Shrug?

Note: Since I've started blogging, I've been approached by friends and co-workers inquiring about guest blogging. Today's post is the first guest blog and is penned by John Galt. I hope you find this post as thought provoking as I did.

To shrug or not to shrug, that is the question.  Whether it is nobler of the mind to persevere under the looming burdens of out-of-control government spending or to shrug, quit trying and exit the workforce.  Frustration? Heck yes!  More so because I have no direct control over the decisions, yet I suffer the outcome.  If we tumble over the fiscal cliff, my household will lose over $200 a week directly.  Under the threat of Obama-care, my medical costs skyrocketed by hundreds of dollars a month years ago.  My federal salary has been frozen for years now with no hope of a cost-of-living increase, yet the cost of gas and essentials continue to soar. 

So, that only affects me, right?  Because money is tight, I eat out less and almost never go out.  I don’t buy more than necessary and I scrutinize every purchase.  I shop with coupons and for generic brands.  I am putting less into the economy because I have less to spend and I am uncertain that the money flow will improve. So I am holding onto my money.  There are a lot of small businesses in the area that have closed because people like me are staying home, buying less and hunkering down while awaiting the fallout of the inactivity of Congress and the pigheadedness of the President.  Even the larger chains are closing, consolidating, changing their marketing schemes or whatever it takes to stay in business.  Companies change to stay in business;  I’ve changed my practices to stay within my means. 

Yet, the government wants to continue to spend and spend and spend without making changes.  Fiscal responsibility--do they understand the term?  If Congress men and women don’t pay their personal bills, don’t they endure the same penalties that we do?  Must not, or they would realize that we no longer own our country because the debt we accumulate is held by other countries.  If the mortgage company owns your house until you pay off your mortgage, don’t these other countries that hold our debt own us until we pay off our debt?  But the debt continues to climb out of control.  At some point, the bill is due and we will not be able to pay.  Where are we then?

I can shrug, quit paying my bills and put my hand out for entitlements from the government.  My kids would probably qualify for money for college, they could get free lunches in school, and I could get unemployment, housing, food stamps and benefits of all of the government entitlement programs.

To do that, I’d have to first shrug off my pride, my self-respect and throw away my potential earning power.  I’m not implying that all other people are taking advantage of the programs, but because I have the potential to do more, I feel that I and others like me are being punished.  It is not that I live lavishly; it is that I live within my means because that is what my parents taught me to do.  Don’t spend money you don’t have.  Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and go on.  Honor your commitments.

My parents promised that if I work hard I will be rewarded.  Well, maybe they weren’t prepared for a President with a socialistic lean, bipartisan antagonism and unrealistic expectations to undermine that promise.  At this point, if I strive to work harder for some gain, I won’t reap any of the benefits because they will be taken away either directly by the government or through the mess the government has made of our economy.  So, while I think about shrugging, I’ll eat my delicious lunch of Kraft macaroni and cheese while I sit at my desk and hope no one slips a pink slip under the door today.

The Moral of the Story

Chances are you’ve never heard of Lindsey Stone.  Until a few days ago, I’d never heard of her.  But her immoral story is one with a moral.

Lindsey had her picture taken while making a rude finger gesture and pretending to shout beside an Arlington National Cemetery sign that says “Silence and Respect”.  She then posted the photo on her Facebook page.  I don’t think the result was quite what she expected.

It turns out the response to her post was very negative.  So much so that she responded by posting on Facebook "Whoa whoa whoa... wait. This is just us, being the d*****bags that we are, challenging authority in general. Much like the pic posted the night before, of me smoking right next to a no smoking sign. OBVIOUSLY we meant NO disrespect to people that serve or have served our country."

Ms. Stone might have thought she was challenging authority, but in reality she was acting like an inconsiderate jerk.  Apparently what she failed to understand is that such signs are posted because many people, either lacking common courtesy, common sense, common decency, or all three need a reminder to be considerate of others.  Her so-called rebellion against authority was nothing more than an act of childish and inconsiderate behavior by a 30-year-old adult who should have known better.

Ms. Stone and her supervisor were on business travel when the photo was taken.   Someone posted a Facebook page called “Fire Lindsey Stone” and over 30,000 joined the group.  Her employer, a Cape Cod-based nonprofit organization that assists adults with learning disabilities, was inundated with angry emails and phone calls, ultimately firing Ms. Stone and her supervisor, who snapped the picture.

