Saturday, March 24, 2012

The Ryan Plan, Part II: A Case of Congressional Claptrap

            "Claptrap:  (noun) pretentious nonsense; trash" (source: Merriam Webster Dictionary).


We are fast approaching a critical time in the history of this country.  There are an ever increasing number of persons with disabilities severe enough that they are unable to care for themselves or support themselves due to their inability to hold a job.  The majority of these people require large amounts of medication, daily assistance with personal hygiene, meals, transportation, lodging, general shopping and so much more.  The list includes those with physical, emotional and developmental disabilities.

We can add to this population another quickly increasing group:  Senior Citizens.  People are living longer due to advances in health and medicine.  That's good news.  Yet once again we are challenged with finding the means to care for these people.  Nursing homes and personal care homes are grossly expensive.  According to HealthGuide.org the average annual cost of a nursing home in the United States is around $70,000.  Medicare will only pay for 100 days of skilled nursing care or rehabilitation.  If one's income is limited Medicaid may cover most of the cost for long term care.  Many facilities, however, require applicants to be able to pay their own way for a period of time, typically 3 years.

Together these two populations, the disabled and the seniors who are, essentially, also disabled in that they require support and care in order to live, constitute a significant sub-culture.  The numbers are staggering.

·        51.2 million people, or 18% of the American population, have some form of disability.

·        32.5 million Americans, or 12 %, have a severe disability.

·        72% of those 80 years of age and older are disabled.  This is the highest percentage of any age group.

These numbers are increasing constantly.  None of these persons want to be in the situation they find themselves in.  Almost none have any hope of getting better.  These people depend on Medicaid and other government programs, including waivers and various funding streams, to survive. 

Survive!  We are not talking about luxury lifestyles.  Nor are we referring to unnecessary expenditures.  Rather, I am talking about the most basic human needs - food, clothing, hygiene, a place to live, and medical care.  Anyone who has a loved one in this situation understands.  It can be depressing and frustrating, made even more so by the reality of budget cuts in the Federal and State levels.

This brings me to the newly proposed budget by Paul Ryan (R - WI), Chair of the House Budget Committee.  You may remember the infamous Ryan Plan of 2011 which was mercifully defeated before it could ravage the poor and disenfranchised.  Ryan's 2012 version - call it the Ryan Plan, Part II - is even more insulting the Part I, if that is possible.

I love the opinion of this plan as voiced by Bib Greenstein, President of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.  He calls the Ryan budget "Robin Hood in reverse - on steroids.  It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U. S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation's history.)"

Here are just a few of the lowlights.

Ø  Further tax cuts to the wealthy

Ø  Increased taxes for the low and moderate income people

Ø  Significant increases to the core military budget

Ø  Cutting $5.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years, with most of these cuts coming from health programs

Ø  Turning responsibility for major programs for the poor, such as Medicaid and Food Stamps, over to the States, including a required deadline for recipients to find work and get off the government support programs.

These are but a few of the problems inherent in the Ryan proposal.  They alone are enough to cause serious concern for any one, especially for any follower of Jesus.  The New Testament clearly calls the Christian to be generous and supportive of those less fortunate.  Jesus modeled this lifestyle for us and we who claim to follow him would do well to take another look at our leader before we attempt to protect our privileged lifestyles.

But what I really want to know is this:  What ever happened to the so-called budget compromise that was worked out in Congress last year?  Remember the deal that was cut at the midnight hour?  A bi-partisan "Super Committee" consisting of 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats were commissioned to develop a proposed budget plan with a defined deadline.  If they failed to do so certain conditions would automatically go into effect.  These conditions included:

ü  Half of all spending cuts would come from defense

ü  The remaining half would come from domestic programs, except as follows:

ü  Programs for the poor, including Medicaid and Social Security, would be shielded from the automatic spending cuts

ü  No entitlement reform

ü  Debt-limit increases would be matched dollar-for-dollar with Budget decreases

I recall thinking at the time this was passed that Congress will find a way to wiggle out of any and all binding clauses contained within.  However, I did not truly believe they would have to, because I honestly thought the "Super Committee" would find a last-second compromise to meet their obligation before the deadline and thus avoid the agreed-upon fail safe measures.  I was wrong about that one.  But it looks like I was right about the first point.  Congress conveniently seems to have forgotten its own pledge.  Why does that not surprise me?  The pledge was made by men and women who got elected by promising all kinds of commitments they have little or no intention of keeping.  In effect, they are only showing their true colors once again.

