Investing in Your Future

Another great post from John Galt

There are dangers in our world today. Yeah, no kidding.  We can all agree that there are dangers, that we each have our own list, but what dangers worry you the most?  I fear for my old age years when the youth of today are making decisions that affect me.  For now, I can be scary enough, if necessary, to call them on their behavior and maybe even intimidate them into a few course corrections.  These are the kids that party and drive, text and drive, drop trash, flick cigarette butts, shoplift, speak in profanity,  and spend quality time playing videogames rather than getting either a life or a job.  I’m not talking the extremes of these behaviors, but many are present at least a little in the youth of today.  They are common complaints amongst adults.

So, the kids today are your problem, even if they aren’t the ones that sit at your table for dinner or ask to borrow your car.  It’s your responsibility to get involved with them.  We have hard-earned lessons to teach.  Don't back down when they roll their eyes when you speak.  And, don't expect a change overnight.  But, with persistence, you can bestow the virtues of courtesy, manners, proper language, writing skills, compassion and a sound work ethic.  Teaching moments aren't announced.  Many are the quiet moments in the car together, time spent in your presence with other people, and time just hanging out.  They are always watching, so are you a good example?  Do you take a call in the middle of a conversation with them?  If so, shouldn't you expect them to do the same?  So, turn down the volume of the TV, or better yet, turn it off during dinner and have a conversation.  Ask them what is on their mind.

My family has dinner together almost every night.  A luxury, in these busy times.  We talk politics, community issues, trends in our world, relationships, plans, hopes, prayers, and dreams.  I listen to what they say, engage in their debates, and champion their ideas.  I've made sure the kids know that they are part of their community and some of the responsibility lies with them.  They volunteer.  They are advocates for others.  They have plans to make the world a better place.  They are also teenagers, often overwhelmed with school, technology, and social issues.   There is a lot of mean in their world and technology makes it too easy for mean to invade every facet of their day.  As I have also told them since they were little that there is too much ugly in the world, so I won't have it in my house.  Be nice.  It has to start somewhere, so it may as well start here.

They face a lot of challenges.  Social pressures are greater than I remember at their age.  Maybe there was less division, mean and rudeness.  Maybe I was oblivious.  Maybe it just wasn't allowed.  Still, the kids remain hopeful that their world will overcome the current state.  Hope for a better day is a good thing.  Wanting to be an active participant in the path taken is even better.  So, talk to your kids and include their friends.  Share in a debate on issues that are important to them.  Be their champion.  Correct behaviors—theirs and yours—and be a good example.  Invest in your future by investing in theirs.

Lift the Fog

Where I live, the Department of Defense (DoD) and other federal agencies are the largest employers in town.  Practically everyone in the area is employed by a federal agency, federal agency contractor, or is related to someone employed by one of the two.  So, just about every conversation turns to sequestration and its effects on people and the local economy. 

Most people are bracing for an anticipated 20 – 25% loss of pay due to furloughs.  Many local, non-defense employers are preparing for a down-turn in the local economy by slowing or suspending hiring and taking measures to mitigate the impacts from a potential loss of revenue.  I was involved in a discussion concerning the local economic impacts, when one of the participants, whom I’ll call Bob (not his real name) wondered why the sequestration cuts were structured as they are.  I referred to a recent article by Dr. Thomas Sowell, Budget Politics, in which Dr. Sowell states that in politics, the items offered up for budget cuts are the items, if cut, are most likely to cause public alarm.  Because of the public alarm over the proposed cuts, the cuts quite often never occur and any meaningful cuts in wasteful spending don’t happen.  In this case, President Obama offered up cuts he believed to be so onerous that Congress would back away from any more budget cuts.

Another participant pointed out a Wall Street Journal article that reported that Republicans in Congress had proposed a plan prior to the beginning of the sequestration to allow the President to target the spending cuts toward low-priority programs, but ban any tax increases. However, the same article reported that President Obama threatened to veto it.  Bob was surprised to hear that, but even more surprised to learn that the sequestration idea originally came from the White House.  Bob just couldn’t understand why the President would play politics with budget cuts.

I had a hard time understanding Bob’s surprise.  I grew up in an era where people would vote a straight Democratic ticket, regardless of the character or competency of the Democratic candidate, so I comprehend that some people are blindly devoted to party ideology, both on the left and right.  However, Bob is not registered with any political party, so I don’t believe he’s a party idealist.    I think the problem is that Bob is incredibly naïve about what goes on in politics.