I’ve seen several web posts about free speech and whether or not Ms. Stone should suffer for a bad joke on her personal Facebook page.  Some posts favored her firing and others did not.

While Congress and the states cannot pass laws that abridge the freedom of speech, this does not extend to employers.  Employees whose speech and behavior embarrass or reflect poorly on employers can be fired.  While Ms. Stone probably thought her behavior harmless, she was, at the time, a living, breathing representative of her employer.  Like it or not, her behavior reflected poorly on her company, and they terminated her.

Did her behavior warrant firing? Fortunately, I didn’t have to make that decision.  But the moral of the story is that our behavior, especially stupid, rude, and inconsiderate behavior can and often has unintended consequences.  Before engaging in such behavior, think about the possible consequences. And, don’t advertise your moral failings by posting the photos on social media sites for the world to see.  

Thank You

Tony finally beat the cancer he’d been fighting for seven years.  A man of incredible faith, Tony passed away on November 30^th and now resides in the Kingdom of Heaven.  Tony leaves behind a wife, two children, and a huge hole in the world.

I first met Tony at a time when I had slipped away from church and my faith.  Tony inspired me to renew my faith and, as a result, I became active in church again.  In all the years I knew Tony, I don’t think I ever saw him without a smile on his face.  If he can smile while battling cancer, then it seems silly for me to be angry over a bad day at work or some other inconvenience.  His example inspired me to be a better person.

I have regrets.  I regret that I didn't spend more time with Tony and I regret that I didn't thank him for being an inspiration and role model.  I truly believe God brings people such as Tony into our lives for a reason, providing us with opportunities to grow as Christians and as human beings. I missed my chance to thank Tony, but I’ll try to let his family know what he meant to me.

If you look around, there’s probably somebody in your life like Tony, serving as a role model, an inspiration, or friend.  Don’t pass up a chance to tell them what they mean to you and to thank them and thank God for them.  Gifts like these people are too precious to take for granted.

Hot Button

More than three weeks after the election, the conservative “talking heads” are still performing a postmortem on Romney’s loss.  Was there something wrong with the message or the messenger? There is a lot of talk about what the candidates did wrong, but I believe the real problem is something different. 

I think the problem is the hot-button vote on issues touted in the media.  These are the low-information voters who vote based on a candidate’s stance on politicized social issues, such as same-sex marriage or abortion rights.,.  What’s sad is the voters are casting their vote for a candidate based on the candidate’s opinion on an issue when the President has little to no power or authority to affect changes on these hot-button issues.  Do, these voters know that?

Title 1 of the US Code of Federal Regulations defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  That’s because a legislative act approved by Congress became part of the US Federal Code of Regulations.  The President can’t change that, only Congress can. More importantly, the issue belongs at the state level, not the federal level.  Why? Because states issue marriage licenses, there is no federal marriage license.  So why are we electing a President based on this issue?

The landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe vs. Wade struck down many state laws regulating or restricting abortion by arguing that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.  Whether you agree or disagree, the US Supreme Court has stated that abortion rights are protected by the US Constitution. To change that requires a change in the US Constitution.  Article V of the US Constitution defines the amendment process.  The President doesn’t have a part in amending the US Constitution, so why is this an issue during a presidential election?

So, when considering how to cast your vote for president, what power and authority does the President have?  He is responsible for foreign policy and national security. He is responsible for domestic policy, such as energy and law enforcement. And he is constitutionally obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The President is head of the executive branch of the government.  Congress has delegated to the executive branch through the Administrative Procedure Act and other legislative acts the power to establish federal regulations.  These regulations impact the economy, preventing employers from hiring or expanding their businesses (http://active-thinker.blogspot.com/2012/09/get-out-of-way.html).  Given the sorry state of the economy, wouldn’t you think this would be an Election Day issue?

When several states began passing laws to control illegal immigration, the US Justice Department sued the states. If the states are concerned about illegal immigration, shouldn’t the President do something to secure our borders instead of suing the states?  The President has chosen not to enforce immigration laws for illegal immigrants meeting certain criteria, in spite of the fact that he is legally obligated to do so. How can he legally do that?