This is another classic example of a Congressional Claptrap (see definition at the beginning of this article).  Non-binding deals and meaningless mandates that have more escape routes than Hogan's Heroes.  Isn't it about time we, the citizens of this great country, demand more from our elected officials than all this smoke-and-mirrors dribble?  It's getting old, and so am I.

gdgehr
March 24, 2012

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Thoughts On the Sacred and the Secular - Correction

The previous post entitled "Thoughts On The Sacred And The Secular" included a link to a blog by Richard Beck.  I am not sure I entered that link correctly.  Hopefully, if the first attempt did not work for you, the following one may.

The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity - Richard Beck | God's Politics Blog | Sojourners

If you still cannot be redirected to the blog site, I suggest you go to http://sojo.net and click on the tab "BLOGS" near the top of the page.  Then look to the right side of the page to find the post listed above.  Click on it and you should find the page in question!

Sorry for all this confusion! 

-gdg

Thoughts On The Sacred And the Secular

This evening I was reviewing some other blogs that I find inspiring when I came across this one.  I viewed it several weeks ago and remembered that I found it to be interesting.  So, I reviewed it once again and deceided I would recommend it here for your consideration.

I am frequently confronted with individuals who use the kind of "holy-talk" described by Richard Beck.  He doesn't use that term, but it works for me.  Beck talks about those who "want to go deeper in their relationship with God".  That is what I call "holy-talk".  It sounds impressive and ultimately it is a good goal.  But as Beck points out too foten it is not backed up with practical behavior.  You know what I'm talking about, the kind of witness where "actions speak ouder than words".

Over hte years I have heard a lot of good talk.  Well-intentioned people who honestly want to aspire to a more mature, Christlike life.  Trsut me when I say that I respect such ambitions and find myself inspired to apply the same to my life.  However, this country has an incredibly large number of people who claim to be on a spiritually enriching pilgrimage even as they seemingly take on an oddly familiar look that resembles the secular culture that they live in.  It reminds me of a quote I heard a long time ago - back in the late 1970's, I think - that portrayed certain Christians as being so heavenly minded that they were no earthly good.  OK, that may be a little harsh, but hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.

Maybe I should just refer to the post I was inspired by in the first place:  The Bait And Switch of Contemporary Christianity by Richard Beck.  (Click on the link that follows.)

http://sojo.net/blogs/2011/12/27/bait-and-switch-contemporary-christianity

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Let's Remember - And Not Repeat - The Past

Somebody please tell me I did not hear the news report correctly.  It sounded like President Obama told a gathering of the AIPAC that the United States is still seeking a diplomatic solution to the perceived threat of Iran's nuclear program.  However, the President warned, Israel has the right to defend itself and military intervention cannot be ruled out.  Should that be the case, Israel will have no stronger ally than the United States.

Yet the Republican Presidential candidates all criticized the President for being "too soft" on Iran.  Each and every one of them declared that they would not be pushed around.  Either Iran discontinues its nuclear program all together or a pre-emptive strike by the United States is in order.

How I shudder when I hear those two words used together.  Pre-emptive strike.  Don't these guys get it?  President George W. Bush used the same authoritative claim to launch us into a ten year war in Iraq.  The United States, he told us, had to make a pre-emptive strike against Iraq to prevent that evil nation from deploying their Weapons of Mass Destruction against us.  The day was coming when it would be us or them, so why wait.  Old Tex believed that the first to draw his gun would win the shootout.  But I'm not so sure.

George W. Bush drew first, alright.  In his own words he was intent on "smokin' Saddam Hussein out", and eventually he got his man.  But at what price?  Ten years of  fighting in the desert.  $3.7 trillion dollars (according to Reuters).  An estimated 1.5 million people dead.  And, of course, the humiliating reality that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, nor were they even close to developing any.

In light of the cost of that war, together with the ongoing War in Afghanistan, it should come as no surprise to understand that the United States is in a serious financial crisis.  $15.4 trillion in National Debt.  A $1.2 trillion Federal Budget deficit.  The worst recession since the 1930's and a sluggish economy that celebrates growth in increments of less than half a percent.  This is the legacy of America's first major use of Pre-emptive Strike, also known as "Shock and Awe".

Philosopher George Santayana once wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  It would seem as if this is where we find ourselves today.  Once again we feel threatened by another country that we believe is actively pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction, only this time the threat is nuclear rather than chemical or biological, as was the case with Iraq.  Again we are basing our information on satellite images and "intelligence".  Again, we have no documented proof of anything.  Again, we are talking about Pre-emptive Strike.  The whole thing is much too eerie for me.
 
