once we realize we have no choice.

Obamacare and Ending the Bush Tax Cuts, Part One

The full court push is now on to pass sweeping health care legislation. The goal is to provide care for (almost) all Americans. The last time we endured this debate was in the early days of the first term of Bill Clinton. The plan then, doomed from the beginning, went down in flames. This time there is a much better chance that Congress will pass a plan of some sort. Like every American I am very interested in this issue. But like almost every American I think the devil is really in the details. This is precisely what makes me so nervous. (I'm not losing any sleep over this, however, so take my words in their context!) We are all being asked to trust the federal government to create a program that involves hundreds of thousands of administrators and more red tape than we know what to do with. In my lifetime I have learned one thing about the federal government—it does a poor job of running large programs. Not only does the government administer programs poorly but it clearly spends money wastefully. Have you ever waited in line at a Social Security office or at the Post Office? I seriously doubt that there is disagreement about my common-sense observation, at least among the overwhelming majority of Americans who are not employed by the government. (Say, are we the minority yet?)

At the same time we do have several health insurance issues in this country. Regulation is clearly needed and the government has an important role in such regulation. If that were all we needed the big debate would be over. Everyone agrees about this but the party in power wants more, much more.

I am trying to read the various “non-partisan” reports about the health insurance in order to determine what is good or bad about the legislation being formed in the House this week. House Democrats, the Associated Press reported earlier this week, plan to hit the wealthy with even higher income taxes in order to pay for their version of health care. Once again this is no real surprise. The Democrats always plan to take more from the rich and give it, as a function of government, to the poor. Some details of this plan came out earlier in the week. A family of four making $450,000 would pay $103,600 in federal income taxes, an increase of only $1,000. A single filer making the same amount would see a $7,100 increase. A family of four making $800,000 would pay $220,800 in federal income taxes, an increase of $30,000. A single filer would see a $30,700 increase. But if you make $5 million you would see an increase of $443,500. And if you are single and make $5 million you will see an increase of $452,000.

Many will argue that the rich will still be very rich regardless of these changes. I agree. But this is a huge tax burden and it is growing with every decision Congress makes to fix the nation’s problems through government initiatives and spending. GM has already become Government Motors and who thinks it will (or should) avoid bankruptcy.

What most people do not realize is that taxing the rich to pay for health insurance would represent a very significant shift away from the way Americans have financed safety net programs in the past. Social Security and Medicare are paid for with broad based payroll taxes. The rich pay more of these taxes for sure but the middle class and working poor pay a share as well. This is where my concern lies with the Obama plan that Congress seems intent on passing. Under this plan 1.2 percent of households would pay for the whole program. The surtax to be added to those making $350,000 and more would be 1%. By 2013 it could be doubled to 2% if the program is running behind budget, which many non-partisan reports suggest is inevitable. Is there any serious doubt that this will indeed happen?

The top marginal income tax rate is now 35% on all income above $372,950. Obama wants to raise the top rate to 39.6% by 2011 by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. House Democrats admit that their health surtax would increase the rate to 45%, making it the highest since 1986, when it was 50%. And some insist that there will be marginal tax rates that exceed 50%. And none of this includes all the other taxes we pay, which would drive the total amount for many of our wealthiest Americans above 60%, approaching the once high mark of 70%.

Here’s the rub. What will these tax rates do to small business owners, especially the mid-sized owners and entrepreneurs who invest loads of their own money in ventures that employ millions of Americas? No one can say for sure. These small business owners generally pay their taxes on their personal returns. Democrats argue that things will be just fine so we should trust them. They promise that business will not be hurt by their plan. But people like me remember the Carter era, and Reagan’s first term, before we finally brought these rates under serious control. We even remember with gratitude that President Clinton revised the welfare system though he did little to help with regard to the tax problem.

