from Big Government:
Why Democrats are Pushing the $165 Billion Union Pension Bailoutby LaborUnionReport
Somewhere lurking in the hot, putrid halls of Congress this summer is a union bailout bill of epic proportions and long-term ramifications. Whether or not Democrats can ultimately push it (or something like it) into passage is yet to be determined. However, with rumors that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) signed on as a co-sponsor on Thursday, it would appear that the union bailout is quietly creeping along. If it passes, though, its ramifications surpass the mere $165 billion-plus price tag, as it will influence the political landscape for decades to come. In sum, Democrats need the bailout desperately and Republicans should shun it like the plague.
Likely to surpass the touted $165 billion it is estimated to cost, Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act (S. 3157) was introduced on March 23rd by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and is designed to bailout unions’ underfunded pension funds by transferring the liability of those funds onto the backs of the taxpayers.
Under these bills, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) would, at the request of the plans, have the authority to take over the pension obligations of employers who have withdrawn from the plans, and pay the benefits out of taxpayer dollars, says Furchtgott-Roth:
•Once the PBGC shoulders that obligation, it would keep making payments until the last retiree or designated survivor dies.
•Since many multiemployer plans are in financial difficulty, this legislation, if enacted, could dramatically increase the federal deficit, putting even more pressure on the American taxpayer and the economy.
•Depending on events, it might add billions to government spending — current underfunding levels are estimated at $165 billion-bumping up future deficits.
According to a June 24th article published in the Bureau of National Affairs Construction Labor Report (subscription required):
If enacted into law, the bill would convert a private funding shortfall for collectively bargained multi-employer plans into a public obligation, said Brett McMahon, vice president of Miller and Long Concrete Construction and an ABC member.
The legislation would transfer a portion of multiemployer pension funding obligations to a new insurance program that would be operated by the PBGC and paid for with taxpayer dollars instead of employer-paid premiums, F. Vincent Vernuccio, a spokesman for the trade group’s advocacy organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said during the call.
At the heart of the union pension problem are companies that, in many cases, agreed to put retirement money for union workers into “multi-employer plans” but have since gone out of business. As the unionized workers in multi-employer plans are still entitled to a pension, the remaining employers are left funding the pensions of workers who, in many cases, they never employed.
Over the past few decades, as more and more unionized companies have gone out of business, this ponzi-scheme has only grown, leaving many union pensions severely underfunded—an estimated $165 billion underfunded. Now, with so many plans in critical status, many companies that remain in union multi-employer plans are facing an insurmountable burden that may eventually drive many of them out of business.
What’s Really Behind the Democrats’ Push for the Union Pension Bailout
Liberal talk-show host Ed Schultz proclaimed last weekend that America is in an ideological fight for the country. The problem for many on the Right is that they are only beginning to understand that the Left’s vision for America is a long-range vision—and it is a fight where the Left is playing for keeps.
Democrats need unions to be their foot soldiers on the march to a socialized progressive America which is why the entire Left establishment has been pushing for the horrifically-misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) for the better part of a decade.
In fact, at 2009’s Netroots Nation (the left-wing blog event for socialist progressive bloggers), one of the panel discussions held was The Secret Plan to Defeat the Right Forever and how EFCA was key to the plan’s success.
Modernizing the nation’s labor law is critical to expanding union membership—which in turn, will ensure conservatives become a permanent minority, as newly-empowered workers actively engage in political action and demand a new way of doing the nation’s business, like creating an economy that rewards Main Street and not just Wall Street. The freedom to form unions and bargain is critical to the progressive movement—when workers have the tools they need to build a better life, they have the power to improve their communities and the solidarity to make progressive political change throughout the nation.
In other words, the Left has been relying on EFCA in order to have one-party rule in America permanently. The problem is, EFCA has been temporarily stalled and now the train-wreck of union pensions is barreling down on the Democrats. In order to save the Democratic Party, they must save the unions (or more specifically, the unionized companies) from failing.
While Democrats will tout the union pension bailout bill as another way to “create or save jobs,” it is misleading. The union pension bailout bill will save Democrat politicians’ jobs and it may also temporarily save some union jobs, but at what expense?
