Habla Ingles?

A middle school principal in the Hempstead (Tx) Independent School District (ISD) has been fired for reportedly announcing over the school intercom that students were to refrain from speaking Spanish on school premises.  While some parents supported the principal, others have deemed her ban as racist.  Either way, it’s another sign of the divisiveness of the country.

One person interviewed during the controversy stated, “I think she [the principal] was trying to get the students to understand that they are being taught in English, their state testing is going to be given in English, all of their tests say you will answer in English.”  A mother of one of the Spanish-speaking students told KHOU 11 News that, “you’re handicapping our children. You’re telling them you can’t speak Spanish, and you can’t have anyone translating for you.”  But does a ban on speaking Spanish in school really handicap them?  Test scores would indicate that the answer is no.

According to the Texas Tribune, a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization, the Hempstead ISD has approximately 1500 students.  Over 48% of the students are Hispanic.  Only 57% of the Hispanic students passed the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills standardized tests and 34% of Hempstead students were deemed college-ready in both math and English language arts; both results are below the state average.  Yet, Hempstead ISD spends more per student than the rest of the state.  Could poor language skills be the reason for poor test scores? And do the test scores matter?

Of all immigrants, those from Mexico are the largest group according to the Migration Policy Center.  Nearly 40% of Mexican immigrants worked in unskilled labor and were more likely to live below the poverty level than other immigrant groups. However, about 71% of all Mexican immigrants had limited English language skills, compared to 51% for all other immigrants.  Of the 10 largest immigrant groups, Mexican immigrants are the least assimilated, according to a Manhattan Institute study.

If immigrants can’t communicate in English, how can they acquire better skills, pursue higher education, or interact effectively with others?  The fact of the matter is, they can’t. And, quite often the burden falls on the rest of us.  Mexican immigrants are more likely to be on welfare, have a higher rate of teen pregnancies, and a higher rate of incarceration than any other immigrant group.  While those costs may be obvious, there are other hidden costs that we as consumers have to pay.

How many signs and labels do you see printed in both English and Spanish?  The printing isn’t free, so who pays for it? For every product you buy that has a bilingual label, the cost of that label is part of the price tag.  The price for every bilingual sign on a store front or advertisement is part of the price tag of the product or service you purchase.  It may only be a few pennies, but over time the costs adds up. And all consumers pay those costs, immigrants and native-born alike.

Was the principal being racist? Probably not, but she could have done a better job of communicating why she wanted students to speak English in school.  And if she truly wanted the students to become more fluent in English, then she’s simply being a good teacher; the more fluent they are, the better the test scores and the more opportunities for advanced education and employment.

As I did my research for this blog, I couldn’t help but wonder this; if an immigrant is unwilling to assimilate into American society, where does his or her allegiance lay?  Do they identify more with the country of birth or the United States?  If not with the US, then why are they here? George Washington, in his Farewell Address, wrote, “Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” 

When large segments of the immigrant population fail to assimilate into American culture, there will be divisiveness. For as St. Augustine observed, “When men cannot communicate their thoughts to each other, simply because of difference in language, all the similarity of their common human nature is of no avail to unit them in fellowship.” Although no official language is mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, English is the prime language of the US.  It’s time America became the melting pot again.

Poor Choices

Another post by John Galt

Recently, I read an article honoring people for performing acts of service to their communities.  It is inspiring that so many want to help those less fortunate.  One story caught my eye, not because of the honoree, but because the condition exists in this country—many kids in this country don’t have enough to eat.  The article honors the local churches that provide students on free lunch programs with food for the weekends.  Although they get breakfasts and lunches at school during the week, they may not have food over the weekend.  According to the US Department of Agriculture (www.fns.usda.gov), in 2013, almost 20 million students participate in the free lunch program.  The number has doubled since the 1980s.  I wonder if this is a measure of our country’s economy, or of people’s choices.

What would cause a family to live below the poverty line?  Well, if you get down to it, it is all about our choices.  In a society that rarely holds itself accountable; we blame others for our condition.  What if we saved up to go to college or to learn a trade rather than spending our money on cell phones and status, showy purchases?  What if you pursued a degree that is in demand and would afford a comfortable lifestyle rather than a degree that fills a square, but nothing more?  I’m not slamming history majors or psychology students, but without advanced degrees, what are your employment options?  In many cases, an in-demand junior college trade degree will give you earning potential and a flurry of employment offers at graduation.  Consider the value of your education dollar.  Have you seen what an electrician or plumber makes an hour?  And for half of what your bachelor’s degree in British Literature cost you.  Education opens doors to opportunity, probably more than any other factor.