California Republican Wally Herger said this past weekend: “We shouldn’t have to resurrect the 1970s to remember that when tax rates go too high, people lose the incentive to build new businesses and create jobs. These massive tax increases are no substitute for real fiscal responsibility.” This is precisely my concern.

The President Finds a Church Home

One of the criticisms some Christians have leveled against President Obama is that he has been without a church home for more than nine months. After the fiasco at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and Jeremiah Wright's very public rants about race, the Obama family has been without a settled place of worship and a spiritual home all year. President Obama promised that he would choose a new church after he became president. When this process took more than five months some used this delay to criticize Obama as disingenuous and lacking in any serious spiritual commitment to his Christian faith. I found this attack unfair and said so to some.

Now we know his choice, according to Amy Sullivan of Time, and we even know how he made it. On Monday Obama announced to White House aides, in what was described as an unexpected move by the writer who broke the story, that he would not have a church home in Washington, D.C. but will follow in the steps of President George W. Bush and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, a nondenominational church at Camp David. (This means he will not join this church formally since there is no membership there. The White House added, on Monday afternoon, that he would not close the door on doing this down the road.) Apparently aides visited a number of churches and sought a non-controversial place for the Obama family to attend. The president even sampled a few churches, including 19th Street Baptist on the weekend before his inauguration. He also visited St. John's Episcopal, the "Church of Presidents," on Easter.

The White House says a number of factors drove this decision. These included both political and personal concerns. For cynics from the Right, I would simply ask, "How could the political not impact this decision?" (It clearly does when the shoe is on the other foot if everyone is honest.) But more than any other issue the president desired to worship without being on display and without prompting trouble for a congregation. When Obama visited 19th Street Baptist in January crowds started forming three hours before the service began. The time and cost to the Secret Service is immense and a congregation is overwhelmed when the president attends. Obama rightly wanted to protect his family and not harm the integrity of a local congregation. His choice, from all accounts, seems to be an excellent one. (When Obama visited St. John's at Easter people snapped photos endlessly, using their cell phones.)

The difficulty of worshiping in public, and praying in peace, has long been a problem for presidents. Since 9/11 it has been an even bigger problem for the Secret Service. Obama is said to have avoided an African-American church because he worried that his presence would turn worshipers out of their pews for visitors who would be there as sightseers.

Evergreen Chapel has a 150-seat worship chapel with an average of 50-70 in worship each week. The rustic structure was built with private funds two decades ago and dedicated by President George H. W. Bush in 1991. At that dedication ceremony Sandi Patti sang and the late Cardinal James Hickey of Washington delivered a sermon calling the chapel "a witness to our common belief that we need to seek divine guidance in the conduct of our national affairs."

Each week, whether the president is present or not, the congregation meets and provides services for the military personnel and staff at Camp David. Camp David's current chaplain, Lieut. Carey Cash, leads the services at Evergreen. Cash is a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and a Southern Baptist minister. A native of Memphis he is a graduate of the Citadel and the great-nephew of Johnny Cash. He served a tour of duty as a Marine battalion chaplain in Iraq and baptized nearly 60 Marines during his tour of duty there. So, Obama's new pastor, assigned by the Navy to serve at Camp David, is a Southern Baptist. The last chaplain at Evergreen said that President Bush hardly ever had personal contact with him. Most expect this arrangement to be much the same.

So who does President Obama turn to for private spiritual counsel? Obama is doing what several other presidents have done. He seeks counsel from several ministers that he trusts. Two of his inner circle, to the surprise of some who do not follow this closely, were also confidants of President Bush; Kirbyjon Caldwell, a black Methodist minister from Houston, and T. D. Jakes, a black charismatic minister from Dallas. Caldwell, who offered prayer at Bush's first inaugural and officiated at Jenna's wedding, openly endorsed Obama. He even launched a Website when James Dobson accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview." Caldwell, an atypical United Methodist, is committed to evangelism and compassion and preaches the Bible with confidence and moral earnestness. Obama chose T. D. Jakes, a very well-known television preacher, to preach at a private service the morning of the inauguration. The president has also called Jakes for private counsel. The other three leaders that Obama turns to are Otis Moss, Jr, a retired Baptist minister who once served with Martin Luther King, Sr. at Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. (Moss's son followed Jeremiah Wright at Trinity but the father is called a "proper old school preacher and a father figure.") The other two spiritual advisers to Obama include Joel Hunter, a white evangelical who pastors a mega-church in the Orlando area, and Vashti McKenzie, the first female elected as a bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. That is a pretty interesting mix of Christian leaders, all of whom are people of faith and piety, if you know anything about them at all.

