Tough Love

While watching coverage of Hurricane Irene, it has stuck me how blunt officials have been in their warnings to people who might decide to stay put rather than evacuate. The warning from these officials: if you stay and get into trouble, don't bother calling us for help . . we will not risk the lives of first responders. One official went so far as to recommend that people who stay write their name, social security number, and next of kin contact on a 3x5 card and keep it in their pocket in case they don't survive the storm. Serious warnings for a serious event. The government here is basically saying that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions. If people get into trouble, too bad. You will have to live (or die) with those decisions and actions. Pretty harsh, but it is this kind of tough love that motivates people to respond.

So what would happen if the government took this same approach when it came to day to day decisions and actions by the general public? Imagine what would happen if the government said to people: you bought this house or that car . . if you cannot now pay for it, don't come to us looking for us to save you . . if you are in financial trouble, too bad. Or: if you wasted your days while we provided you with a free education, don't come to us looking for handouts because your minimum wage job doesn't cover your bills. I know, it sounds harsh; but it seems to me that our government is making it way too easy for people to live off of the government. No doubt, there are political leaders who desire to see more of that. Even as food stamps are being used at their highest level in history (surely a sign of failed government), this administration is currently seeking out more people who they can qualify for food stamps (surely the sign of a failed administration).

What would happen if, just prior to a hurricane, officials told citizens it didn't matter whether they evacuated or stayed, emergency officials would be out rescuing people throughout the hurricane? "You have nothing to worry about, we will be there as a safety net to save you, no matter what". More people would stay, putting a much bigger burden on first responders to find and save them. That is exactly where we are right now in our economy, especially when it comes to social services and the big social contract items. Over the years our government, and more specifically the politicians who promised everything for just a few more votes, have basically told the public to take advantage of the multiple safety nets government keeps adding to its arsenal. They have relaxed the rules for who qualifies for these programs. They have extended the length of time people can qualify for these programs. And they have opened the door for abuse on so many levels. So how do people respond? They relax, make stupid decisions, get themselves in trouble . . then come running to the government for a bailout.

Does the government need to offer a safety net to certain people? Absolutely. Some people have needs that are so extreme and so beyond them that the government can be helpful (although it could be argued that a private non profit could serve that person better). But that is not what I am referring to here. I am speaking here about the purposeful shift to draw even more people into that fold, if for no other reason than to make people more dependent on government. When people become more dependent on government, they will more likely vote for the people who want to expand the list of goodies that government will hand out to the people. And that cycle perpetuates itself, growing government to a point where it is nearly impossible to trim it back.

Oh to hear officials tell people: you make bad decisions in your life . . too bad . . we will not rescue you. You will bear the costs for that, we will not burden the American people.

Great Video

This video is mesmerizing. As I understand it, there were 1500 photos used in this 2 minute film, with 500 people holding them. Very creative, and I'm guessing a lot of time to produce.

9/11 Motorcycle Ride in Leesburg, Virginia

Roughly 1800 motorcycles made their way through downtown Leesburg August 19, all part of the 911 Foundation annual ride from Pennsylvania to Washington to New York.

Jason & Joyanna Wedding at Morven Park

I know when people plan a wedding five plus months out, especially for mid-August, weather is one of the biggest concerns. I know it was for Joyanna. She wanted an outdoor wedding more than anything. Fortunately, Friday August 12 turned out to be a beautiful day for her outdoor wedding, and Morven Park was a great choice. Here are a quick images. Click on image to enlarge. For more images from this wedding, click here.

Random Thoughts on Debt Ceiling

1. Norah O'Donnell, formerly of NBC and now the White House correspondent with CBS, seems to be pretty distraught about there being no new taxes imposed as part of the debt ceiling deal. As you watch this clip, notice two things: a) her disgust with no new tax revenue, and b) her statement that "they (WH) gave them (Republicans) everything they wanted, and we (Democrats, presumably) got nothing". Kind of a stark admission by Norah. No need to wonder exactly who "we" are. And this by a CBS White House correspondent. So much for a non-biased journalist. Do they even exist anymore?



