Moral Dilemma

Since I am an Eagle Scout and a Scoutmaster, I’ve been asked by several people about my thoughts on the Boy Scout’s ban on gay members and leaders.  And to be honest, I haven’t decided.  What I want to know is this; what policy is best for the boys served by the Scouting program and the future generations in which these boys will be leaders and role models?

After numerous court cases, particularly BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA et al. v. DALE, in which the US Supreme Court affirmed the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of freedom of association, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) adopted a new youth leadership policy that stated, “Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed.  Scouting’s position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys.”

This policy was a sore point for many.  Many organizations that had supported BSA in the past distanced themselves from the organization because of the policy. Many chartering organizations were no longer willing to sponsor troops and packs. Steven Spielberg, an Eagle Scout himself, resigned his position as an advisory board member of the BSA over what he described as discriminatory practices.   

As recent as July, 2012, the BSA reaffirmed its ban on gay members and leaders.  However, on January 28^th, the Boy Scouts of America released a media statement that said, in part, “Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.”

What is the purpose of the Boy Scouts?  The BSA website says, “The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.”

For over 100 years, scouts have been pledging, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”  The Scout Law, unchanged since 1911, says, “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

BSA banned gay leaders and youth because it viewed homosexuality as immoral, therefore a homosexual could not be morally straight.  But what does BSA consider as morally straight?

My first Boy Scout Handbook, the eighth edition, published in 1976, explains morally straight as, “You live and act and speak in ways that mark you as a boy who will grow up to be a man of good character. You are honest, clean in speech and actions, thoughtful of the rights of others, and faithful to your religious beliefs.”  The 12^th, and most recent edition, explains it this way, “Your relationships with others should be honest and open.  Respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions and faithful in your religious beliefs. Values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.”

Does homosexuality disqualify a person as being morally straight?  Some people think so.  I know heterosexuality is not an automatic qualification for morally straight.

What I do know is this, Scout leaders have a responsibility to teach self-reliance and instill moral code in youth that allows them to make ethical choices.  This occurs through active teaching and serving as role models. Scouting should not be a bully pulpit for a Scout leader’s sexual orientation and lifestyle, nor should it be a platform to push for acceptance of alternative lifestyles.  Any discussions about sexuality should be on the subject of sexual responsibility.  As the Scout Handbook says, “Sex is not the most important or grown-up part of a relationship. Having sex is never a test of manliness.  True maturity comes from acting ethically…”  It talks about responsibility to women, enjoying a healthy relationship that is supportive and equal; responsibility to yourself by having an understanding of wholesome sexual behavior and avoiding irresponsible and risky behavior; and responsibility to your religious beliefs.

Regardless of the decision, I caution the decision-makers on how they implement any changes. Usually, I am not a big believer in one-size-fits-all policies.  However, passing the buck down to the local councils and charter organizations seems like a recipe for a mish-mash of policies that weaken the program. In this case, I think BSA needs a consistent national policy so that the Scouting experience is the same for scouts across the country. Regardless of the outcome, not everyone will be happy and I am afraid the reaction of parents and organizations is likely to hobble the program, much to the detriment of the youth.

As I’ve written before, the moral compass of the Boy Scouts, the Scout Oath and Scout Law, sets a standard of conduct that is conspicuously absent in many in our society.  Scouting builds self-reliance, sets a moral code and finds purpose in our young people.  More than ever, this country needs a program that sets standards of conduct and trains youth to be leaders.  If Scouting can accommodate homosexual leaders and youth into the program without compromising its mission and allow more youth a chance to participate in the program and exposure to positive adult role models, especially positive male role models, then perhaps Scouting should move in that direction.  But, let’s not undermine the mission of the program just for the sake of political correctness.

Better Off?

On January 20^th, 2009, Barack Obama took the oath of office, becoming the 43^rd American to hold the office of President of the United States.  Running on a theme of Hope and Change, Obama’s first inaugural address, echoed that theme.  He said in that speech:

“Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

Later on, he spoke of the greatness of this country and acknowledged how it became great by saying:

“In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.

It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.”

Wonderful words to start off his presidency, but four years later, unemployment is still 7.8% (same as 2009), the median household income is down 4%, almost 3 million more Americans are living below the poverty level, there are still just as many people without health insurance, 13 million more people on food stamps, and the debt has increased by $6,000,000,000,000.