Again, I am again impressed that Barack Obama shows a growing spiritual hunger while he is engaged in the business of the country day-in and day-out. While some critics attacked him regarding his church relationship his public choice now seems to be both wise and rightly guarded. I think the best thing that we could do, as Christians, is to keep praying for him and his family. Regardless of your views of his leadership and policies he remains the president of the nation. What some Christians did to the Clintons was frankly despicable. We can hope this changes with regard to the Obamas. Everyone is entitled to worship as they choose and to pray without being analyzed by conservative Christians in the media. I strongly oppose this president on a whole host of issues but none of these should ever stand in the way of Christian love and prayer.

Michael Barone Analyses the President

Michael Barone is one of my top five favorite writers on politics and American culture. He is sensibly conservative without being on the fringe. He is willing to see the good in those he disagrees with but he doesn't throw out his mind in the process. This is what made his recent article "Dodge Facts, Skip Details, Govern Chicago Style" so engaging. I urge you to read it.

Michael Barone makes three telling criticisms of President Obama. In the process he significantly corrects my expression of good will about the president's approach to international tensions that I posted late last week. He refers to the president's policy toward Iran as "propitiating" our avowed enemies. I like that term better than some of the other criticisms I have read. I also think that after my piece appeared a great deal of new information suggests that Obama's "coolness" is potentially miscalculated. Barone writes that the president's "friendly words" are based on an assumption that the hearts of Kim Jon Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejab can be melted and then shaped for a new day of peace. Barone rightly questions the very argument I tried to make last week and reminds me of how much I want to see the perspective of this president in a good light but how often I am growing disappointed day-by-day. Barone makes my case far better than I can.

This all demonstrates why I do not wade into politics too often. I try to read and form my own opinions but when all is said and done I am not an expert, just an educated citizen with profound interest in the well-being of my nation and peace in the world. I guess what I find unattractive about so many conservative arguments is the way they are made and the failure to deal with modern issues in the light of true conservativism. Sometimes the arguments certain conservatives make are excellent but the manner in which they are advanced is too rhetorical and polarizing. My interests are far more in the advance of Christ's missional Kingdom and the making of disciples than in the advance of American values. One thing I am sure about---the two are simply not the same.

Did Naperville Violate Free Speech When It Canceled a Bill Ayers Speaking Engagement?

Naperville, Illinois, located 28 miles west of Chicago, is home to more than 145,000 people. It is located south of Wheaton, and thus located near to where I live. The city’s Web site describes Illinois' fifth largest city, which was once a rather small town when I came here in the 1960s, this way:

Naperville consistently ranks as a top community in the nation to live, raise children and retire. The city is home to acclaimed schools, what the city calls the best public library system in the country, an array of healthcare options and an exceptionally low crime rate. With ready access to a variety of transportation, housing and employment options, this booming suburb attracts thousands of new residents each year, making it one of the fastest growing communities in the United States. Naperville’s diversified employer base features high technology firms, retailers and factories, as well as small and home-based businesses. Residents also enjoy world-class parks, diverse worship options and an active civic community.

Naperville has been in the news recently because of a scheduled visit by former (unrepentant) terrorist Bill Ayers of Chicago. Ayers, the Weatherman bomb thrower turned college professor was, as you will recall, a figure in the recent presidential campaign since some tried to show that his connection to then Senator Obama was too close for American’s comfort.