There are no guarantees that bailing out the union pensions at the expense of taxpayers will save the unionized companies. Moreover, if the union companies are allowed to fail, the markets and industries that these companies operate in will likely absorb the work, creating jobs in other (albeit non-union) companies.
On the other hand, even though Democrats know that another union bailout will likely make them even bigger pariahs with the American people, the very survival of their party rests on their ability on passing this poisonous piece of legislation. If they fail, the ramifications for the Democrats are disastrous.
Failing to bailout the union pensions would likely cause the failure of a fairly high number of unionized employers. If unionized employers fail, unions will lose members. Without union members, unions would have no union dues with which they can fund Democrats’ political campaigns and would not be able to mobilize effective Get Out the Vote (GOTV) efforts.
There are a couple of reasons Democrats and their union handlers are pushing this poisonous bill now: Union bosses and Democrats know there is likely going to be a major upheaval in November. As a result, what they have not been able to accomplish in the last 18 months in Washington will presumably be stalled for another few years (at least until 2013). They cannot survive that long. The union pension bailout bill is the lifeline to ensure their survival until they can regain dominance again.
In the coming months, watch for more push from the Democrats to bailout the union pension plans. If it doesn’t happen before the mid-term elections, it could very well happen immediately after. However, for any Republicans considering supporting this legislation, they do so at their own peril, for the Democrats are only pushing this to save their party by making sure they have foot soldiers in future elections.
__________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
The Rise and Fall of Hope and Change
The United States Capitol Building
The Constitutional Convention
The Continental Congress
George Washington at Valley Forge
Friday, July 30, 2010
Brewer Files Immigration Appeal
From The American Thinker:
July 30, 2010
Brewer files immigration appeal
Rick Moran
I think she puts the case succinctly - and powerfully:
"America is not going to sit back and allow the ongoing federal failures to continue. We are a nation of laws, and we believe they need to be enforced," Brewer said. "If the federal government wants to be in charge of illegal immigration and they want no help from states, it then needs to do its job. Arizona would not be faced with this problem if the federal government honored its responsibilities."
"Illegal immigration is an ongoing crisis the state of Arizona did not create and the federal government has refused to fix," she continued. "[Senate bill] 1070 protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state, lawfully. It ensures that the constitutional rights of all in Arizona are undiminished."
A portion of the state law took effect Thursday. But the most controversial provision, which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest or detain, was blocked by the judge.
Posted at 08:48 AM
July 30, 2010
Brewer files immigration appeal
Rick Moran
I think she puts the case succinctly - and powerfully:
"America is not going to sit back and allow the ongoing federal failures to continue. We are a nation of laws, and we believe they need to be enforced," Brewer said. "If the federal government wants to be in charge of illegal immigration and they want no help from states, it then needs to do its job. Arizona would not be faced with this problem if the federal government honored its responsibilities."
"Illegal immigration is an ongoing crisis the state of Arizona did not create and the federal government has refused to fix," she continued. "[Senate bill] 1070 protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state, lawfully. It ensures that the constitutional rights of all in Arizona are undiminished."
A portion of the state law took effect Thursday. But the most controversial provision, which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest or detain, was blocked by the judge.
Posted at 08:48 AM
Secure Communities
From The American Thinker:
July 30, 2010
Secure Communities
Clarice Feldman
It's a head scratcher. Tom Maguire notes the NYT articles on an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) program called Secure Communities -- which seems remarkably like the Arizona law which the department just succeeded in getting enjoined.
Tom quotes the latest article NYT article on the program:
A task force recommended that Colorado institute a federal background check program called Secure Communities, which helps the authorities check an arrested person's immigration history through a government database, for possible deportation.
Now, as Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. weighs whether to use Secure Communities, already in effect in 480 jurisdictions in 27 states, immigrant rights groups have been privately pushing him to reject the program. Critics say it promotes racial profiling by the local police and would undermine trust between immigrants and law enforcement, in a state that has particularly strict immigration laws.
"Secure Communities is an overbroad dragnet that will end up destroying communities and families while driving victims and witnesses underground," said Hans Meyer, policy coordinator for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition.
But officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, the federal agency that runs Secure Communities, says the program is shoring up a system that has allowed illegal immigrants with criminal records to escape notice.
