There has been a steady focus for years on whether a political party or politician supports abortion here in the U.S. The Democratic party’s platform is pro-abortion and the Republican party’s is pro-life. However, as I cited in a previous post, the country is moving more toward a pro-life position, with over half the population expressing disagreement with the practice.
However, the abortion scenario abroad is mind-boggling. The BBC reports that in China there are 13 million abortions each year, compared to 20 million births. In many cases women are restricted to just one child, although in rural areas some couples can have two children if the first is a girl. This policy, begun in the 1970s, has forced young women to seek abortions. In its front-page story, the China Daily said the high number of abortions was "cause for concern", adding that many women who have abortions are single and aged between 20 and 29. Women are complaining that they are pressured into terminating their pregnancies.
As horrendous as China’s disposal of human life in the womb is, Russia’s abortion rate is worse. There are often more abortions annually in Russia than live births. The latest figures from the UN and the CD for one recent year show that 1.8 million abortions were performed compared to 1.5 million births.
Natural family planning, where necessary, is common sense. The massive international slaughter of innocent children in the womb is self-destructive behavior at its unthinkable worse. I wonder how much of this international tragedy can be laid at the feet of the Supreme Court justices who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade because, even today, America leads the world in setting social mores.
What pro-abortion advocates in government do here and now in the U.S. contributes in ways unseen, in my opinion, toward an increasing international disregard for human life in its earliest stages.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Credit Card President
The other day I got to thinking about the future of the country under the Obama administration. That we are headed for unsustainable debt for future generations I take for granted. The move is afoot for a socialization of medical care in this country. Not that the poorer among us should not have access to quality care…it is how that should be accomplished.
As my twin sons had to leave their parents’ health care program due to graduation from college, we investigated several options. What we came up with was a form of catastrophic health care called “Young Adult Blue.” The plan has an annual deductible of $1000, a co-pay of 30% of BCBSM-approved amount, two other co-pay stipulations, with a 70% coverage after co-pays for medical emergencies, tests, EKGS, etc., plus a $5,000,000 lifetime coverage for under $50 a month.
The plan isn’t for everyone, and prescription costs are not covered, nor are doctor visits, but it does provide a safety net for catastrophic events that could otherwise bankrupt a young adult for life.
However, Obama’s plan is insidious in that his promotion of it is full of promises which provide little more than his word as a guarantee. Over half of the population, recently polled, are against it.
Something will get to his desk for his signature, but even Democrats are finding this overhaul of the finest health care system in the world not the right fit in this economy. It has been estimated that the Obama proposal would increase federal spending by about $1.17 trillion over the 2010-19 period.
Following right behind this initiative of the president is his “green energy” plan. The bill, which Obama has said will reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and clean the air, calls for a reduction of carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020, and for 20 percent of the nation's energy to be renewable – such as wind and solar – by 2020. The bill, in its current form, could potentially cause rates to go up by 5 to 15 percent by 2016.
The U.S. House approved Obama's plan in a 219-212 vote. Its successful future in the Senate is a bit more dubious. We’ll have to wait until September for their vote.
Republicans in the House were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the middle of a recession, while burdening customers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates the cost of the president's plan to homeowners would, on average, be approximately $175 to $180 a year after tax credits and rebates were taken into account.
If the plan is adopted it will be a “Johnny-come-lately” version of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 which my global issues classes debated. The problem today is that India, China, and Mexico have said they’re more interested in economic growth that in curbing carbon emissions.
So, while well-intentioned, the effect of the “cap and trade” policy in the U.S. on the globe may be a lot less than hoped and a lot more money out of U.S. households for electricity.
Who’s going to run this proposed program to curb emissions? “Green czar” Van Jones. Born in 1968 in rural West Tennessee, Van Jones earned a B.A. degree from the University of Tennessee at Martin and then attended Yale Law School. During his years at Yale, Jones served as an intern with the San Francisco-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR), which views the United States as an irredeemably racist nation and "champions the legal rights of people of color, poor people, immigrants and refugees, with a special commitment to African-Americans."