We have to get past demanding instant gratification.  You don’t need the biggest, best, shiniest bauble in the store window.  You don’t need the latest iPhone.  Looking up the latest scores or notifying the world that you just stuffed your face at an expensive restaurant on your facebook page doesn’t have to happen right this second.  You don’t need a new car; you need a quality means of transportation.  Most $50 sneakers are just as good as the $200 brand.  Why pay $100 for a pair of jeans if you can buy quality below $20 a pair.  It’s a choice.  Credit card debt is not a badge of honor.  It is a strike against you and a notice that you are unable to manage your money.  Save up for something that matters, something that will improve your life, not just impress your friends.  Consider your needs, not your wants and make a choice. 

Personal choices aren’t just about money or education.  Teenage pregnancy alters your life by taking away choices.  Losing your virginity at an early age is not a badge of honor and it doesn’t define you as a man or as a woman.  Parenting responsibilities change your priorities and the course of your life. Oftentimes education has to wait while you work to feed your family.  Sometimes you just drop out of school and demands keep you from ever going back to school.  Some people choose drugs or alcohol over education or their job.  Addiction can consume them, destroying their health and their prospects.  Still, these are personal choices.

There are some factors that are out of our control such as the loss of manufacturing, technology and research jobs in this country, natural disasters like flood and drought, and crime.  We should honor those that render aid and those that pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and try again.  Americans are a resourceful lot.  I hope that our economy will recover and spawn new jobs that grow our economy.  I believe that we will always render aid to those affected by natural disaster and by crime. 

Notice that I didn’t say anything about anyone owing you anything or spreading the wealth.  I don’t agree with entitlements.  They make people weak and willing to accept handouts.  Reliance on handouts and entitlements will never lift you over the poverty level.  The math just doesn’t work.  Taking charge of your own destiny and self-reliance are the key to success.  That used to be an attribute of the American spirit.  Over the years, it has been replaced with political rhetoric creating a divisive mistrust between the haves and the have-nots.  Just as it is a crime to break into my house and steal my hard-earned money, it is a crime to force me to pay into entitlement programs.  I don’t get a say in either situation.

So, is it choices or the economy that determine the amount of poverty in this country?  Although the unemployment rate has declined in the last year, job growth isn’t in high-paying jobs; it is service industry and retail jobs.  These aren't the kind of jobs that grow the economy of a country.  A poor economy drives up crime rates and the use of drugs and alcohol.  Those factors either directly or indirectly affect our society. 

The answer to the causes of poverty in this country is not all one or the other.    Maybe the key is hope.  A society mired in a poor economy can lose hope and stop trying to succeed.  Without hope, people throw away their choices and search for an escape or instant gratification from shopping, sex, alcohol, and drugs.  Maybe without hope we just live for today and not for tomorrow.  Without hope, our society doesn’t aspire to something better or create opportunities to do great things.  We fail to look beyond the end of our nose.  Without economic growth, poverty will continue.  Distrust and dislike will grow between the perceived haves and have-nots, fueled by rhetoric and the media.  We have to stop this slow, painful demise of the American spirit before it is too late.  

American Spirit

I’m no longer a runner and the only races I watch anymore are when my family members are participants.  But, after last year’s Boston Marathon tragedy, I was interested to see how Americans would respond at this year’s Boston Marathon.  What I found out was the things that made America so great are still alive.

I can’t imagine the terror people felt after the bombs, left by two cowards, exploded.  In spite of the terror and tragedy, this year more than a million people lined the race course and there were 9,000 more entrants in this year’s race than last year.  One runner, when asked why he was running after last year’s events, responded by saying, “I’m running to make a simple statement: Acts of cowardice will not stop me from exercising my rights as an athlete and a human.” Some of this year’s runners were last year’s victims; they showed that Americans may get knocked down and hurt, but they don’t stay down. 

It’s a sweet irony that this year’s winner of the men’s division is the first American to win the Boston Marathon since 1983.  Meb Keflezighi, who was also the first American to win the New York Marathon in 27 years, when he won it in 2009, is an American success story.  Keflezighi emigrated with his family at the age of 12 from Eritrea, to escape poverty and war.  In a post-race interview, he said, “my life would have been a soldier. I would have been dead in the war. The life that I have is just beyond my dreams.”