"It allows ICE and local law enforcement agencies to know as much as possible about people in local custody without any additional costs or procedural changes by local officers," said Richard Rocha, deputy press secretary for the agency.
What gives? Why does the federal government cooperate with some states and communities and not Arizona, the state so demonstrably overrun by illegal aliens,many of whom are engaged in violent criminal activities?
Here is a Secure Communities fact sheet, some fire from the left flank, more fire from the left, and earlier Times coverage.
The next step - The Times should demand that Eric Holder sue Janet Napolitano. The basis will be something about the primacy of singing 'Kumbaya' over enforcing the law.
Posted at 01:43 PM
July 30, 2010
Secure Communities
Clarice Feldman
It's a head scratcher. Tom Maguire notes the NYT articles on an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) program called Secure Communities -- which seems remarkably like the Arizona law which the department just succeeded in getting enjoined.
Tom quotes the latest article NYT article on the program:
A task force recommended that Colorado institute a federal background check program called Secure Communities, which helps the authorities check an arrested person's immigration history through a government database, for possible deportation.
Now, as Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. weighs whether to use Secure Communities, already in effect in 480 jurisdictions in 27 states, immigrant rights groups have been privately pushing him to reject the program. Critics say it promotes racial profiling by the local police and would undermine trust between immigrants and law enforcement, in a state that has particularly strict immigration laws.
"Secure Communities is an overbroad dragnet that will end up destroying communities and families while driving victims and witnesses underground," said Hans Meyer, policy coordinator for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition.
But officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, the federal agency that runs Secure Communities, says the program is shoring up a system that has allowed illegal immigrants with criminal records to escape notice.
"It allows ICE and local law enforcement agencies to know as much as possible about people in local custody without any additional costs or procedural changes by local officers," said Richard Rocha, deputy press secretary for the agency.
What gives? Why does the federal government cooperate with some states and communities and not Arizona, the state so demonstrably overrun by illegal aliens,many of whom are engaged in violent criminal activities?
Here is a Secure Communities fact sheet, some fire from the left flank, more fire from the left, and earlier Times coverage.
The next step - The Times should demand that Eric Holder sue Janet Napolitano. The basis will be something about the primacy of singing 'Kumbaya' over enforcing the law.
Posted at 01:43 PM
Lobbyists Give Democrats Millions, Even Though Obama Derides Special Interests
from Gateway Pundit:
Lobbyists Give Millions to Dems As Obama Smears ‘Special Interests’
Posted by Guest Contributor on Friday, July 30, 2010, 5:45 PM
-By Warner Todd Huston
Let’s go back to those hopey-changie days of the Obama campaign for president when he railed constantly against all those “special interests” and eeeevil lobbyists that he claimed were ruining the political process. Let us recall that once elected he claimed he’d have the “strictest ethics rules” of any president ever.
Obama has made sure that his message has been anti-special interests, anti-lobbyists, anti-business-as-usual… heck just plain anti-business, for that matter. It’s all been quite a show. Unfortunately for all the talk his actions speak to the opposite of his spin — more on that in a moment. But even if President Obama was serious about his anti-lobbyist rhetoric his party has utterly ignored him on the issue.
A recent Bloomberg report reveals that lobbyists have raised $1.5 million for Democrat campaign funds during the first six months of the Obama regime quite despite Obama’s constant anti-lobbyist refrain. That is far more than the GOP has been able to raise.
As much as Obama rails against the influence held by lobbyists in Washington, candidates rely on them to help fund increasingly expensive campaigns. Reports released today show lobbyists also personally contributed to Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Bloomberg reports that just two campaign donation “bundlers” have brought in a combined $860,700 into the coffers of the Democratic Congressional Committee since Obama took office. The most successful fundraiser, former Pelosi operative Ryan Rudominer, brought in $716,300 from the electric energy lobby while the second highest fundraiser was Tony Podesta. Podesta represents BP oil, among others and brought in $144,400.
Apparently the party at which Obama sits as headman isn’t paying much mind to the boss’ entreaties. More likely, they all know it’s just hokum and hopey-changie jaw-jaw and not really meant to be taken seriously.