The President is, nominally, the leader of his political party.  President Obama’s party has controlled the Senate throughout his term and controlled the House during his first two years in office.  The Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is an unpopular piece of legislation that a majority of the country wants repealed.  The Senate, although legally obligated to do so, has not passed a budget resolution in over three years, preventing Congress from passing a Federal budget during the same timeframe. 

Due to the debt ceiling crisis, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011. This act will trigger across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending starting January 2^nd, if Congress does not produce legislation to reduce the Federal deficit before the end of the year.  In addition to the automatic cuts (sequestration), provisions of the ACA go into effect and tax cut legislation expires at the beginning of 2013.  The Congressional Budget Office predicts this will lead to another recession and increase in unemployment.

Listening to the voter’s exit comments on how they voted, it was apparent that too many people voted based on hot-button issues and not the issues that the President has the responsibility to address..  We can do something, before we suffer another four years of fiscal irresponsibility and adversarial relationship with the States and with Republican leaders in Congress. Go to www.whitehouse.gov and tell the president what you think. Contact your Congressman or Senators and let them know what you think and how you want them to vote.  Study the Constitution so you are informed on the roles and responsibilities of the office.  Then, talk to your kids and your friends so they also know where the responsibilities lie when they decide on a candidate.  Make your vote count.

Status Quo

In the middle of the National Election hangover, the conservative pundits are trying to figure out what happened on Election Day.  With high unemployment, trillions of dollars in deficit and a gridlock in Congress, I expected changes that would put this country back on track.  Some pundits say Romney failed to connect with voters.  Others say that the voter demographics changed and the Republicans failed to respond.  A few say the Democratic grassroots campaign was more effective than the Republicans’ campaign.  There are those who say the negative ad campaign undertaken by the President and Romney’s failure to respond hurt Romney.  I’m not a political consultant, but I noticed two things that worked against Romney and the Republicans, in general.

First thing at work against Romney was the voter’s love of the status quo.  The second is hot-button/low-information voters.  I’ll leave the second for a future post, but now I want to talk about voters and their love of status quo.  If it isn’t love, then it is comfort in the familiar or fear of change that propagates the status quo.

According to a Gallup® poll released in August, the approval rating of Congress reached a high of 24% in May 2011 and remained below 20%.  In August, when the time the poll was released, Congress’ approval rating was a mere 10%.  Surely, with a rating that bad, one would think that voters would have “voted the bums out” in hopes of something better.

But that didn’t happen.  Thirty three Senate seats were on the ballot this year.  Ten of the 33 incumbents retired and one incumbent lost in the primaries.  Of the 22 incumbents on the ballot, 21 were re-elected.  In the House, all 435 seats were up for re-election.  Due to redistricting or retirements, 412 incumbents were up for re-election. Thirteen incumbents were defeated in the primaries and 26 were defeated in the general election, meaning 373 Congressmen were re-elected to Congress. 

Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  With an approval rating of 10%, we sent more than 90% of Congress back to Washington.  What do we expect different when we re-elect the same group?  Doesn’t that qualify as insane?  

The status quo is not a good one, the country is not prospering.  Let’s try something different.  Be aware of what’s going on in Washington.  Go to http://www.house.gov/ or http://www.senate.gov/ to find out about pending legislation and hearings.  Contact your Congressman or Senators and let them know what you think and how you want them to vote.  We put them in office, let’s make them work for us.

Black Friday

President Lincoln issued a proclamation declaring November 26, 1863, “as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”  An annual holiday since then, Thanksgiving has traditionally been a day for family and friends to gather and give thanks for material and spiritual blessings.

In the last few years, however, Thanksgiving has been overshadowed by the rampant consumerism of Black Friday.  The beginning of the Christmas shopping season, the day after Thanksgiving is one of the busiest shopping days of the year.  Retailers advertise special sale prices and other incentives to bring shoppers into their stores.  Shoppers, in an effort to find the bargain price or the hard-to-find-gift, flood the stores.