Keflezighi trained long and hard and used his talents to run a smart race, putting himself in a position to win.  Did his win involve luck? Probably so, his best marathon time was two or three minutes slower than some of the other entrants.  But he ran every step of the way; no one did it for him. His win shows that hard, hard work, talent, perseverance, and a little bit of luck leads to success.  But his career also shows us that even with all those things, success is not guaranteed; how many races did he enter and not win?

When asked how he would respond if he received a phone call from President Obama, he said, “Thank you for the opportunity that the US has given me.”  And that’s all anyone should expect, opportunities and equitable laws.  Everyone who ran the Boston Marathon ran the same distance.  No one was allowed to start earlier than others or run a shorter distance or given any advantage over other runners because of some disadvantage or quota.  The same rules applied to all runners.

Obviously, not everyone could win.  Not everyone has the same level of talent or ability.  Not everyone trained the same length of time or with the same intensity.  And some runners were injured or beset with other problems like exhaustion, things that sometimes happened in spite of their preparation.  Because of those things, not everyone will have the same finish.

And there are different goals and definitions of success.  Some entered with a goal of just completing the race.  Others raced to set a personal record.  Although there were different measures of success for each race participant, the rules were the same for everyone giving all an equal opportunity to achieve their definition of success.  That’s the way it should be in our society.  No one should be given an advantage over others, all allowed to compete with the same rules as everyone else.  No quotas, no discrimination, just a common set of rules applied to all.

Another example of the American Spirit occurred near the end of the race.  A runner collapsed from exhaustion just blocks from the finish line.  Four runners stopped to help him, physically carrying him across the finish line.  No one ordered them to help him and there were no rules that said they must help him.  Their kindness and compassion, not government intervention, helped a runner cross the finish line when he had exhausted all his ability and energy, and could go no further.  More importantly, he started the race and went has far as he was able.  He didn’t demand that they carry him the whole race and was grateful for the help he received.  I wish more in our society were grateful for any assistance instead of demanding more.

America is the land of opportunity.  Not everyone will have the same success or level of success.  But when the rules are the same for all, at least everyone has opportunity to cross the finish line.

Don't Think We're Weak

by John Galt

Don’t think because we have a weak, ineffective president that this country is weak.  The majority of Americans support the right to own a gun.  “Don’t mess with Texas” bumper stickers adorn many of the automobiles in the state, and they mean it.  Although many states aren’t quite as overt, we all take our freedoms seriously.  Regardless of our leadership, we, the American people, are a force to be reckoned with. 

This country is founded on the desire for freedom and the willingness to endure great hardship to obtain and maintain freedom.  Regardless of the political bickering that seems to have mired our political leadership and allowed this country to languish over the last four years, we, the people are not so inclined.  Polls show that we are dissatisfied with our leadership, or rather, lack of leadership.  The economy is still drowning, unemployment is still high, and any growth in technology has stalled.  Seems our country is biding our time until the next presidential election.

The thing is, our leadership has forgotten that they work for us.  Where they lead, we may not follow.  They serve at the pleasure of the American people.  If we feel threatened, regardless of their position, don’t expect us to cower passively in fear.  In our country’s history, when the government was unable to maintain the freedoms of the people, the people formed militias to protect ourselves.  So, do the math.  People with guns.  Add people with a strong sense of country.  Add an outside aggressor.  And what you get are united states, or rather, The United States of America. 

With all that is going on with Russia, and other aggressors in the world, don’t think us weak.  Hopefully, calmer minds will prevail and sovereignty will be restored.  But, if aggression should spread in our direction, a sleeping giant will awaken.  Our leadership should never put our freedom and safety at risk in their dealings with other countries.  Those in our leadership we consider ineffective should start packing when elections roll around.  If they display a sense of weakness or remain passive as terror plays out across the globe, we won’t wait until elections.  So Americans, if you think our leadership should deal differently with the situation in the Ukraine or with other aggressors, send them an email or call their offices and make your opinions known.  They work for us.

A Taxing Proposition

My aunt was a very cost-conscious shopper. I can remember, as a kid, riding all over town just so she could save a nickel on a loaf of bread or a dime on a gallon of milk.  Now, I’m not inclined to drive across town just to save a nickel, but I do want to get the best quality at the lowest price.  I don’t think any of us want to pay more than we absolutely have to for bread, milk, or anything else for that matter.