Me, I’d auger for the later because since Obama took office all those “strict ethics rules” have gone out the window for every other appointee and associate that Obama has put in place. Seemingly hours after he took the oath, the president’s office began to waive those “strictest” rules to allow his favorite lobbyists and lawyers to take up residence in his administration.
By Feb. 2, for instance, despite his acclaimed ban on lobbyists a dozen high profile lobbyists had already had those “strict” rules waived for them to join the administration. And by May of 2009, Obama completely lifted his so-called ban on lobbyists from joining his administration. Over a year into his term, he’s still waiving those “rules” for his pals.
By April of 2010 Obama had waived those rules so many times that dozens and dozens of lobbyists, those same lobbyists he attacked endlessly during the campaign, left their lobbying firms to come and work for the big money in Obama’s administration. And this is not to mention that lobbyists have been found to be making a killing in Obama’s Washington especially the army of lobbyists that streamed to D.C. to make cash off the healthcare issue. Even in August of 2009 Obama was still waiving his “strictest ethics rules” to allow his favorite folks into his administration.
In fact, lobbying has become such a lucrative business under Obama that Democrat staffers throughout Washington are quitting government to go work for lobbying firms and doing so with a healthy raise in pay.
Fast forward to May of 2010 and Obama waived those “strictest ethics rules” ever yet again. This time to allow Bob Bauer to replace Craig Craig as Obama’s chief White House counsel. Bauer had rules waived that are meant to prevent administration officials from working on things that would affect people they’ve worked for before. Obama gave Bauer a two-year waiver.
I love how the White House explained this waiver, too.
Eisen, who works under Bauer and wrote the waiver, stressed that it is limited, applying only to Bauer’s work at the powerhouse Democratic firm Perkins Coie as a private lawyer for the Obama family, and for the Democratic National Committee.
Right. And they’ve said the exact same thing about the dozens and dozens of other waivers they’ve made, too. It seems that Obama has waived these “rules” more than he’s observed them and in every case they had those rules waived “only” for that one person.
Obama thinks we are stupid. He thinks he can just go before the public, announce rules he has no intention of ever following, then ignore them and put in whom ever he wants in his administration. Yet he still claims he’s being strictly ethical. Look, no one is denying that a president has a right to put in the people he wants into his own administration but this lie that he is employing the “strictest ethics rules” ever is simply a lie, a smoke screen used to fool people into thinking he isn’t running his administration in a business-as-usual mode.
Will voters continue to fall for this?
Finally, there is one reason and one reason only that all these lobbyists are so free wheeling with their spending in Washington: Congress has taken on too much power unto itself. All these lobbyists and big money men would have no need to buy a President, Senator, or Congressman if there wasn’t so much government regulation for them to try and wade through. Take more government out of the picture and fewer lobbyists will have any need to fill politician’s pockets.
Lobbyists Give Millions to Dems As Obama Smears ‘Special Interests’
Posted by Guest Contributor on Friday, July 30, 2010, 5:45 PM
-By Warner Todd Huston
Let’s go back to those hopey-changie days of the Obama campaign for president when he railed constantly against all those “special interests” and eeeevil lobbyists that he claimed were ruining the political process. Let us recall that once elected he claimed he’d have the “strictest ethics rules” of any president ever.
Obama has made sure that his message has been anti-special interests, anti-lobbyists, anti-business-as-usual… heck just plain anti-business, for that matter. It’s all been quite a show. Unfortunately for all the talk his actions speak to the opposite of his spin — more on that in a moment. But even if President Obama was serious about his anti-lobbyist rhetoric his party has utterly ignored him on the issue.
A recent Bloomberg report reveals that lobbyists have raised $1.5 million for Democrat campaign funds during the first six months of the Obama regime quite despite Obama’s constant anti-lobbyist refrain. That is far more than the GOP has been able to raise.
As much as Obama rails against the influence held by lobbyists in Washington, candidates rely on them to help fund increasingly expensive campaigns. Reports released today show lobbyists also personally contributed to Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Bloomberg reports that just two campaign donation “bundlers” have brought in a combined $860,700 into the coffers of the Democratic Congressional Committee since Obama took office. The most successful fundraiser, former Pelosi operative Ryan Rudominer, brought in $716,300 from the electric energy lobby while the second highest fundraiser was Tony Podesta. Podesta represents BP oil, among others and brought in $144,400.