In addition to the increase in taxes that will affect 77% of taxpayers, the Obama administration has added so many new rules and regulations during his first term that the cost to comply with these new rules and regulations is estimated to be more than $500 billion (http://americanactionforum.org/). 

After four years, I am concerned about the direction the United States is heading.  Congress and the President seem more interested in political gamesmanship than doing anything for the good of the country. Obama’s first term policies seemed geared towards expanding the size of the government and increasing its role in the day-to-day lives of Americans. Given some of his policies and appointments in his first term, it seems more than a simple coincidence that his slogan for his 2012 campaign, Forward, has long been associated with European Marxism (The Washington Times, April 30, 2012). 

During his second inaugural address, Obama failed to mention anything about reigning in government spending, instead advocated that global warming, gun control, and gay rights are some of the most important issues facing the country.  He didn’t mention about working with Republicans to solve the debt ceiling, the sequestration, or the expiring continuing resolution.  He said collective action is required to preserve individual freedoms and stated “For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future. Or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.”

The President doesn’t get it.  Personal liberties are preserved by limiting the power and authority of the government not by collective action.  Sure, no single person can do all those things.  But the sum of individual actions can, and does these things.  No matter how much government intervention, the government cannot “protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.” Furthermore, not only can the government not protect us from hazards and misfortunes, that’s not the responsibility of government.

I don’t agree with the President and I don’t want more government.  A lot of others feel the same way, but I’ve heard more than one person admit that, now Obama is in office for a second term, they don’t know what to do.  That’s a good question, what can we do?

We can get involved.  Nice sentiment, but what does that mean?  The first step of getting involved is educating yourself.  Learn how Congress works and how laws are made and enacted (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html and http://thomas.loc.gov/home/enactment/enactlawtoc.html ).  Learn who your elected representatives are (www.senate.gov and www.house.gov).  Don’t rely on the media to provide you accurate or unbiased news, research the issues yourself.  Read the bills under consideration in Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php).Talk to your friends, coworkers, neighbors, and family members, find out their views on the issues. 

The second step of getting involved is take action. Contact your elected representatives. Letters, phone calls, and emails are effective ways to communicate with them and the President (www.whitehouse.gov).  Attend town hall meetings and candidate events or debates in your community.  Monitor Congressional voting records and let elected officials know how you want them to vote.  If you think they voted wrongly on a bill or issue, let them know.  If you think the voted correctly, thank them.

Finally, get involved in grassroots organizations. Whether it’s Citizens United, Tea Party Patriots, the National Right to Work Committee or some other organization, get involved.  By joining with others of mutual concern in your community, you create a group of concerned citizens that politicians can’t ignore.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, stated, “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”  We must get involved to limit the size and extension of the federal government.  Otherwise, there is nothing to hold it in check.  As Thomas Jefferson said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”  We can no longer afford to be silent.

Know the Bounds

I read a recent opinion piece in the New York Times titled, Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.  In the article, the author advances the idea that the root of the problem with the American government is “our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic, and downright evil provisions.”  The author, Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, wrote, “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.“ 

I strongly disagree with Mr. Seidman.  Mr. Seidman and, I fear, many in America don’t get it.  The purpose of the US Constitution is not to define the rights of Americans; its purpose is to limit the power of the US government. 

The delegates that drafted the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention had reason to fear powerful national government; they had declared independence from a British government they believed to be abusive and tyrannical the previous decade and fought a war to retain that independence.  The Treaty of Paris which ended the American Revolution was signed only four years before the Constitutional Convention.  Because the new constitution, which replaced the weak and ineffectual Articles of Confederation, provided more power for the federal government, many people were against its ratification.  In order to sway public opinion, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison wrote a series of 85 essays, known as The Federalist Papers, which explained the various provisions of the Constitution and the rationale behind them.

In the 45^th essay of the Federalist Papers, titled "The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered", James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” This sentiment is reflected in the 10^th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  In other words, the US Constitution limits the power of the federal government to only those defined; all other powers belong to the states and the people.

It is not our obsession with the Constitution that has resulted in a dysfunctional political system.  It is our willingness to elect and re-elect leaders that disobey or ignore the Constitution and adhere to party politics instead doing what is good for the country that has caused the problem.  We, the people, are the problem. 