Now imagine, if you will, a store that charges you for a loaf of bread based, not on the cost of the bread plus any profit the store hopes to make, but on the size of your salary.  Would you shop there?  I know I wouldn’t.  What if the price of the bread and the size of the loaf were dependent on the size of your salary?  The more you earned, the more expensive the bread and the smaller the loaf?  Sounds crazy, right?

Unfortunately, that very thing happens.  Instead of paying for bread, consider how we are paying for our government through our income taxes.  The more you make, the more you pay.  And chances are good that the more you make the less government services and benefits you require so the less you get.  Recall that there is a large segment of the population that receives more benefits from the federal government than they pay in income taxes.  And if you are the thrifty sort that saves or invests the money you earn, an interest or dividends earned are also taxed--a double taxation.

Under our current tax laws, we punish the successful and the thrifty by taxing their gains.  Doesn’t that undermine the incentive to work, save, and invest?  And our tax laws are so complex that the IRS estimates that 16 hours is required to collect information and complete the 1040 tax form, or costs, on average, $152 for a tax professional to prepare the forms.  Add to that the cost of the IRS itself, more than $11 billion, and it should be apparent that our tax system is defective.  We tax those that work more than those that don’t, and the entity that reviews the tax collection costs billions to operate.

There are lots of ideas about how to fix the tax code.  Some say close the loopholes; others want a flat tax, a tax rate that is the same regardless of earnings.  Others want to raise the tax rate on the rich, although the definition of rich is a somewhat ambiguous, depending on who is lobbying for it.  These are all attempts to repair a tax code that is fundamentally flawed.  Personally, I like the idea of a national sales tax.

The Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org) has long been an advocate for a national sales tax to replace the current tax codes.  Their proposal is to scrap the individual and corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and the estate and gift tax with a national sales tax on the final purchase of all goods and services at the retail level.  When you buy goods or services, a federal tax will be collected at that time, just as state and county taxes are collected now in most areas. Their proposal includes a universal rebate for every household that, in effect, exempts consumption up to the poverty level.

Furthermore, the state revenue departments of the 50 states could collect the revenue, which is sent to a small agency within the Department of Treasury to fund national assets.  The IRS would no longer exist; its budget available for other government agencies or left in the pocket of the taxpayers.  Because the national sales tax would tax only spending, there would no longer be a double taxation on savings or investments; this would make more money available for economic growth.  It would also simplify corporate taxes, negating the need for armies of accountants and tax lawyers and would make business capital easier to acquire, further stimulating economic growth.  Simply, if you choose to make a purchase, expect to factor in the tax.  If you don’t want to pay the tax, don’t make the purchase.

A national sales tax has a lot of attractive features.  It would make savings and investing much more attractive, stimulate economic growth, and virtually eliminate the IRS.  But there is one subtle feature of a national sales tax that I particularly find attractive.  Under the current tax code, taxes are withheld from your paycheck before you receive it, so it’s not obvious to most American’s just how much they pay in income taxes.  With a national sales tax, the cost of the federal government is printed on the receipt; everyone will know the costs.  When you see the cost of the federal government in each purchase, we may be more inclined to demand a smaller, more efficient government.  Do the research and then contact your Senators and Representative and let them know what you think about the IRS and a national sales tax.  Maybe, then April 15^th becomes just another day.

A Big Enough Stick?

“Can’t we all just get along?”  That was the question, or at least a paraphrased version thereof, that a coworker asked during a conversation about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.  I expect the young to ask such a question--they usually haven’t yet discovered that world is full of mean, dishonest, and hateful people.  But this coworker is old enough to realize that, regardless of our actions, there are those that hate us and want nothing more than to destroy this country. 

There are a myriad of reason why we, the people of the United States, are hated or disliked by others.  Some of the reasons are truly because of our military actions, but most are because of our belief in democracy, our prosperity, or our religious freedoms.  In fact, the first two targets hit on 9-11 were the World Trade Center Towers, most assuredly not military targets, but symbols of the prosperity of this country.  Regardless, there are those out there that wish to bring harm to the people of this country.

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama stated that, “America must move off a permanent war footing.” He further stated that our security and leadership “depends on all elements of our power -- including strong and principled diplomacy.”  This sounds good but what happens when diplomacy doesn’t work.