Well, Ayers was due to speak at Naperville North High School. He was also going to sign books at Anderson’s Book Store, a well-known independent book store in downtown Naperville. But the school superintendent canceled the Ayers visit, citing hundreds of e-mails from constituents protesting Bill Ayers’ appearance. Anderson’s followed suit, but for reasons that it says were related to “hostile” responses and thus they “feared” for the safety of their employees. Andersons has now said it feels “free speech” was denied. Others agree and attack the school superintendent’s decision on the same grounds.

Did a vocal minority hold the town of Naperville hostage? No, of course not. Bill Ayers says the reasons for the cancellation were “outrageous.” That might be but his behavior and his comments since are outrageous to many, if not most, Americans. Is this, as Ayers’ stated, “a suppression of speech?” Not in your wildest dreams. Let me explain.

Canceled speaking engagements are a form of free speech. The school invited him and the school can change its mind. The community of Naperville clearly does not support the idea of extending a platform to someone whose use of radical violence is in question. Should we allow Arab terrorists to speak in public schools? Should we invite the far right wing-nuts like the late Timothy McVeigh to speak in our public schools? What about neo-Nazis?

I believe Ayers, and those who defend him, should realize that for every action there are consequences. This is a simple way of saying: “You reap what you sow.” Ayers is reaping a loss of opportunity now precisely because of the foolishness of his anti-American actions years ago and the failure to acknowledge them in the present.

Not all ideas are of equal value, especially in a society that has public schools that must answer to the public. Dialog is good but high schools are not the platform that the public should grant to Bill Ayers.

Bill Ayers has the right to speak his mind, to write his books, etc. He is granted this right by the Constitution. But no school is obliged to invite him to speak, especially when that school is funded by the taxpayers of the city of Naperville. Naperville North High School has had speakers in the past from the left and the right. It has clearly not been a place removed from the rigorous debates of modern American life and politics.

The grave misunderstanding in this protest against the school superintendent for canceling the speech of William Ayers is the idea that free speech guarantees the freedom to say anything at anytime or anyplace. It does not. The Constitution grants freedom from governmental censorship, not absolute freedom of speech. This whole debate proves just how much the popular media has misinformed us about the real “meaning” of free speech. Most of these people, on the left and even (some) on the right, must have missed class one day in their civics course, if they ever took a course at all.

Who Is Arlen Specter?

Politicians change parties. Some have done so for very noble reasons. They have changed their political philosophy and then acted in accord with those changes, much the way Christians do when they change churches out of deep conviction. I am thinking here of my friends who have either gone from evangelical churches to the Roman Catholic Church, or from the Roman Catholic Church to a Protestant evangelical church. I have shared in this difficult process as some go through this gut-wrenching decision in order to make a hard choice. So I am not opposed to people like Arlen Specter changing political party. I am however, like most who have followed this man for nearly thirty years, not surprised by this decision either. He has always been to the left of his own party and now, to a certain extent, he finds himself to the right of his new party. This is what it is. This is politics.

What stuns me, though I am not so easily stunned by politicians anymore, is the reason(s) Arlen Specter gives for this move. I am also more than a little amused by the response/welcome that he got from Democrats. Senator Specter's move got approval from Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama, who were more than happy to increase their strong majority. And Specter always had a healthy and strong relationship with the powerful labor unions in Pennsylvania. (By the way, Specter came to the senate in the Reagan era and President Reagan was never very impressed with him.)