Mr. Seidman wrote, “Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states.”  Really?  Congress passed President Obama’s Affordable Care Act without reading it and then the Supreme Court upheld the government’s power to force Americans to buy health insurance as constitutional.  The people we elected created and passed that legislation aided by justices appointed and consented by people we elected.

The US government derives its power from the people it governs. We must ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people” continues.  In order to do that, we must exercise our power as voters and elect officials that operate within the bounds of the Constitution.  

The republican form of government, as defined by the US Constitution with its emphasis on separation of powers, limited government, checks and balances, and the rule of law, is essential to protect individual liberties.  Absolute power corrupts just as much today as it did in 1787, and we need the Constitution to limit the power of the government.  Without a written constitution, there is nothing to keep the authority of Congress or the President in check.  If we choose to throw out the Constitution, then what happens to our rights and freedoms?  If we, the people, don’t hold on to our power by being educated, informed, and engaged, then we’ll surely lose that power, just as if we had thrown out the Constitution.

Educate yourself on the Constitution and the limits of government.  Be aware of when it is misinterpreted or misapplied and speak up.  Contact your elected officials and let them know that you understand the Constitution and expect them to abide by it.  

Laws

A month after the Connecticut school shootings, the debate over gun control continues.  In response, many want tougher gun control laws; some want an outright ban on weapons; and others are resisting change to gun control laws.  Many people are purchasing firearms to protect themselves while others are protesting that the right to bear arms, codified in 2^nd Amendment, is outdated and no longer applicable. President Obama established a gun violence task force, led by Vice President Biden, to address gun violence.

Biden has said that there is no single to control gun violence.  At the same time, he has indicated that the task force’s recommendations may include a ban on assault weapons.  CNN is predicting a battle in Congress over a weapons ban.  Gun-rights advocates say a ban violates the 2^nd Amendment while others say a ban is needed to make us safer.  Will a law banning assault weapons make us safer?

As I’ve written before, the shooter in the Connecticut tragedy broke multiple laws before firing the first shot at the school.  For instance, by law, schools are gun-free zones, and the shooter stole legally-purchased guns and illegally transported them.  This incident demonstrates that laws themselves do not make us safer.  If laws don’t ensure our safety, then what is their purpose?

Laws are a collection of rules and instructions which are enforced through social institutions to govern public and corporate behavior.  Many laws define limitations or rules of behavior.  The legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart acknowledged that for laws to work, people must voluntarily accept the authority of those laws.  Without acceptance of the authority and the willingness to obey the laws, what is left is the authority to administer punishment for disobedience.

One could argue that laws make us safer, using traffic laws as an example.  But, it isn’t the law that makes us safer; it’s the obedience to the laws that keep us safe.  Laws themselves cannot force drivers to drive safely.  Posted speed limit signs don’t deter many drivers from speeding.  If caught speeding, the driver expects the consequence to be a ticket and a fine.  The traffic laws provide the limitations of behavior and the framework upon which to penalize the drivers who disobey.  Nevertheless, annually, tens of thousands of injuries and fatalities result when drivers exceed the speed limits.  The traffic laws haven’t eliminated auto accidents nor ensured the safety of the public.

I am not advocating the repeal or suspension of laws.  Laws are necessary; providing not only rules and instructions for the public, but also limitations on authority.  Laws set boundaries for behavior and as long as a person acts within those boundaries, those who hold authority are restrained from penalizing or punishing the person.  Legal authority cannot simply fine us or incarcerate us simply because they do not like our actions or behavior unless we break the law. 

My point is that we should be cautious when creating new laws.  Before a new law is passed, we must understand both the intended and unintended consequences.  And we should be aware of the burdens of having too many laws.  Over 2000 years ago, the Roman statesman Cicero wrote, “The more laws, the less justice.” The more laws created the more restraints on our behavior and the closer boundaries are set. 

As with many things, having too much of something is not a good solution either.  When the number of laws is large, both the enforcer and the citizen cannot remain aware of all of them and how they apply.  So, it is hard to avoid crossing the lines on lawful behavior if you aren’t aware of where the lines are drawn.  This allows disobedience through ignorance to be commonplace. James Madison wrote, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."

When local and national leaders advocate new or stricter laws, contact them and urge restraint.  Request that they study and thoroughly understand the consequences of the proposed statutes and all that already exist.  Take the time yourself to learn what restraints these laws place upon your liberties and freedoms and make your voice heard.