Jones says that he first became politically radicalized in the aftermath of the deadly April 1992 Los Angeles riots which erupted shortly after four L.A. police officers who had beaten the infamous Rodney King were exonerated in court. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th," says Jones, who is black, "and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."
Jones was arrested during the L.A. riots and spent a short time in jail. "I met all these young radical people of color," he recalls, "I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."
I guess people can change political philosophy or at least modify it, as Jones apparently has, but, again, it’s the cost of the program that gives me pause.
Obama seems to see his role as destined to change American society into a socialist state. He has an unlimited appetite for using future generations’ wages with his own method of payment … the credit card called the U.S. Treasury.
Mr. President, you are the “Credit Card President” of a country that has run out of credit.
As my twin sons had to leave their parents’ health care program due to graduation from college, we investigated several options. What we came up with was a form of catastrophic health care called “Young Adult Blue.” The plan has an annual deductible of $1000, a co-pay of 30% of BCBSM-approved amount, two other co-pay stipulations, with a 70% coverage after co-pays for medical emergencies, tests, EKGS, etc., plus a $5,000,000 lifetime coverage for under $50 a month.
The plan isn’t for everyone, and prescription costs are not covered, nor are doctor visits, but it does provide a safety net for catastrophic events that could otherwise bankrupt a young adult for life.
However, Obama’s plan is insidious in that his promotion of it is full of promises which provide little more than his word as a guarantee. Over half of the population, recently polled, are against it.
Something will get to his desk for his signature, but even Democrats are finding this overhaul of the finest health care system in the world not the right fit in this economy. It has been estimated that the Obama proposal would increase federal spending by about $1.17 trillion over the 2010-19 period.
Following right behind this initiative of the president is his “green energy” plan. The bill, which Obama has said will reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and clean the air, calls for a reduction of carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020, and for 20 percent of the nation's energy to be renewable – such as wind and solar – by 2020. The bill, in its current form, could potentially cause rates to go up by 5 to 15 percent by 2016.
The U.S. House approved Obama's plan in a 219-212 vote. Its successful future in the Senate is a bit more dubious. We’ll have to wait until September for their vote.
Republicans in the House were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the middle of a recession, while burdening customers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates the cost of the president's plan to homeowners would, on average, be approximately $175 to $180 a year after tax credits and rebates were taken into account.
If the plan is adopted it will be a “Johnny-come-lately” version of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 which my global issues classes debated. The problem today is that India, China, and Mexico have said they’re more interested in economic growth that in curbing carbon emissions.
So, while well-intentioned, the effect of the “cap and trade” policy in the U.S. on the globe may be a lot less than hoped and a lot more money out of U.S. households for electricity.
Who’s going to run this proposed program to curb emissions? “Green czar” Van Jones. Born in 1968 in rural West Tennessee, Van Jones earned a B.A. degree from the University of Tennessee at Martin and then attended Yale Law School. During his years at Yale, Jones served as an intern with the San Francisco-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR), which views the United States as an irredeemably racist nation and "champions the legal rights of people of color, poor people, immigrants and refugees, with a special commitment to African-Americans."
Jones says that he first became politically radicalized in the aftermath of the deadly April 1992 Los Angeles riots which erupted shortly after four L.A. police officers who had beaten the infamous Rodney King were exonerated in court. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th," says Jones, who is black, "and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."
Jones was arrested during the L.A. riots and spent a short time in jail. "I met all these young radical people of color," he recalls, "I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."
I guess people can change political philosophy or at least modify it, as Jones apparently has, but, again, it’s the cost of the program that gives me pause.
Obama seems to see his role as destined to change American society into a socialist state. He has an unlimited appetite for using future generations’ wages with his own method of payment … the credit card called the U.S. Treasury.
Mr. President, you are the “Credit Card President” of a country that has run out of credit.