In order for diplomacy to work, all parties must be willing to negotiate in order to reach a peaceful settlement.  That willingness to negotiate is motivated by some logic or reason.  It may be a motivation to avoid war or economic sanctions, or simply to avoid embarrassment. The motivation may be economic or other gains. A more powerful motivation is the threat of military action by the other party.

Theodore Roosevelt, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing about a peaceful conclusion to the Russo-Japanese War, had a foreign policy characterized by the phrase, “speak softly, and carry a big stick.”  The idea behind this policy is negotiating peacefully backed by the threat of military action.  Roosevelt described this as, “"the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis".

Unfortunately, President Obama’s policy seems to be “speak brilliantly and hope no one calls your bluff.”  He promised dire consequences if the Syrian leader crossed “the red line”, but every time the line was crossed, nothing of consequence occurred.  Furthermore, the Russians threatened action against the US if the US took action against Syria without Russian or international approval.  Obama backed off.  Russian involvement concluded when an agreement was reached for Syria to remove or destroy its chemical weapons.  Obama appeared to be “all talk, no action” and Russian leader Vladimir Putin came out looking like the hero.

When the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked and the US Ambassador and three others were killed, the Obama administration at first claimed the attack was a protest over an anti-Muslim film. Once it came to light that the Obama administration’s State Department could have prevented the attack, the President, Secretary of State Clinton, and others seemingly swept the whole mess under the rug.  And it appears that the press, by not vigorously pursuing the story, held the rug while Obama swept.    President Obama promised that “no act of terror will go unpunished.”  Eighteen months have passed since the attack; are we currently trying to find those responsible for the attack?  Or this more “all talk and no action”.

Now Russia has “annexed” Crimea, sending troops into the area.  The US responded by announcing a boycott of the G-8 summit in Russia, suspending trade negotiations with Russia and increasing US military presence in the region, six F-15 fighters to  Lithuania, 12 F-16 fighters and 300 soldiers to Poland.  A senior Russian diplomat said, in response to US actions, “What can one advise our U.S. colleagues to do? Spend more time in the open, practice yoga, stick to food-combining diets, maybe watch some comedy sketch shows on TV. This would be better than winding oneself up and winding up others, knowing that the ship has already sailed ... Tantrums, weeping and hysteria won't help.“

President Obama has pulled our troops from Iraq and publicly announced a time-line for withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Since we left Iraq, Al Qaeda’s presence there has increased.  In the weeks before a Afghanistan presidential election, the Taliban have increased violent attacks in an effort to disrupt voting.  And one has to wonder what will happen in Afghanistan after we leave.  Will the Taliban make a comeback or will the Afghan leaders be able to rein them in?

To add insult to injury, President Obama’s budget proposal for 2015 includes severe cuts to the military--cuts which would leave the military at lowest level since 1940.  Defense Secretary Hagel, in his testimony to Congress, blamed Congress for the mess.  The truth of the matter is the budget cuts are based on budget agreements that Congress passed and Obama signed. Hagel says that the budget “recognizes the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges, the dangerous world we live in, and the American military's unique and indispensable role in the security of this country and in today's volatile world.”  With these cuts, will the military be up to the challenge of protecting America?  Will our adversaries try to take advantage of a smaller military?

The world is full of people willing to do us harm.  But our President should be willing to stand up to these people and protect Americans and American interests around the world.  Flashy rhetoric and empty threats won’t cause a determined enemy to back down.  And if the President does decide to swing the big stick, will it be big enough?

Walk Softly and ...

another post from John Galt

I saw beauty today.  On my walk to a meeting, there were six deer lying in the morning sun next to the office building.  Though they must have trusted me in order to stay put, they were still cautious.  Their eyes kept me in their periphery, they were listening to my footsteps, and they were spring-loaded to respond if I violated their space.  I contrast this moment of beauty and caution against the discord between the US and Russia over their aggressions in the Ukraine.  America sits cautious, but trusting, that Russia will do the right thing and not challenge our peaceful co-existence.     

If I trend recent events, I discover that we have regained a sense of peace every time Russia has crossed into another country, and then receded.  Afghanistan and Georgia come to mind.  After each invasion, we exhibited our disagreement, but we didn’t escalate the situation.  Although tensions are now higher than ten years ago, the US has maintained a healthy relationship with Russia.  We remain cautious, but trusting.  But, are we spring-loaded to respond if Russia continues its aggression?