Fair Share

In a video released by the White House on January 2^nd, President Obama gave his explanation of the fiscal cliff agreement and what it means to Americans.  Much of it was disingenuous, implying that the agreement avoided a middle class tax increase, when, according to the Tax Policy Center, 77% of taxpayers will pay more in taxes this year. He avoided mentioning for every $1 of budget cuts there are $41 in tax increases.  He also didn’t mention that buried in the agreement is an extension of tax breaks for Hollywood, expected to cost the government about $430 million in lost tax revenue (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-also-doles-out-millions-for-hollywood-railroads-rum-producers/). And, more importantly, he did not mention that the Obamacare provisions that became effective January 1^st will cost taxpayers more due to a lower cap on flexible spending accounts and an increase in the threshold for the tax deductibility of medical bills (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/27/obamacares-costly-new-year/).

I am not surprised by what Mr. Obama did not say.  One thing he did say worries me, however.  He said, “I’m willing to do more, as long as we do it in a balanced way that doesn't put all the burden on seniors or students or middle class burdens but also asks the wealthiest Americans to contribute and pay their fair share.”

What is the obsession with taxing or punishing the wealthy?  The Occupy Wall Street movement was a protest against economic inequality.  The protestors’ slogan, We are the 99%, alluded to the fact the top 1% of income earners had a greater concentration of wealth than the other 99%.  The overall message of the protestors was, according to Bloomberg Business Week magazine, “They want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, less profit (or no profit) for banks, lower compensation for bankers, and more strictures on banks with regard to negotiating consumer services such as mortgages and debit cards.”

In order to have more jobs, there must be an increased demand for employees.  That requires an increase in demands for goods and services from the employers.  That’s basic economics.  Better jobs come from having the skills and education demanded by employers.  It’s the law of supply and demand.  There is a higher demand for employees with degrees in health and medical fields or engineering and computer science fields than there are for those with a comparative literature or art history degrees.  In addition to higher demand, the difficulty or specialization of knowledge required for the job will result in higher pay.  Skilled labor jobs pay better than unskilled labor.  Simply demanding more or better jobs without amassing the skills in demand in the job market is ludicrous.

 Demanding more equal distribution of income is not only ludicrous; it is Marxist (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” – Karl Marx). If wages are unequal, how can income be equal without a redistribution of wealth?  If a person goes to college or trade school and works hard to acquire the education or skills necessary to get a job that pays well, should that person be punished for having a job that pays well?  Should those who consume but create nothing and do nothing be rewarded with the wealth of those who create and work?  Thomas Jefferson didn’t think so. He wrote, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

President Obama, Senator Reid, and others have said “millionaires and billionaires” should pay more but increased the taxes on those making $400,000 or more.  Redistribution of wealth is already in place in the way we pay taxes.  It is the categories and percentages that they continue to debate.  What’s to prevent them from changing the definition of wealthy to $100,000 or even $50,000 the next time around?  

A warning appeared in a 1909 New York Times editorial opposing the first income tax.  It said, "When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."  If we don’t cure Congress, and America, of the habit, we won’t have to worry about the gap between the haves and have-nots; we’ll all be have-nots. Heed the warning.  This is your hard-earned money they are talking about.  For too long, we, the taxpayers, have complied and provided them with an endless supply of funds without demanding fiscal responsibility.  Let them know it is time to break the habit or we will start calling it what it is, stealing.  

Zombie Apocalypse

Today's post is written by guest blogger John Galt.  It's a humorous warning about a serious concern, mindless taxation and spending in Washington.

The zombie apocalypse has arrived.  In movies and on TV, zombies shuffle along in pursuit of mindless gratification at the cost of others.  There is no plan or coordination or end.  They feed off the flesh of others without remorse.  I’d say the same lack of remorse is true in the people that feed off the work of others.  There is no appreciation or compensation.  There is only the insatiable desire for more and more.  They are merely consumers providing no service or benefit. 

The zombie apocalypse is playing out right now in Washington, DC.  Our government demands more and more from the American workers in the form of fees and taxes.  Have you ever looked at your pay check and wondered who gets so much of it before you do?  Do you know where your tax dollars go?  What about sales tax, social security tax, user fees, road and bridges fees, hospital tax, metro tax, and taxes on utilities, alcohol, and gas?  Almost everything you do has a fee or tax taken off the top.  Where does that go and how does it really benefit you?   Would you like to have a say where your money goes? 

