Paul Ryan's Budget and MSM Spin

I just watched a report on MSNBC which stated that Paul Ryan's budget plan is going to starve and kill old people. That's the actual language they used. Shocking, isn't it? What kind of country would allow their old people to be starved and killed? (See minute 2:20 into the video.)

Apparently the folks at MSNBC think that the seniors of this nation are going to be imprisoned, starved and killed in order to bring government spending under control in Mr. Ryan's budget. What's that you say? That's not the case? Oh, the seniors and their families are just going to have to find another way to pay for their food and care than through government handouts? Well that's quite a bit different isn't it?

The assumption that, without a government handout, these older folks will be allowed to starve and go without their medications assumes quite a lot that may or may not be true.

• It assumes that the senior citizens themselves will not take any action to replace the funds and health care plans that are currently being provided by the government. (And isn't Obamacare supposed to take care of all our health needs? But, wait, that's right, Obama care will be rationed and seniors, being at the end of their lives simply won't be eligible for the best treatments.)


• It assumes that the families of these seniors will not be pitching in to help Mom, Dad, Aunt Mary and Uncle Joe either.


• It assumes that our churches and community organizations won't be picking up any of that slack.


• And, finally(at least for this post) it assumes that drug companies and doctors will deny these people the access they need to proper health care.

Those are a lot of assumptions and for the most part, I don't think any of them are accurate. This is the most charitable nation in the world and if we lack the character to help ourselves, as senior citizens, or our fellows, as younger people, then what hope is there for the world?

Doctors complain now that they are unable to donate their time and talents to help needy patients, because of government guidelines that demand that if they treat one patient for free, they must charge medicare nothing for treating medicare eligible patients. Does that sound like doctors are going to deny care to truly needy patients? (But, wait, I forgot about Obamacare again. Under Obamacare, if doctors don't limit themselves to prescribing only the government recommended treatments, they will be draconically fined and possibly jailed.)

Drug companies already offer free and reduced cost pharmaceuticals for the truly needy as well. That doesn't sound like people are going to be denied what they need for their lives by the greedy drug companies either. (In fact, it almost looks like the drug companies aren't quite so greedy as many have been led by the nose to believe.)

Certainly I am not saying that everyone's needs will be met in these or other ways by families and communities, but then, the government's entitlement programs are letting quite a few people "fall through the cracks" as well. The truth is, that no system is perfect. No system is going to truly meet the needs of everyone equitably. That's not even a realistic goal. If I have to choose between the two options, I prefer to choose a system that encourages people to get involved in the care of themselves and others, rather than a system that relieves me of the burden of caring for my fellow man because "that's what I pay my taxes for", so I won't have to be bothered.

Because, in the end, that's what government entitlement programs are, right? A way to foist our uncomfortable duty to our fellow man off on a faceless entity so that we don't have to be bothered when we see someone in need? We are better than that, and Mr. Ryan knows it. It's time the people at MSNBC knew it too.

The truth is that Mr. Ryan's budget is not going to yank these entitlement programs out from under people. It is going to slowly change the programs so that we can get our act together with regard to caring for our own at the local level.

It is a necessary plan if we do not want our children and grandchildren to live in poverty because they have to pay for our excesses. And that's the bottom line.

"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." ~ 1 Cor 13:3

Entitlement Question to Rep. King

This is one of the questions from the call referenced in the previous post.

One question to Mr. King was '...You say reducing capital gains taxes is the right way to rebuild the economy. David Walker and the Peter G Peterson Foundation say that the upcoming unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs are the bigger threat.' "Do you propose to cut spending in the area of entitlement programs and how are you going to address that?"

Mr. King's answer was to say that Mr. Bush had expended his political capital in attempting to remove some entitlement spending during his administration to no avail. He said he would be supportive of what could be brought to reform Medicare, social security and others, but he's turned his focus more on real tax reform. He then went on to say that we are in a crisis and leaping off the brink of the abyss into a socialist economy. He wants to know how we can get this thing to the point where we can make some positive changes.
He believes two "transformational" changes would put us back on the road to fiscal responsibility: a fair tax, and giving parents school choice.