Unlike the past events, we are no longer considered the baddest dog on the block.  Our “sleeping giant” status has been sissified.  I don’t think anyone fears involving us in their conflict.  This has nothing to do with our military talents or available technology.  We still have the smartest, toughest military.  We just don’t have the leadership in the White House that strikes fear in the world that we just might pull the trigger and unleash our military might.  I’m not saying we should add to the conflict.  But, I recall all the situations in my life when my words or my bearing kept situations from escalating and kept bullies at bay.  Perceived weakness is a magnet for bullies.  So, wasn’t the US’s self-assured swagger what kept other countries from provoking us in the past?

Now, our swagger is broken by unemployment, a struggling economy, political in-fighting, Presidential rules of engagement levied on our military, Department of Defense budget constraints and our elected leaders’ squeamish mentality toward leadership.  Our President has apologized to other countries for our past behaviors.  He assumes that global battles will be handled fairly. However, a group hug won’t ease world tensions.  The meek may inherit the earth, but they will also get stomped in the school yard.  Just think of the middle-school playground.  It was the meek kid that the bullies targeted.  The bully knew they would win or at least humiliate the meek kid.  Well, we are the meek kid on the world’s playground.  Not only will the bully target us, but so will his third-string minion if we keep carrying our hat in our hands and telling everyone that we won’t fight back, we don’t have the resources to fight back and our leaders won’t be willing to pull the trigger.  A moral code is vital for our leaders; war is bad because war means loss of life.  But our leaders also have a moral obligation to use our strength to protect the weak and the oppressed. 

I grew up in the times of duck-and-cover and having drills to hide under my desk in case of a nuclear strike.  Our leaders kept a level head while understanding and implementing a show of force.    My kids are fearful of the next world war.  So am I.  We all have too many tools of destruction in the tool box.  There is a lot of crazy in some of the world leaders’ decision paradigms.  There are dictators seeking power.  There is a lot of unrest in the world we live in.  What I’d like to see our leadership adopt is a walk softly and carry a big stick mentality to keep us safe.  It worked well in the past.

This country is beautiful in the early morning light.  But the shadows sometime hide things that may require us to respond in force.  In our desire to be a peaceful nation, we should also be prepared for conflict.  Negotiation and non-military solutions should be used.  All the while, our leadership should walk softly and carry a big stick.  I’d suggest a stick made from a live oak from Texas.  Texans know how to walk the walk and you should hear them talk the talk.  And, you never know who is carrying a gun.

The State of the Union

I started the year on a positive note, but quickly became so disgusted with our government and our society that I had to take a break from writing. I'm back and I hope what I post makes you think and act. 

President Obama recently gave his State of the Union address.  The US Constitution, Article II, Section 3 requires that he give a State of the Union to Congress, but it does not say in what form or specify details on the content.  Ever since Woodrow Wilson, US Presidents have given the State of the Union in the form of a speech to a joint session of Congress.  Nearly all of them take the form of an argument in favor of the president’s policies, emphasizing what seems to be working and ignoring or placing the blame on someone else for what isn’t working.

President Obama’s 2014 State of Union address was no different.  He spoke of the new jobs created during the past four years, implying that this is the result of his policies.  He bragged that, “our deficits cut by more than half,” while failing to acknowledge that the deficit is larger now than when he took office. He also pointed out that more than nine million Americans have signed up for health insurance or Medicaid coverage, a seemingly positive sign for his Affordable Care Act.

The President’s speech was not all sunshine and rainbows, though.  He did point out that the economic inequality is greater and that upward mobility has stalled. But, he assured us that he has proposals that will speed growth and strengthen the middle class, and he is willing take steps to enact these proposals, with or without action from Congress.  He also stated that he is willing to use his authority to protect our pristine federal lands and strengthen protection of our air, our water, and our communities.

I allow that the President’s State of the Union is based on his perspective.  But, I have a different perspective, so I believe the actual State of the Union is much different than the President’s view.

I see a Senate that, until late last year, failed to pass a budget every year since 2009.  I see a Congress and President that are willing to expand government to provide more social insurance and increase deficit spending to unsustainable levels.  I notice a President and Congress happy to increase the extent to which the federal government is involved in the everyday life of its citizens.   But do they make our lives better?   The EPA significantly increases the number of regulations with which businesses must comply, yet the rationale for these increases are based on unproven science or no proof of benefit is forthcoming.