Specter openly admitted that he could not win a Republican primary in 2010. So he did the pragmatic thing and changed parties. But he is not even certain to win the Democratic primary in 2010 regardless of his experience and this switch. The party bosses are still weighing his "new" decision and what they should do about it. Many are skeptical. Bill George, president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, says Specter has only a 68% voting record on labor, which is OK for a Republican but lot more is expected from a Democrat. And Neil Oxman, a Democratic strategist who advises Governor Rendell and Joseph Torsella (who is planning a run for this seat in the senate in 2010) described Specter as a politician "who transforms himself for every election." Oxman adds that he is not "disguising the fact that he supported Bush 76% of the time and voted for all of these Republican judges." (This is such a misleading number since the opposing party often votes with the president on many issues that are not so partisan.) Oxman asks the really hard question: "Will Democrats buy this?" I have my personal doubts.

Will Arlen Specter be able to move from being a left-leaning Republican, who expressed an independent mind, to an even further left-leaning Democrat, who really toes the party line faithfully? This is really all about playing by the party rules. If you think otherwise, just read the print media and online responses to Specter's announcement. Specter's presence as a Democrat will clearly help the party reach its goal of 60, once Al Franken is seated from Minnesota. They would have 58 seats, with two independents who will caucus with them, thus they will have their magic number of 60 (a super-majority). With this they can get almost everything they desire through the Senate before the 2011 congress is ever seated. This has to be one reason why Obama and Reid are openly thrilled.

But Arlen Specter has consistently opposed making it easier for unions to recruit new members. I believe this position may doom him as a Democrat. But he could change his mind again, like he has done over and over. On Tuesday, Specter said he opposes Obama's choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen. Her outspoken radical support for abortion-rights, and her strong opposition to Bush interrogation policies, have brought her under considerable fire. (Don't expect this to stop her confirmation in this Senate, however.)

But Arlen Specter also has a bad record on another favorite issue of Democrats, the environment. He has voted only 27% of the time in the way that environmental groups consider positive. Specter is a strong backer of abortion rights and stem cell research that includes human embryos, which are not viable political issues for conservatives right now, especially in Pennsylvania. (They might be again someday, but this is in doubt for the moment.) Specter already voted for the stimulus bill that most of his party rejected. Here he is already in line with the president.

At the end of the day Arlen Specter admitted that his decision came about due to polling data. He said that he did not discuss policy with Harry Reid in their private meeting, knowing full well that they would differ on significant items. Dick Durbin (IL) said that there was a five year process aimed at winning Specter to their party. One Democratic congressman, who is eying a possible run for Specter's seat in the Senate, said the results of the party primary need to "reside not in the hierarchy of my party but with the citizens of Pennsylvania." He added, "The party leadership is making a judgment call on what they evidently think is best, because they are caught up in how many votes they have in the Senate. But we promised a new era."

That is a powerful observation from a "new" Democrat. He takes the words right out of my mouth frankly.

My questions about Specter are two:

1. Can either party actually operate in real response to the people, or does the two-party system always result in this kind of "king making," back room, deal-making stuff?

2. Given Arlen Specter's response to Jim Jeffords leaving the Republican Party in 2001 what kind of person is this guy?

Specter said, at that time, "If somebody wants to change parties, they can do that. But that kind of instability is not good for governance of the country and the Senate."

Well Senator Specter, "What is good for the goose is still good for the gander." I wish you no personal ill, but I think you just showed us what kind of man you really are. In my view you are the problem in this nation's leadership. I have far more respect for a liberal who runs as a liberal and tells us what he/she will attempt to do in governing us. The same goes for a conservative or a libertarian or any other thoughtful political view. Obama did this. Some people weren't too sure about his actual views but what he was, and what he really said, is just about what he has done, at least so far. The possible exception seems to be his moderation in foreign policy, which happens to most presidents once they are in office.

Arlen Specter is a different breed however. He reminds me of the people in the Civil War who wore gray trousers with a blue shirt. If he were really honest he would have done what Jim Jeffords did. Or even what Joe Lieberman did. I disagree with both of these senators on a number of issues but I still hold respect for them as men of principle. I lost all respect for Arlen Specter this week. For me he represents precisely what is wrong with too many in the U. S. Senate!