Tag Archives: Socialism

Obama’s SOTU speech: more spending on Democrat special interests

From Hans Bader at the Washington Examiner.

Excerpt:

In his State of the Union address, President Obama will call for even more spending on his cronies – what he euphemistically refers to as “targeted investments” in things like “green jobs.” Such spending benefits companies that donate millions to liberal politicians, like GE, which recently spent $65.7 million on lobbying to extract special favors from the government.

[…]“The new spending” Obama will call for will likely “include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding.”

This is a bad sign for the American worker, because such green jobs programs have wiped out thousands of American jobs in the past.  The $800 billion stimulus package used “green-jobs” subsidies to send American jobs overseas.  79 percent of those subsidies went to foreign firms, such as an Australian firm that imported Japanese wind turbines, effectively outsourcing American jobs.

[…]The Wall Street Journal reports that the President will also call for “new government spending” on education. This is also a dubious idea, given that America already spends much more per capita on education than most other wealthy industrialized countries, with worse results.

[…]Dumping more money on the educational system is unlikely to spur economic growth, since so many college students learn little in college, are not interested in learning, and only go to college in order to get paper credentials rather than an education.

[…]Unlike other countries, which focus on educating engineers and other economically-productive occupations, America focuses on superficial, ideologically-fashionable liberal-arts majors.

If I had to summarize Obama’s speech, I would say “the government will give you a unicorn in every stable”.

Let’s put the teleprompter away and review the facts.

Government spending: (i.e. – what Obama calls “investing”)

CBO Projected Federal Budget Deficits
CBO Projected Federal Budget Deficits

Unemployment rate:

Unemployment Rate
Unemployment Rate

The Democrats controlled ALL SPENDING starting in January of 2007, when they gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. When spending increases, businesses understand that there are only two ways to pay it off. Higher taxes, or inflation. So they stop hiring here and ship their jobs overseas. That’s Obamanomics.

Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s response.

Paul Ryan explains why Republicans are doing what they promised to do

Rep. Paul Ryan - GOP Ideas Man
Rep. Paul Ryan - GOP Ideas Man

Here’s the video from The Blog Prof.

Paul Ryan is going to do it because he said he would do it.

If you would like to understand what consumer-driven health care is, read this post from the Heritage Foundation.

Excerpt:

If policymakers are serious about real patient-centered, consumer-driven health care reform, they should ensure that their legislative proposals embody six key principles:

  • Individuals are the key decision makers in the health care system. This would be a major departure from conventional third-party pay­ment arrangements that dominate today’s health care financing in both the public and the private sectors. In a normal market based on personal choice and free-market competition, consumers drive the system.
  • Individuals buy and own their own health insurance coverage. In a normal market, when individuals exchange money for a good or service, they acquire a property right in that good or ser­vice, but in today’s system, individuals and families rarely have property rights in their health insur­ance coverage. The policy is owned and controlled by a third party, either their employers or govern­ment officials. In a reformed system, individuals would own their health insurance, just as they own virtually every other type of insurance in virtually every other sector of the economy.
  • Individuals choose their own health insur­ance coverage. Individuals, not employers or government officials, would choose the health care coverage and level of coverage that they think best. In a normal market, the primacy of consumer choice is the rule, not the exception.
  • Individuals have a wide range of coverage choices. Suppliers of medical goods and ser­vices, including health plans, could freely enter and exit the health care market.
  • Prices are transparent. As in a normal market, individuals as consumers would actually know the prices of the health insurance plan or the medical goods and services that they are buying. This would help them to compare the value that they receive for their money.
  • Individuals have the periodic opportunity to change health coverage. In a consumer-driven health insurance market, individuals would have the ability to pick a new health plan on predict­able terms. They would not be locked into past decisions and deprived of the opportunity to make future choices.

And if you’re looking for a nice short podcast on consumer-driven health care, go right here.

If you want a book on this, you can get Regina Hertzlinger’s book (interview here), although I read it, and I found it filled with too many case studies and stories and not enough policy analysis.

UPDATE:

More Paul Ryan: (H/T Hyscience)

And some Michele Bachmann: (H/T Gateway Pundit)

And the House votes to repeal Obamacare, with 3 Democrats joining the Republicans, and no Republicans joining the Democrats.

Related posts

How the government forces Christians to affirm homosexuality

Here’s the first story from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

It is illegal in Britain for guesthouse keepers to refuse to allow two homosexual men to share a bed in their homes, according to a ruling by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in a test case sponsored by the country’s leading homosexualist lobby group.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, devout Christians who own a guesthouse in a popular holiday resort in Cornwall, were ordered by the EHRC to pay a fine of £1,800 each to Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, two men who had booked a room in September 2008.

The Bulls explained to the Commission that they have a long-standing policy of refusing double rooms to any unmarried couple, no matter what their “orientation,” at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near Penzance.

Mrs. Bull commented after the hearing, saying she and her husband were “disappointed” with the result.

“Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody. It was applied equally and consistently to unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, as the judge accepted,” she told media.