Apparently the party at which Obama sits as headman isn’t paying much mind to the boss’ entreaties. More likely, they all know it’s just hokum and hopey-changie jaw-jaw and not really meant to be taken seriously.
Me, I’d auger for the later because since Obama took office all those “strict ethics rules” have gone out the window for every other appointee and associate that Obama has put in place. Seemingly hours after he took the oath, the president’s office began to waive those “strictest” rules to allow his favorite lobbyists and lawyers to take up residence in his administration.
By Feb. 2, for instance, despite his acclaimed ban on lobbyists a dozen high profile lobbyists had already had those “strict” rules waived for them to join the administration. And by May of 2009, Obama completely lifted his so-called ban on lobbyists from joining his administration. Over a year into his term, he’s still waiving those “rules” for his pals.
By April of 2010 Obama had waived those rules so many times that dozens and dozens of lobbyists, those same lobbyists he attacked endlessly during the campaign, left their lobbying firms to come and work for the big money in Obama’s administration. And this is not to mention that lobbyists have been found to be making a killing in Obama’s Washington especially the army of lobbyists that streamed to D.C. to make cash off the healthcare issue. Even in August of 2009 Obama was still waiving his “strictest ethics rules” to allow his favorite folks into his administration.
In fact, lobbying has become such a lucrative business under Obama that Democrat staffers throughout Washington are quitting government to go work for lobbying firms and doing so with a healthy raise in pay.
Fast forward to May of 2010 and Obama waived those “strictest ethics rules” ever yet again. This time to allow Bob Bauer to replace Craig Craig as Obama’s chief White House counsel. Bauer had rules waived that are meant to prevent administration officials from working on things that would affect people they’ve worked for before. Obama gave Bauer a two-year waiver.
I love how the White House explained this waiver, too.
Eisen, who works under Bauer and wrote the waiver, stressed that it is limited, applying only to Bauer’s work at the powerhouse Democratic firm Perkins Coie as a private lawyer for the Obama family, and for the Democratic National Committee.
Right. And they’ve said the exact same thing about the dozens and dozens of other waivers they’ve made, too. It seems that Obama has waived these “rules” more than he’s observed them and in every case they had those rules waived “only” for that one person.
Obama thinks we are stupid. He thinks he can just go before the public, announce rules he has no intention of ever following, then ignore them and put in whom ever he wants in his administration. Yet he still claims he’s being strictly ethical. Look, no one is denying that a president has a right to put in the people he wants into his own administration but this lie that he is employing the “strictest ethics rules” ever is simply a lie, a smoke screen used to fool people into thinking he isn’t running his administration in a business-as-usual mode.
Will voters continue to fall for this?
Finally, there is one reason and one reason only that all these lobbyists are so free wheeling with their spending in Washington: Congress has taken on too much power unto itself. All these lobbyists and big money men would have no need to buy a President, Senator, or Congressman if there wasn’t so much government regulation for them to try and wade through. Take more government out of the picture and fewer lobbyists will have any need to fill politician’s pockets.
Statist Public Radio And The Government Bias
from SLMN News:
30 July 2010Statist public radio and the government bias
While listening to National Public Radio today, I was struck by how government-centered they really are. I've long noticed the rampant statism on the station. Some on the Right like to refer to NPR as "liberal" but while they do lean towards the Democrats "liberal" really doesn't accurately describe the core ideology of their programs, personalities and news coverage. After listening to several hours of NPR today while working I noticed how every problem that was brought up led to the same question: what is the government going to do about it? From health care, to scientific studies to job creation everything returned this central theme of government intervention. Phrases such as "regulators are scrambling to keep up with technological changes..." and "law-makers are working on a plan to..." abound on NPR. Why do government regulators exist in the first place and why are they bothering people and messing up the market? The free market allocates resources in the most profitable manner and regulates itself without government bureaucrats. Why are there constantly new "laws"? No one can even count all the existing codes, rules and laws (much less understand them all). This bias at NPR is true not only in their news coverage, which is more or less similar to other news coverage on radio and television, but also in virtually all of the many programs they put out every day. And very disturbingly, the listeners who tend to call into the programs seem to be even more statist than the program hosts themselves. Whether they are "conservative" or "liberal," the callers consistently demand more regulation, legislation and a larger nanny state. One elderly-sounding lady who called into a program today started out by saying something like (and I'm paraphrasing), "We allow scientists in our society to review their own studies and journals...." It was clear that to this collectivist-minded woman "we" equals the government and people probably shouldn't be "allowed" to do many of the things they can today. She felt that the government should be in the business of reviewing scientific journals, eliminating the voluntary system peer-review. This rampant attitude has been summed up before as "There ought to be a law...." These types truly have no understanding or love for liberty.