There are a few differences between 2003 and today.  In 2003 our economy was much stronger, our military was well rested, the pain - and anger - over September 11, 2001 was very fresh in our minds, and the National Debt was $6.2 trillion - less than half of what it is today.  In short, the United States was better prepared to go to war then.  Today one would have to severely question our war-readiness.

Nevertheless, the larger issue confronting us is the rationale behind another Pre-emptive Strike.  Can we - should we - afford to commit our national resources, our crippled economy, and most importantly our men and women to yet another war effort based on speculation and undocumented reports?  In other words, is there truly a threat to be reckoned with?  We eventually found out in Iraq that there actually was no threat.  The results were nearly devastating to our nation.  We have yet to fully recover from it.  We must act more responsibly this time.

President Obama is correct in stating his desire to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution to this crisis.  He is wrong to suggest that military action will be taken in the event we are not satisfied with the answers we receive.  As for those who call for a tougher stance, let them study the past and the words of George Santayana.  They might just learn a valuable lesson.

GDGehr    March 7, 2012
Comments welcome below.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Only Fools 'Rush' In: An Attempt To Control This Culture of Criticism


I really do not like giving Rush Limbaugh any publicity whatsoever through my blog site.  I will make an exception this time, however.  Typically, Rush has nothing to say that is worthy of comment and now he has proven why.

The "conservative" radio talk show host has once again wandered into territories where "only fools 'Rush' in" and in doing so confirmed that he himself is the fool!  In case you somehow missed it, Mr. Limbaugh chose to verbally attack Sandra Fluke, a third year law student at Georgetown University.  House Democrats wanted to invite Ms. Fluke to testify on the Obama Administration's health insurance measure requiring all employers, including those affiliated with religious institutions, to provide birth control prescriptions.  Republicans controlling the House refused to allow her to testify, however.  In response, the Democrats provided her with a forum on February 23 while Congress was on break.  Only a few congressmen were in attendance, all Democrats.

According to the Associated Press, Ms. Fluke told of a friend who had an ovary removed because of the growth of cysts.  The surgery could have been avoided if she could have filled a prescription for birth control pills.  Georgetown University's student health plan would not cover the cost, an estimated $3,000 per year, because as a Jesuit institution it opposes the use of contraceptives.

After telling this story, Sandra Fluke faced the wrath of Rush.  "What does it say about the college coed who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex?  It makes her a slut, right?  It makes her a prostitute.  She wants to be paid to have sex," said Limbaugh.  He continued, "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it.  We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

Is this what conservatism is about?  Referring to a young woman who has the courage to testify before Congress on behalf of her friend as a "slut" and a "prostitute" is in itself horrific.  But for Limbaugh to suggest that Fluke should produce the equivalent of pornographic videos for his pleasure crosses the line of all moral and ethical boundaries.  It may even be considered sexual harassment.  What a striking contradiction this represents for one who claims to be the voice and conscience of American Conservatism.

 Interestingly, Georgetown University President John DeGioia boldly issued a statement in support of Sandra Fluke and her right to speak out on this or any issue.  While the University as a Catholic institution opposes the use of contraception DeGioia acknowledge the right of all persons to respectfully disagree.  DeGioia went on to declare that Limbaugh was way out of bounds in his criticism.

I am most interested in this litany of events and comments for one basic reason.  Sandra Fluke has the right to take a stance and voice her thoughts, just as any American citizen does.  We may or may not agree with her.  We might even be a bit offended at what she stands for.  On the other hand we may find ourselves thinking "I wish I would have said that."  Either way, the issue I wish to speak to is the tone of dialog in this country.  We are becoming an increasingly polarized and aggressive nation.  Its true economically, as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class is quickly dissolving.  It is also true politically.  The Liberals and the Conservatives are drawing lines and strengthening their ranks.  The Moderates are fading into the sunset.  A perfect example is that of Mitt Romney.  There was a time when Romney was a moderate of moderates; a truly middle ground figure who could work with both sides of a debate.  As the endless Republican Primary continues to roll on, however, Romney is finding it far more advantageous for his candidacy to regurgitate the classic conservative clichés that he once carefully avoided, even if he nearly chokes as he says them.  Consequently, his campaign remains alive in spite of all the ferocious attacks from the Right.  First there was Michelle Bachman.  Then it was Rick Perry.  Then came Newt Gingrich, with the ever-present Ron Paul dancing in the shadows.  One by one the conservative champions rose to challenge Romney.  One by one they were beaten back with the club of wealth and organization - and a little assistance from the GOP Establishment, perhaps.  But now the former Governor of Massachusetts finds himself confronted by a formidable foe in the person of Rick Santorum.  Not that Santorum is such an ideal candidate, but rather the conservative, Right Wing element of the GOP has finally realized that to beat Romney they must narrow their options down to one candidate rather than 6.  Since Santorum has yet to be scrutinized on the national level and has essentially stood on the sidelines in the early debates, he was seen as their last hope.  Thus he earned the endorsement - official or otherwise - of the Tea Party, the Evangelicals, and all other Right-of-Center powers in a final showdown with the Moderate Romney.  Sensing the seriousness of the situation, Romney had decided to become a chameleon conservative.  That is, he has taken to using the jargon and the catch phrases that tickle the ears of all good political and social conservatives.  Is he genuinely changed?  Who knows.  Anything goes, it seems, in this unusual primary.