2. In response to a question about the Tea Party, Mitch McConnell wanted to make sure that he expressed appreciation for the Tea Party and their influence, but what he said I found troubling. McConnell basically said that if it was not for the Tea Party, Congress most likely would not have addressed budget cuts in the debt ceiling deal. A compliment with an unintended meaning. In other words, if left to the established Republicans already in office (like McConnell), the debt ceiling would have passed just like every other ceiling increase in the past, with no attempts to address spending. Most of these old time Republicans have been just as addicted to spending as their Democratic counterparts, oblivious to the costs. We should be thankful for these 75+ new Republican "terrorists" who seem to be inflicting terror in all of the old guard on both sides of the aisle.

3. Matt Damon says he wants to pay more taxes. That is great. So go ahead Matt, what is keeping you from paying more? It sounds like you are waiting for the government to compel you to do something that you believe you should already be doing. Why wait? My guess is that Damon takes advantage of every tax deduction/credit/shelter available to minimize his tax burden. Why? So he can pay the least amount possible. So why not choose to decline those credits/deductions/shelters? Why not fully expose your earnings so you can pay the most taxes possible? Or why not just write a check to the government for an additional amount? Or answer this: if you had $100,000 left over to give away, would you choose to give it to the federal government, or to let's say the Red Cross, or your local food bank, or to an orphanage in Mexico? I'm guessing not the government. Why not?

4. The general American public needs to prepare itself for some pretty nasty battles and name calling over the next few years. The debt ceiling debate got testy, and the liberal left have lost all sense of peace and love and hope and change as they call any opponents "terrorists" and "racists" and "monsters". All of this provoked by what amounts to being fairly minor decreases in spending. We really have not gotten to the serious reductions yet, the ones that will have a more direct impact on our debt. These are the cuts that will affect all of the liberal institutions that have been built over the past 50 years, and just like disturbing a beehive, liberals will get angry. Like I said, get ready for some pretty nasty battles.

5. One additional thought related to the last one: most every sane person acknowledges that as a country we cannot sustain the spending that our government has taken on over the past 50 years. Their programs may have had good intentions at the beginning, but we simply cannot continue all of them; and those that we need to continue need to be seriously reformed. The Democrats don't seem to want to have anything of it. Instead they insist that we will be killing off old people and children and the poor. But they have nothing to offer about how to pay for these things, other than making those who already overwhelmingly pay the most to pay even more. Never mind that doing so falls way short of what is needed. And never mind what their beloved programs are doing to the people of this country, creating a dependent class of citizens who allow the government to provide their daily needs. This president likes to talk about sacrifice, something he has probably never done in his life. These liberals will have to sacrifice many of their beloved programs, turning them over to private and/or non-profit entities, or just eliminating them. But will they? Will they see their folly and acknowledge that there are some things that government is simply not built to do, or will they stand in the way? This is the battle line.

Scott & Jeanne's July 23 Wedding

Here are a handful of images from Scott and Jeanne's Bluemont/Purcellville wedding.

Congressman McDermott (D-WA) and Debt Ceiling

I heard Congressman McDermott (D-Wa) speaking on the news today about how irresponsible it is for anyone to vote against raising the debt ceiling. This clip from June mirrors much of what he had to say today, only today he spoke with much more urgency and conviction.



I knew there were debt ceiling votes back when Bush was president, so I thought I would check to see if McDermott voted "Aye" on them. The first one I checked was H.J. Res. 47/95 in 2006 increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. McDermott voted "Nay". I guess it wasn't a matter of being irresponsible back then.

Obama was the same way. I looked up his votes for debt ceiling increases during the time he was Senator. There were three opportunities for him to vote on those increases: he voted "Nay" once and "Abstained" twice. This is the same guy who voted "present" over 130 times while an Illinois state senator. I think this is what drives so many of us crazy, and unfortunately it goes both ways. Hopefully this new batch of congressmen voted into office in 2010 are different. A man can only hope.

Where Are The Democrats?

Over the past several months the Republicans have drafted and voted on several budget related bills. There was the overall budget proposal (something a Democratic House failed to do and a Democratic Senate still has not done), the Ryan plan, and cut, cap and balance. Over the past couple days they have been trying to pass one more debt ceiling related bill, so far falling short because it doesn't go far enough to solve any problems. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with any of these bills, the Republican House has taken the lead, something neither the Democratic Senate or Obama has yet to do. So in this whole process, where are the Democrats?