Rather than more legislation, regulation, taxation and the like why can't we have a bit more freedom? Why do others concern themselves with my business transactions, what I may eat or drink or smoke, the type of car I may travel in, what I study in school, etc? Why must everything either be directed operated by the government (like the Post Office, the DMV and public schools - all shining examples of government failure) or else regulated to death by "law-makers." It's not anti-social but rather pro-liberty to say that I want these people like the folks on NPR to leave me alone. If they want a nanny state, they should join voluntary organisations where they can self-regulate each other to death. That's fine with me, but "voluntary" is the key word here. If they hate liberty that's fine, but I cherish my freedom and no majority of liberty-haters should be able to take it away from me. Keep your statism, NPR - I don't want it.
Posted by PalmettoPatriot at 8:12 PM
30 July 2010Statist public radio and the government bias
While listening to National Public Radio today, I was struck by how government-centered they really are. I've long noticed the rampant statism on the station. Some on the Right like to refer to NPR as "liberal" but while they do lean towards the Democrats "liberal" really doesn't accurately describe the core ideology of their programs, personalities and news coverage. After listening to several hours of NPR today while working I noticed how every problem that was brought up led to the same question: what is the government going to do about it? From health care, to scientific studies to job creation everything returned this central theme of government intervention. Phrases such as "regulators are scrambling to keep up with technological changes..." and "law-makers are working on a plan to..." abound on NPR. Why do government regulators exist in the first place and why are they bothering people and messing up the market? The free market allocates resources in the most profitable manner and regulates itself without government bureaucrats. Why are there constantly new "laws"? No one can even count all the existing codes, rules and laws (much less understand them all). This bias at NPR is true not only in their news coverage, which is more or less similar to other news coverage on radio and television, but also in virtually all of the many programs they put out every day. And very disturbingly, the listeners who tend to call into the programs seem to be even more statist than the program hosts themselves. Whether they are "conservative" or "liberal," the callers consistently demand more regulation, legislation and a larger nanny state. One elderly-sounding lady who called into a program today started out by saying something like (and I'm paraphrasing), "We allow scientists in our society to review their own studies and journals...." It was clear that to this collectivist-minded woman "we" equals the government and people probably shouldn't be "allowed" to do many of the things they can today. She felt that the government should be in the business of reviewing scientific journals, eliminating the voluntary system peer-review. This rampant attitude has been summed up before as "There ought to be a law...." These types truly have no understanding or love for liberty.
Rather than more legislation, regulation, taxation and the like why can't we have a bit more freedom? Why do others concern themselves with my business transactions, what I may eat or drink or smoke, the type of car I may travel in, what I study in school, etc? Why must everything either be directed operated by the government (like the Post Office, the DMV and public schools - all shining examples of government failure) or else regulated to death by "law-makers." It's not anti-social but rather pro-liberty to say that I want these people like the folks on NPR to leave me alone. If they want a nanny state, they should join voluntary organisations where they can self-regulate each other to death. That's fine with me, but "voluntary" is the key word here. If they hate liberty that's fine, but I cherish my freedom and no majority of liberty-haters should be able to take it away from me. Keep your statism, NPR - I don't want it.
Posted by PalmettoPatriot at 8:12 PM
Does America's Faith Only Run Skin-Deep?
From World Community, Zionica, and The Christian Reader:
Does Americans’ faith run only skin-deep?