Long lines of anxious shoppers form outside the stores days in advance, waiting for the retailers to open their doors on Black Friday.  Stories abound of violent shoppers assaulting and pepper-spraying other shoppers or injuring store workers and shoppers in their haste to get at the bargains.  In 2008, a Walmart employee was trampled to death and shoppers refused to stop their shopping and allow employees and rescue workers to render aid.  Pretty pathetic behavior considering Christmas is supposed to be season of giving.

This year, retailers such as Target and Walmart opened on Thanksgiving night.  Not a surprise, considering retailers are in the business of meeting shoppers’ demands.  However, news stories about shoppers lining up on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving caught my attention.

According to the news, people began lining up on Wednesday at various Best Buy locations in order to be the first to take advantage of the sale prices.  Are the sales prices really that great and are the items advertised the things we really want?  Is it anything we need?  Have we become so materialistic that we will skip time to share thanks with family and friends just to save a few dollars?  When did we lose sight of the purpose and importance of Thanksgiving and Christmas?  Is your time really worth $300 off a 50-inch television?  Most of the people in line appeared to be well-dressed, over-30 adults.  After reviewing prices of many of the Black Friday deals, the Black Friday “deals” were the prices offered in September. 

I understand that folks want to find a bargain.  As consumers, we need to make smart purchases, not fall into the media frenzy that pulls shoppers into the store with promises of ultra-low prices, but often result in impulse buys.  So, think through these questions before Black Friday 2013:  Do you need it, can you afford it, and with a bit more planning, could you have gotten it at a better price with some planning?  More importantly, we should also remember the meaning of Christmas in the midst of the shopping frenzy.  Christ was betrayed for the price of 30 pieces of silver.  Let’s not betray him again for a discounted television and BOGO (buy-one-get-one) DVDs.

47%

I recently overheard a couple of 20-somethings on the patio at an open-air mall talk about how they will vote in the upcoming election.  The insipid arguments they made to justify their choice made me cringe.  They talked about universal health care as a “good idea” and how “tax cuts for the rich” would widen the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”  They also talked about the Republican plan to “wipe out Medicare and Social Security “and how electing Romney would be “bad for the economy.”

As I listened to their conversation, the main theme was they want the government to do even more for people. The more I thought about what I heard, the more I thought about Romney’s recent “47%” commentary.

During a private fundraiser held in May, Romney said “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

After the videotape became public, Romney stood by his comments while admitting that his thoughts were “not elegantly” stated.  I agree it may be inelegant, but I think his point is fair.

An April 2012 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/09/20/where-the-public-stands-on-government-assistance-taxes-and-the-presidential-candidates/) indicates that while most Americans (71%) believe that poor people have become too dependent on government programs, a majority (59%) believe  it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves. Fifty nine percent of Americans also believe the government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep.

Frankly, that disturbs me.  The Preamble outlines the purpose of the U. S. Constitution. It says “promote the general welfare,” but nothing about providing food and shelter.  As a matter of fact, nowhere in the U. S. Constitution does it say that the federal government will provide food, shelter, or any of the other basic necessities to the American public.  And it says that for a good reason; it is not the responsibility of the U. S. government to provide food, clothing, or shelter to the American citizens.  It is the responsibility of the American citizens to secure such things for themselves and their families.

I want everyone to have enough food and proper shelter.  I sure don’t want people to starve or live on the streets.  But with a national debt exceeding $16,000,000,000,000 and likely to go higher, the government cannot afford to assume responsibility for the personal welfare of each and every citizen.  The risk of an economic meltdown, such as the recent European debt crisis, grows as the debt grows.  So, whose responsibility is it to feed and shelter U.S. citizens?  I work so I can provide for my family.  Isn't that a reasonable expectation?  The U.S. Constitution grants us certain rights and protections, but it doesn't promise food and shelter.    

What happened to the American spirit that drives us to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps and make a life for ourselves and our families?  The government should not assume responsibility, especially for those who choose not take responsibility for their own welfare.  The government should eliminate barriers to fulfilling the American dream, yet even those are not guaranteed.  In the same speech, Romney said, “My job is not to worry about those people.  I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."  He’s absolutely right.  He won’t convince them.  This November, we have a choice between an incumbent with a track record of federal government expansion and entitlements that are likely to drive us over the fiscal cliff or a candidate that has plans for reducing the size of and dependence on the federal government.  If we don’t make a change, we may all be on the street in four years.