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Colosseum..Site of Bread and Circuses
On a recent trip to Rome, I visited the Colosseum. Emperor Vespasian began its construction around 70 AD, coincidentally the same year Solomon’s Temple was destroyed by the Romans. What remains of the Roman amphitheater was, in its heyday until the sixth century, capable of seating 50,000 spectators.
It provided entertainment in the form of gladiatorial contests, races, slaughter of Christians, animal hunts, mock naval battles, and a place for the public dole of bread. It was hoped that by appeasing the crowds with bread and circuses, they would not rebel against the emperors.
The images of what went on in this, the largest Roman edifice, can only be in the realm of conjecture today, but the movie “The Gladiator” brought the debauched history of Rome’s central attraction to life again.
Fast forward to 2009. We have many great stadiums in our country for the entertainment of the public with such benign contests as baseball, football, and soccer. And there are the special nights for free baseball hats and other promotional gimmicks. I once went to a Pistons game at the Palace where pizzas were thrown to the crowd. However, the chief entertainment for the evening was when the helium-filled balloons that were released caught fire in the skylights. Anyway…I digress.
There are plenty of opinions around on whether or not rich Americans pay too much, or too little, income tax. But CNN Money’s Jeanne Sahadi talked about the hard numbers April 15th of this year, and wrote:
“The U.S. tax code is progressive, meaning that higher-income tax filers pay more in taxes than those lower down the income scale.”
Morally, I have no problem with a progressive tax. The wealthy should pay more than the poor widow in the Gospel. Offsetting the burden on the wealthy is the fact that their accountants have the knowledge to take advantage of ever tax loop hole available, so the sting isn’t as bad as it seems.
But just how much more should the wealthy pay than those in the middle class?
The highest earners pay the lion’s share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.
The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.
The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.
Still think the rich should be paying more income tax? What if someone were to argue that low- and middle-income tax filers aren’t paying enough taxes?
From the CNN senior writer:
“A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high.
“Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000.”
Once the various tax breaks to which they’re entitled are counted, the burdens of low- and middle-income tax filers as a group has been fairly low.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.
Brian Griffiths of the U.K. recently wrote a piece for the London Times on Pope Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical, a 44-page document titled "Caritas in Veritate" or "Charity in Truth." In the Catholic tradition, encyclicals are open letters written by the pope to the bishops of the church, addressing big issues ranging from dangers to the world at large or the souls of church members. Lord Griffiths of Forestfach is a trustee of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Lambeth Trust and Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International.
According to Griffiths, the encyclical suggests six major ways to make global capitalism more human.
First, it calls for “the management of globalization” and a reform of international economic institutions. They are needed “to manage the global economy, to revive economies hit by the crisis, to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis . . . to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration”. Not surprisingly, for this huge task we need “a true world political authority” through reform of the United Nations.
Next, there needs to be greater diversity among the enterprises that create wealth: mutual societies, credit unions and hybrid forms of commercial organization.
Third, globalization has weakened the ability of trade unions to represent the interests of workers, something that needs to be reversed.
Fourth, the scandal of inequality requires countries to increase the proportion of GDP given as foreign aid.
Fifth, because the environment is the gift of the Creator we have an intergenerational responsibility to tackle climate change.
Finally, everyone involved in the market, traders, producers, bankers — even consumers — must be alert to the moral consequences of their actions. “Development is impossible without upright men and women, without financiers and politicians whose consciences are finely attuned to the common good.”
As a theologian, I agree in principle with the encyclical’s main proposals.
However, as a voting citizen of the greatest free market country, I have always had a theory about liberal political parties, here and abroad. A liberal politician, in order to get elected, promises to help those on the bottom of the economic ladder. Fair enough. So, if, as we approach the coming time when half the population will not pay any income tax, but actually gets a low-income subsidy, the trend toward keeping liberals in office may continue because the votes will be there.
On the other hand, conservatives oppose bailouts, higher welfare, and more government. Yet, if those who pay income tax falls below 50% and those who do not surpasses 50%, it doesn’t take a political genius or a theologian to figure out that we are headed for bread and circuses once again.