Well, you are feeding the zombies.  You have no control over how much you give and who gets it.  The more you work, the more you earn, the more that is taken.  You can try to outsmart the zombies, but at some point, they will get you unless you act.  For as long as you can, keep your head and alert the others.  Use your mind to prioritize what is important to you and where your money should go.  Tell everyone to send a letter to their representatives in Congress and the Senate.  Tell the President that enough is enough and you want a real, fiscally-responsible plan.  Use your mind while you still have one to find a cure for the zombie apocalypse. 

Just like in the movies, they will feed until there is no more to consume.  Lying down and covering your head won’t make them go away.  The people that take action and push back are the survivors.  Well, I challenge you to be a survivor.  Ask questions and make our elected officials accountable...before it is too late. 

Kicking the Can

A couple of hours into 2013, the Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 by a vote of 89 - 8. This is the result of compromises between the Senate and the White House that is supposed to avert the looming financial crisis known as the “fiscal cliff”.   After much debate, the House also approved the bill. CNBC’s headline reads With Final Vote, Congress Resolves 'Fiscal Cliff'. Does this legislation really resolve the crisis?

The bill extends tax credits and tax rates for all but those in the highest tax bracket.  It also extends certain tax credits for businesses. The act makes changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax to prevent nearly 30 million middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers from being hit with higher tax bills.

However, the measure restores the Social Security payroll tax back to 6.2%.  It raises the income tax rate for individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples earning more than $450,000 from 35% to 39.6% and the tax rates on capital gains and dividends from 15% to 20%.  It also extends the limits on itemized deductions and the phase-out of the personal exemption for individuals making more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $300,000.  So let’s put a face on this and picture two married doctors with a family of kids headed to college giving Uncle Sam $180,000 of their $450,000 income.  Then subtract living expenses, utilities, mortgage, college tuitions, car payments, homeowner insurance, health insurance, malpractice insurance, etc. out of the remaining $270,000.  Makes all those years of medical school, student loans and sleepless days and nights really appealing right now, right?

According to Foxnews.com, the legislation will raise approximately $620 billion in tax revenue over 10 years.  Yet, the act contains $330 billion in spending, such as $30 billion to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, approximately 2 million people, for one year.  Because of the spending provisions in the measure, the net spending cuts amount to $15 billion over 10 years.

The budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion dollars for each of the last four years, yet Congress and the President managed to cut only $15 billion over 10 years?  Seems to me that President Obama and congressional leaders aren’t serious about reining in the debt, or incredibly bad at math. Either way, the new law isn’t much of a resolution. Nor is it much of a relief to the taxpayer.  An analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicates that 77% of households that actually pay income tax will see a tax increase.   Recall that only 54% of Americans contribute to the tax revenue.

So what did Congress and the President do?  They didn’t resolve the fiscal cliff, they merely postponed it.  Instead of the mandatory, across-the-board reductions in federal spending occurring on January 2, 2013, as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the new law merely changed the date these reductions occur to March 1^st. In addition, Congress and the President still must address the debt ceiling issue I addressed in a previous post.  Because Congress has not passed a federal budget in over three years, it has funded government operations through a series of continuing resolutions. The third issue the next session of Congress must address is the current continuing resolution is set to expire March 27^th. 

With these three financial issues ahead of us, sequestration, debt ceiling, and expiration of the continuing resolution, Congress, along with President Obama,  must make some hard decisions, both long term and short term, to get this country back on sound financial footing.  Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening.  As I wrote in a previous post, Senator Reid has been an obstacle to getting budgets passed. During a December 30^th appearance on “Meet the Press”, President Obama said his second priority was to “stabilize the economy.”

 As I said, I don’t think they are serious about reducing the debt or reforming entitlement spending.  But those things must happen or we risk a weaker economy, higher taxes, higher inflation, and higher interest rates.  Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of President Obama’s bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, warned that “the reckoning will be sure and the devastation severe” should the United States fail to “put its fiscal house in order.”

Tell our leaders it’s time for serious solutions.  They keep demanding more and more money from taxpayers without demonstrating fiscal responsibility.  We cannot allow them to continue to kick the can down the street while tossing our money into the wind.  Contact your Senator (www.senate.gov), your Congressman (www.house.gov) and call (202-456-1111) or email the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments) and let them know you want fiscally responsible solutions.