31 CommentsWritten by Marcia SegelsteinJuly 30, 8:36 AMYou may well wonder—as I often do—how we have reached such a low point in our culture. Divorce rates soar. Abortion is not only condoned by society, it’s common. Fewer and fewer children grow up living in the same household with both their mother and father. Marriage dwindles in importance and is at risk of losing its meaning altogether.
The answer I come back to time and again is that as a society we have turned away from God. This is hardly an original thought. Many have decried for years the fact that God is being slowly (or maybe not so slowly) but surely driven from the public square.
We blame the secularists and the cultural elite, the mainstream media and the ACLU. But maybe we have only ourselves to blame.
In a newly released poll from the Barna Group, only 12 percent of those surveyed said faith was their top priority. This despite the fact that, as the Barna press release points out, more than 75 percent of American adults identify themselves as Christians. David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, commented on the numbers: “The gap is vast between self-described affiliation with Christianity and ascribing highest priority to that faith. When it comes to why so much of American religion seems merely skin-deep, this gap between what people call themselves and what they prioritize is perhaps most telling.”
The group that ranks faith highest is evangelicals, with two out of five (39 percent) saying it is their highest priority.
If there is any good news to be had from the survey, it is that Americans care about family issues, specifically “having a good family life, being a good parent, and having a good marriage.” Whether those should rank highest on the priority scale is another matter.
Does Americans’ faith run only skin-deep?
31 CommentsWritten by Marcia SegelsteinJuly 30, 8:36 AMYou may well wonder—as I often do—how we have reached such a low point in our culture. Divorce rates soar. Abortion is not only condoned by society, it’s common. Fewer and fewer children grow up living in the same household with both their mother and father. Marriage dwindles in importance and is at risk of losing its meaning altogether.
The answer I come back to time and again is that as a society we have turned away from God. This is hardly an original thought. Many have decried for years the fact that God is being slowly (or maybe not so slowly) but surely driven from the public square.
We blame the secularists and the cultural elite, the mainstream media and the ACLU. But maybe we have only ourselves to blame.
In a newly released poll from the Barna Group, only 12 percent of those surveyed said faith was their top priority. This despite the fact that, as the Barna press release points out, more than 75 percent of American adults identify themselves as Christians. David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, commented on the numbers: “The gap is vast between self-described affiliation with Christianity and ascribing highest priority to that faith. When it comes to why so much of American religion seems merely skin-deep, this gap between what people call themselves and what they prioritize is perhaps most telling.”
The group that ranks faith highest is evangelicals, with two out of five (39 percent) saying it is their highest priority.
If there is any good news to be had from the survey, it is that Americans care about family issues, specifically “having a good family life, being a good parent, and having a good marriage.” Whether those should rank highest on the priority scale is another matter.
On Arizona's Immigration Law And Judge Bolton's Ruling
From The Center For Individual Freedom (CFIF):
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
The Editors, National Review Online, On Arizona's Immigration Law and Judge Bolton's Ruling:
"Attorney General Eric Holder could have dictated most of Judge Susan Bolton’s decision blocking key parts of the Arizona immigration law.
"The judge twists facts and logic to support the Justice Department’s claim that the state law preempts the federal immigration scheme. To do so, she accepts Justice’s implicit argument that it’s not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce. If her reasoning stands, we will basically cut Congress out of immigration policy and the states out of enforcement. Instead, our immigration system will entirely depend on executive discretion at a time when the executive has little interest in enforcing the law...
"The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it's best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department's suit -- and Judge Bolton's line of argument -- prevails, then we'll know that they don't. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim."
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
The Editors, National Review Online, On Arizona's Immigration Law and Judge Bolton's Ruling:
"Attorney General Eric Holder could have dictated most of Judge Susan Bolton’s decision blocking key parts of the Arizona immigration law.
"The judge twists facts and logic to support the Justice Department’s claim that the state law preempts the federal immigration scheme. To do so, she accepts Justice’s implicit argument that it’s not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce. If her reasoning stands, we will basically cut Congress out of immigration policy and the states out of enforcement. Instead, our immigration system will entirely depend on executive discretion at a time when the executive has little interest in enforcing the law...
"The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it's best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department's suit -- and Judge Bolton's line of argument -- prevails, then we'll know that they don't. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)