I don’t think Benedict had this in mind.
It provided entertainment in the form of gladiatorial contests, races, slaughter of Christians, animal hunts, mock naval battles, and a place for the public dole of bread. It was hoped that by appeasing the crowds with bread and circuses, they would not rebel against the emperors.
The images of what went on in this, the largest Roman edifice, can only be in the realm of conjecture today, but the movie “The Gladiator” brought the debauched history of Rome’s central attraction to life again.
Fast forward to 2009. We have many great stadiums in our country for the entertainment of the public with such benign contests as baseball, football, and soccer. And there are the special nights for free baseball hats and other promotional gimmicks. I once went to a Pistons game at the Palace where pizzas were thrown to the crowd. However, the chief entertainment for the evening was when the helium-filled balloons that were released caught fire in the skylights. Anyway…I digress.
There are plenty of opinions around on whether or not rich Americans pay too much, or too little, income tax. But CNN Money’s Jeanne Sahadi talked about the hard numbers April 15th of this year, and wrote:
“The U.S. tax code is progressive, meaning that higher-income tax filers pay more in taxes than those lower down the income scale.”
Morally, I have no problem with a progressive tax. The wealthy should pay more than the poor widow in the Gospel. Offsetting the burden on the wealthy is the fact that their accountants have the knowledge to take advantage of ever tax loop hole available, so the sting isn’t as bad as it seems.
But just how much more should the wealthy pay than those in the middle class?
The highest earners pay the lion’s share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.
The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.
The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.
Still think the rich should be paying more income tax? What if someone were to argue that low- and middle-income tax filers aren’t paying enough taxes?
From the CNN senior writer:
“A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high.
“Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000.”
Once the various tax breaks to which they’re entitled are counted, the burdens of low- and middle-income tax filers as a group has been fairly low.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.
Brian Griffiths of the U.K. recently wrote a piece for the London Times on Pope Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical, a 44-page document titled "Caritas in Veritate" or "Charity in Truth." In the Catholic tradition, encyclicals are open letters written by the pope to the bishops of the church, addressing big issues ranging from dangers to the world at large or the souls of church members. Lord Griffiths of Forestfach is a trustee of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Lambeth Trust and Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International.
According to Griffiths, the encyclical suggests six major ways to make global capitalism more human.
First, it calls for “the management of globalization” and a reform of international economic institutions. They are needed “to manage the global economy, to revive economies hit by the crisis, to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis . . . to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration”. Not surprisingly, for this huge task we need “a true world political authority” through reform of the United Nations.
Next, there needs to be greater diversity among the enterprises that create wealth: mutual societies, credit unions and hybrid forms of commercial organization.
Third, globalization has weakened the ability of trade unions to represent the interests of workers, something that needs to be reversed.
Fourth, the scandal of inequality requires countries to increase the proportion of GDP given as foreign aid.
Fifth, because the environment is the gift of the Creator we have an intergenerational responsibility to tackle climate change.
Finally, everyone involved in the market, traders, producers, bankers — even consumers — must be alert to the moral consequences of their actions. “Development is impossible without upright men and women, without financiers and politicians whose consciences are finely attuned to the common good.”
As a theologian, I agree in principle with the encyclical’s main proposals.
However, as a voting citizen of the greatest free market country, I have always had a theory about liberal political parties, here and abroad. A liberal politician, in order to get elected, promises to help those on the bottom of the economic ladder. Fair enough. So, if, as we approach the coming time when half the population will not pay any income tax, but actually gets a low-income subsidy, the trend toward keeping liberals in office may continue because the votes will be there.
On the other hand, conservatives oppose bailouts, higher welfare, and more government. Yet, if those who pay income tax falls below 50% and those who do not surpasses 50%, it doesn’t take a political genius or a theologian to figure out that we are headed for bread and circuses once again.
I don’t think Benedict had this in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