This culture of criticism has no boundaries, it would appear.  Santorum has raised questions concerning the sincerity of President Barak Obama's Christianity.  Santorum also has accused the President of adhering to a "phony theology", whatever that is supposed to mean.  Not to be outdone, popular evangelist Franklin Graham has joined the assault and labeled the President as a questionable Christian who, according to Muslim law, is actually a Muslim because his father was a Muslim.  Graham went on to say that in contrast Santorum was a true Christian because "his values are so clear on moral issues".  Oh really?  Do those moral issues include slandering elected officials and questioning the salvation of fellow Christians based on a differing political agenda?  Does the arrogance and pride demonstrated by Santorum exemplify the Fruit of the Holy Spirit that is to characterize a Christian's witness (see Galatians 5:19 - 26)?

Only after facing huge opposition from many, including the NAACP, did Graham offer a weak and limited apology for his insensitive remarks.  But it says here that it was too little, too late.  Franklin Graham, like his father, Billy, before him, has again discredited his testimony on behalf of Jesus and the Body of Christ by venturing into the murky waters of political propaganda.  He has carried on the family tradition of starting with a political agenda and then casting it in biblical language to impress the masses.  The result is a misrepresentation of biblical Truth and the blending of Christianity and nationalism together in such a way that distorts reality and creates confusion.  Like Limbaugh, Graham has rushed in and vocalized his prejudices without thinking first.  Perhaps these good people should return to their Bibles they so vehemently claim to rely upon and read again the words of James 1:19 - 21 which says:

"Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.  Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you."

It may also be helpful to turn to the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, when he said "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.  Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank that is in your own eye?  (Matthew 7: 1 - 3)".

Politics in this country has a long and shameful history of bitter campaigns and mudslinging.  Every four years I feel that we have reached new lows in ethical behavior, causing me to lose confidence in the American political system.  This year I am convinced we have fallen lower than ever before.  The backstabbing, the misrepresentation of facts, the hatred, the slander, the finger-pointing and general disrespect is simply nauseating.  And that's just in the Republican Primary!  I can't imagine what we will be forced to endure by the time September arrives.  Of course one of the key elements that are driving this fiasco is the introduction of the Super-PACs.  Their infusion of seemingly endless volumes of money together with the ability to speak on behalf of their candidate of choice without drawing that same candidate too closely into the fray has opened up a whole new realm of potential character assassinations.  There is so much to be said in critiquing the Super-PACs that I will save that topic for another day.

And so we plod along in this world of rearranged values.  Conservatives like Limbaugh wanting free access to pornography.  Evangelists like Graham switching from saving souls to practicing Islamic law.  A Catholic College President supporting a woman's effort to receive birth control pills.  What will they think of next?

Through it all there remain a few constants worth noting.

1.      A person's true character will be revealed by their own actions.  (Matthew 7:16 - 20;  Luke 6:43 - 45;  Galatians 5: 16 - 26;  James 3: 1 - 12).

2.      Human leaders will always disappoint but God's Truth endures forever.

3.      When it comes to Biblical interpretation let us begin with the Bible and draw conclusions from it rather than the other way around.

4.      This current culture of criticism must be destroyed before it destroys us.


As I said earlier, we do not need to agree with Sandra Fluke or anyone else for that matter.  In fact, it is healthy for society if we do not always agree.  But the one thing that makes this country great is the right granted to all persons to voice their opinion without being exposed to shame or verbal abuse.

On his website Mr. Limbaugh can be seen in a photo carrying an American flag over his shoulder.  Seemingly this is meant to portray him as the proud protector of American values.  Yet the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right for all persons to speak their mind - even Mr. Limbaugh.  Yes, painful as it may seem, Rush has the right to voice his opinion.  But he has no right to abuse a person while doing so.

Let's all try thinking a little before we 'Rush" in to speak!


G. D. Gehr, March 5, 2012
Comments invited below.
All Bible quotes are taken from the New International Version of the Holy Bible