“We are trying to live and work in accordance with our Christian faith. As a result we have been sued and ordered to pay £3,600. But many Christians have given us gifts, so thanks to them we will be able to pay the damages.”

She added, “I do feel that Christianity is being marginalized in Britain. The same laws used against us have been used to shut down faith-based adoption agencies. Much is said about ‘equality and diversity’ but it seems some people are more equal than others.”

According to Judge Rutherford’s ruling the crucial factor in the decision was the fact that Hall and Preddy were in a legal civil partnership. Under recently passed equalities laws, civil partners must be treated the same as couples in natural marriages.

Judge Rutherford acknowledged that the Bulls had good reason to want to preclude what they regarded as immoral sexual activity in their home, but commented, “Whatever may have been the position in past centuries it is no longer the case that our laws must, or should automatically reflect the Judaeo-Christian position.”

I think that some well-meaning Christians do get tricked into voting for the Labour party, because it sounds so good to “help the poor” and “bring our troops home”. But it can lead to results like this “Human Rights” inquisition.

But wait! There’s more from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

In yet another instance of the growing conflict between believing Christian professionals and the homosexualist movement in Britain, a Christian psychotherapist who helps individuals overcome homosexual inclinations may be “struck off,” or barred from practicing her profession.

Lesley Pilkington was the object of a sting operation by undercover journalist Patrick Strudwick, who approached her to ask her for help with his sexuality. He had told Pilkington that he wanted to leave the homosexual lifestyle and she informed him that she only worked within a Christian counseling framework.

Strudwick, who went to two counseling sessions with Pilkington and published the transcript of the meetings in The Independent newspaper, was awarded journalist of the year by the homosexualist organization Stonewall for the sting. After the sessions, he lodged a complaint to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy alleging that Pilkington had failed to respect the “fixed nature” of his homosexuality.

Pilkington, who is scheduled to appear before a professional conduct panel January 20 and faces losing her accreditation with the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, said, “He told me he was looking for a treatment for being gay.

“He said he was depressed and unhappy and would I give him some therapy. I told him I only work using a Christian biblical framework and he said that was exactly what he wanted.”

Commenting on the case, Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said, “Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex-change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to ‘turn’ a consenting homosexual?”

“If, for whatever reasons – moral, religious, personal – a homosexual man wants to have help to cure this, he should be allowed to seek treatment. I’m not being critical about homosexuality at all, but if we have people who want to change, why should they be prevented from that happening?” Helmer continued.

The Christian Legal Centre, which is handling Pilkington’s defense, said, “Those offering counselling for men and women wanting to change their homosexual behaviour have been increasingly targeted by the homosexual lobby, many of whom do not accept that people can change their behaviour.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre said, “Lesley is a wonderful Christian counsellor who has practised for many years with an unblemished record.”

“It is shocking that she was targeted, lied to and misrepresented by this homosexual activist and even worse that her professional body consider her actions worthy of investigation.

“It seems that what the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy object to is Lesley Pilkington holding the professional and personal view that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation.”

The person responsible for the Humanist Inquisition is none other than famous Harriet Harman.

Excerpt:

Social mobility is actually the antithesis of equality, because if people are able to progress higher up the social and income ladder it follows that others will be left behind.

Social mobility inevitably rests upon a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for what they have achieved. This is the only fair system. Imposing ‘equality’ – which is really a kind of ‘identicality’, a belief that everyone must end up in exactly the same place – is monumentally unfair.

It amounts to institutionalised discrimination based on the highly subjective and ideological prejudices of those in power to decide just who deserves to be privileged and who to be discriminated against.

Accordingly, any moves to apply it are inevitably deeply coercive and in the end unattainable – as was proved so appallingly under Soviet communism. For the British government to introduce this Orwellian agenda is not just sinister – it is positively unhinged.

The person said to be behind this is that middle-class paragon, the Equalities Minister Harriet Harman, who is said to have convinced her Cabinet colleagues of the need to enshrine the class war in law.

In a speech this weekend, she will hail this move as a step towards ‘a new social order’.

‘We want to do more than just provide escape routes out of poverty for a talented few. We want to tackle the class divide,’ she will say.

This is but the latest bit of cack-handed injustice from Harman, an ultra-feminist gender warrior who has spent much of her political career trying to institutionalise injustice against men and privilege women on the basis of ‘sexual equality’.

The moral of the story is… don’t vote for left-wing parties if you want to have the freedom to not celebrate views that you disagree with on moral grounds.

Raising influential children matters

I distinctly remember the disagreement I got from some commenters when I posted the Amy Chua story about effective parenting. Well consider this story about the U.S. Supreme Court and this story about the co-founder of Facebook. These stories demonstrate why I suggest that Christian parents ought to push their children a little harder in school, so that they get into positions of influence, e.g. – Supreme Court judges and founders of major Internet companies. We need to be able to put our children into positions of influence so that we can counter things like this. It does no good to sit back and complain when we are not doing all we could be doing!