First, I don't believe a fair tax (by which I think he may be referring to a flat tax or the consumer based sales tax model - but he didn't say really, so perhaps he, or someone in his office will correct this if I am mistaken) will ever be passed because the tax code as it stands is such an excellent tool in the hands of government/law enforcement. If we cannot stop some criminal in any other way, we have the get-them-through-their-taxes option. The current tax code is longer than the Bible. I believe that it is now, nearly impossible for anyone to file their taxes in a way that is above reproach. It's a catch - 22 in the system, a sword of Damocles, if you will. It does need to be changed, but I don't think anyone who currently holds an ounce of power in the government will really vote to change it to a simple and easily understood system. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong at Congress' earliest possible convenience.

Second, school choice is a wonderful thing. I am currently utilizing a school choice program for my own son. Yay to school choice. So what? Federal funding of education is an entitlement program. One does not get rid of entitlement programs by continuing to fund adapted forms of them.

Put the states in charge of their educational systems and have a federal competency test. Education is important, but from all that I've seen and read, the two most important factors in a child's education are parental involvement and good teachers. Not extracurriculars, not fancy facilities, not athletic programs, not the many bureaucratic layers necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal guidelines, not even community support - parental involvement and good teachers.
Putting the states in charge of their own educational systems brings the choices closer to home and begets parental involvement. Here's a really revolutionary and transformational idea for Mr. King, let schools fire teachers when they need to be fired. The NEA has been holding this country hostage long enough. Teaching is not any more noble than any other job which serves it's community.

A national competency test would assure us that when a student has obtained a high school diploma he/she will be able to read, write and do math with a certain level of competence whether they were taught in Maine or Hawaii. That would be transformational and reduce a large entitlement program.

Thirdly, yes, I agree we, as a nation, appear to be ecstatically leaping off the edge of fiscal irresponsibility and into the abyss of socialism. However, refusing to address the entitlement programs we have on the basis of pointing out the fiscally and philosophically perilous entitlement programs we are about to be adding is illogical. Don't vote to add the new ones and tackle the old ones head on. Yes, that means you risk being labeled as heartless and voted out of office in the next election. That's what character is, doing the right thing regardless of popular opinion and personal risk. We are a republic, not a democracy, for just that reason. Because popular opinion is not always right. While a congressman/woman does need to be responsive to their constituency, they also need to be aware that their constituencies do not have all the information they need to make good decisions in all matters legislative-that's why they hired you-to do the right thing for them and the country, to oppose their wishes when your information is better.

I thank you Mr. King for taking that question. My observations are not those of a republican, just a conservative. I thank you for making yourself available for the conference and for your service to the country as an elected Representative.

I'll get to more of the questions from this call in another post.

"And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle."~1 Sam 17:28

GOP Conference Calls

My apologies for the lengthy break between posts. I have been distracted by my non-blogging life of late. I hope that is settling and I will be able to post more consistently for this next bit. I would like your help to decide about a new opportunity that has been presented to me recently.

On March 16th, I received an e-mail from the House Republican Conference. It said that they are reaching out to blogs who do not currently receive their Congressional updates and videos.
They also extend invitations to exclusive blogger conference calls with House members on hot topics being discussed in Washington. I participated in my first such conference call with Reps. King, McCotter and McMorris Rodgers on the 25th.
Some of the topics addressed were the strategy of the current administration, the debt, increases in spending, entitlement spending, AIG, and etc.
To hear the call click here. This call lasted about 30 minutes. Mr. McCotter's remarks starting at 27 minutes, 45 seconds are refreshing.
"Our truths are self-evident, not relative"

I'm not quite sure why I was invited to participate in these calls as I am not a republican, but rather a conservative.
Let me know what you think. Is this sort of conference call valuable?
If so, and I decide to continue to participate and post on them, Would you prefer that I write a transcript of the call, post a link to the call itself, as I've done here, or just excerpt bits that I find relevant?

"The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. "~Zeph 3:5