At the President’s urging, Congress has passed a set of health insurance coverage laws that may benefit a small segment of the population, but increase the health insurance premiums for many Americans.  Additionally, the many people who previously had health insurance have been dropped by their carrier because the government has judged their policies as substandard.  Furthermore, because of the nature of the laws, many will lose jobs or have work hours slashed so employers can avoid costly penalties.  Medicaid eligibility was expanded to allow more people to receive health care at taxpayer expense.

I regard many of the things happening within the Obama Administration as abuses of power.  The targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS, and the failure of the Administration to enforce immigration laws, yet suing a state that tries to enforce those laws are just two examples.  The President stated in his State of the Union address that he is willing to use executive power to bypass Congress if it doesn’t pass legislation that he wants enacted.  He’s altered the work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform act and postponed enforcement of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  Even his Attorney General, Eric Holder, stated in a New York Times interview that state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with.  If the US Attorney General, who is the chief law enforcement of the United States, says others do not have to enforce laws, do citizens have to obey laws they don’t agree with?

Other actions, such as the FCCs proposal to monitor print and broadcast media organizations, the NSA’s surveillance and collection of phone data, and the National Labor Relations Board’s case against Boeing for moving part of its manufacturing to a non-union state are other examples of abusive or, perhaps, illegal government behavior.  But wait, that’s not the most disappointing part of the State of the Union.

What disappoints me is the state of our American society.  We are more divisive racially, culturally, and ideologically than ever before.  We won’t engage in open and honest discourse over issues such as race, economics, or culture for fear of offending others.  We are so afraid of being labelled “racist’, “hate monger” or “bigot” that we shun any chance to honestly discuss issues and we miss opportunities to find solutions to problems.

Far too often, I hear people speak of tolerance and embracing diversity, yet when someone has an opinion that runs counter, tolerance goes out the window.  If a person wants a smaller government that provides less social insurance, is he really a terrorist or anarchist, as members of Congress have suggested, or is he a concerned citizen who may have something of substance to say?  If a Christian does not embrace the gay lifestyle, is he a hate monger?  Or perhaps he is merely living by the tenants of his faith.  If a Muslim does not embrace the gay lifestyle, does that change things?  What about a wealthy business owner, who worked and scrimped and saved to get where she is today? Is she a greedy “one percenter” or is she an example of someone achieving the American dream?  Name calling and ugly labels have replaced intelligent and articulate communication.

Most disappointing of all is our willingness to sit by and let government expand beyond its constitutional boundaries.  I’m not sure why this is happening.  Could it be that we don’t want to work and provide for ourselves and prefer that someone else provide the care and feeding and other “free” stuff, even if it means a loss of liberty?  Are we so envious of others’ accomplishments that we would rather take or destroy what they’ve earned instead of earning it ourselves? Perhaps we are so acclimatized to mediocrity that we simply rather wallow in stupidity and ignorance instead of trying to make a difference.

Yes, my vision of the State of the Union is much different than President Obama’s.  And I fear that if we don’t do something to change the present state of the union, the future state of the union will look a lot like the dystopian society that Orwell presented in the novel 1984.  I plan to fight that future by being an informed and active citizen and voter.  Will you?

Happy New Year

It’s a brand new year, which means many are trying hard to keep their New Year’s resolutions.  Many of the resolutions people make are directed towards self-improvement such as losing weight, being more organized, or managing time better.  Some resolutions are geared towards dropping bad habits, such as quitting smoking or drinking less alcohol.  Many resolutions are geared towards improving personal finances or career improvement.

I’m not sure how many people make New Year’s resolutions but a 2007 study showed that 88% of people who make resolutions fail to keep them.  Frank Ra, author of A Course in Happiness, states that “resolutions are more sustainable when shared, both in terms of with whom you share the benefits of your resolution, and with whom you share the path of maintaining your resolution.”

I am making only a few resolutions this year but I want to share them in hopes that I will be successful in maintaining them.  My resolutions are:

• Spend more time in prayer and spiritual study
• Let the people who are important to me know of their importance to me more often
• Spend more time finding joy in my everyday existence and dwell less on the ugly
• Spend more time with the people who matter and less time with the people who don’t
• Be more polite and nice to people
• Be more patient

 It’s a short list but I believe it to be a challenging list of resolutions for me.  I ask for your encouragement and prayers in maintaining these resolutions.  And I hope that 2014 brings you peace, health, and prosperity, as well as success in keeping your resolutions.

Happy New Year!