On the House side, Democrats have been complaining about these Republican bills, but I have not heard from any of them offering their own proposals. Granted they are in the minority and have a limited voice on the House floor, but they still retain a sizable voice in media. Yet all we seem to hear are complaints, no ideas or solutions. On the Senate side we keep hearing about the Reid plan, but where and what is it, and how come it has not been put in writing and put up for a vote? Why is the Senate holding back, letting the House do all the heavy lifting? Why is the House letting the Senate sit back? At least on the Senate side there was talk about a (Republican Senator minority leader) McConnell plan. Again, on the House side, have you heard of a (Democratic House minority leader) Pelosi plan?

It seems to me that the House should make one more proposal, basically resubmitting the cut, cap and balance bill. This time I would take it in a more demanding direction. Ask for more cuts and ask that they take place sooner rather than later. And then ask the Senate to respond with their own proposal, in writing and voted on. Let the Senate actually vote for something rather than letting any more House proposals die before a vote. Put pressure on the Senate to actually do something, to put their own necks on the block.

As for the Boehner bill that is currently having problems getting the last 2-3 needed votes to pass, why not make it more attractive for those who are holding out? Reid and Obama have already said that they are not even going to consider it or bring it up for a vote, so why not draft it in a way that pulls in more Republican support? Get it passed, and then walk away. It is time for the Senate to shut up and start playing.

I'm not convinced that a balanced budget amendment is the answer. On paper it makes perfect sense, but so does a diet. Congress is tasked with passing a budget each year, yet the Democratic Senate has not done so for over two years. Congress has demonstrated over and over again that they believe they can operate above the law. Do you really believe any Congress or any president, regardless of their party, will let themselves be confined by a balanced budget requirement? To me it is just like the arguments from politicians that they are going to find savings by eliminating fraud and wasteful spending. You mean you have not already been doing that? You mean you have to pass a bill to do that, or create a new department to oversee it all? If you have not already been attacking fraud and wasteful spending, I seriously doubt that you are going to do it at some point in the future. Same goes with the budget. If they have not been mindful of spending only what is available, I doubt that they will have the willpower to be thrifty in the future. It is called loopholes, and they are pros at creating them.

Time For Obama To Move On

All this debt ceiling talk over the past couple weeks has reminded me why I dislike Barack Obama, prompting me to post a few extra thoughts here on the guy who hopefully will soon be unemployed. I have thought for quite awhile now that the general American public will grow tired and disillusioned with Obama soon enough, if they have not already. His need to be front and center making speeches 5 times a day all over the world has led to overexposure. People got tired hearing about Brittany Spears every day several years ago . . how often do you hear about her now? People got tired hearing about Casey Anthony day in and day out . .  where is she now? I suspect that the American public is growing tired of Obama. I cannot imagine another four years of seeing or listening to him 5 times a day. Hopefully two years from now I will be able to ask "whatever happened to that guy that was president"?

Today I recommend reading a good article that addresses the idea of Obama the bore:

"Somewhere along the way, the once-soaring speeches of The Great Orator degenerated into longwinded clichés delivered in a grating, repetitive cadence.   The electric smile morphed into a frequent scowl.  Inspiring messages have given way to blaming everyone else for the lack of success of his policies and scolding his subjects for not "stepping up their game."  His every word seems politically calculated rather than anchored by principle.  He's shown little ability to electrify, motivate, persuade or unify anyone-except his political opposition.  The country seems tired of him.

How un-motivating is Obama as President?  He speaks to an America at war and rouses no patriotism.  He addresses a military audience without so much as mentioning victory (a word to which he has a particular aversion).  He takes a major policy address on troop levels in Afghanistan and ends up droning on about "green jobs."  Boring.  If there is a single memorable line from his multitude of speeches, please tell me; I already stopped listening --and I doubt that I am alone."

Reagan vs. Obama

A good article contrasting the Reagan economy with the Obama economy:  check it out.