Now, Bob is a smart guy.  He has advanced degrees in technical fields, but admits he’s not interested in politics.  I am afraid he’s in a fog, naïve as to what goes on in Washington or how the voters in this country are slowly relinquishing power to the federal government.  What’s bothersome is that many American’s are just like Bob.

Our founding fathers entrusted us with a republican form of government, where the power of government is derived from the people.  The US Constitution defines the roles and responsibilities of the Federal government, but there is nothing that outlines the roles and responsibilities of we, the people.

Ask someone about good citizenship and you’ll likely hear about the rights and duties of a citizen, such as obeying laws, paying taxes, serving on a jury, and voting.  Some may even mention community service or service in the armed forces.  But, the duties and responsibilities of US citizenship go beyond that.

Good citizenship requires an understanding of our government, its purpose, how it operates and what it’s doing. It requires us to be educated on important issues and to keep our elected officials aware of our viewpoints and concerns.  The purpose of the Federal government is not to provide us with food, clothing, shelter, or fund our lifestyle.  It’s not the responsibility of government to protect us from hazards and misfortunes and it’s not supposed to redistribute wealth or try to make life fair.  Its purpose and its power are enumerated in the US Constitution.  It’s a good idea to read it and know what it says.

Get an understanding of how Congress works.  The US House of Representatives has a great website to learn about Congress and the legislative process (http://www.house.gov/content/learn/).  Also learn about “earmarks”, “riders”, and “pork-barrel legislation”, actions that legislators sometimes take, often deceptive in nature, to fund projects and programs that serve local or special interests and not the country as a whole.

Monitor what Congress is doing.  Both the Senate and the House websites (www.senate.gov and www.house.gov) have links to Congressional activities and schedules.  The Library of Congress’ website has a link to current legislation summaries and status (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php)

Educate yourself on the issues.  Talk to your friends, neighbors, and co-workers about the issues.  Listen to candidate debates and know their positions on legislation and federal issues.  Know which issues can be addressed locally and which are national issues.  And remember that some of the issues are not the responsibility of the Federal government.

Become a critical thinker, capable of using reason, observation, and reflection to decide on a course of action or belief, especially given the overwhelming amount of information available, for which much of it is biased in one direction or another.  Critical thinking is required to determine whether the claims and statements from Congress, the President, and other leaders are true, false, partially true, or simply misleading.

Communicate with your elected officials.  Emails and letters to Congress and the President; letters to the editor of the local newspaper; and signing petitions are all good ways to let officials know your viewpoints.  Don’t be afraid to tell them how they should vote on pending legislation.  And let them know you are paying attention and willing to vote them out of office if they don’t do their job.

Good citizenship requires involvement beyond voting and community service.  To maintain a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, we have to be engaged, educated, and involved.

President Obama said, “If people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics.“ Get out of the fog and get involved.  The country is depending on you to be a good citizen.

Baby-Faced Soldier

I traveled through the Dallas-Fort Worth (Texas) airport recently.  Because it is a major hub, there are lots of people moving through the airport.  Still, I noticed that a number of the travelers were servicemen and women.  I've seen them before in my travels, but what struck me this time was how incredibly young they all appear.

The obvious youth of one young airman in particular, really grabbed my attention.  He looked like a child, not old enough to shave, certainly not old enough to be in the military.  As I watched him walk past, I realized that he probably isn't more than a year or two older than my teenaged son.  Are we really sending babies off to defend our country?

According to the Defense Manpower Data Center, of the nearly 1.4 million serving in the US armed forces, almost 1 in 5 are between the ages of 18 and 21. Barely old enough to vote and not old enough to buy a beer, these kids have sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

Enemies come in all shapes, sizes, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.  It seems not too long ago, an enemy was easy to identify.  In war, he wore a uniform and was a member of the adversary’s armed forces.  But I wonder who today’s serviceman’s biggest enemy is; the one who holds the bullets or the one who controls the budgets?

After the First World War, the size of the US military dwindled through budget cuts and isolationist foreign policies that assumed diplomacy and negotiation would solve all grievances and avoid armed conflict.  Such policies allowed aggressors such as Germany, Italy, and Japan to violate standing treaties and invade Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, and Manchuria without fear of armed conflict.

When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the US military ranked behind Bulgaria’s and Romania’s militaries in size.  When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the US forces in the Philippines were still armed and supplied with World War I-era equipment.   Thanks in large part to the industrial might of America and the American armed forces, the Allies triumphed over the Axis powers.  But the cost was an average of 416 American lives lost per day during the nearly four years of combat.

The invasion of South Korea by the North Korean army in June, 1950 caught the US by surprise and by August, 1950, US and South Korean forces had nearly been pushed into the sea at Pusan by North Korean forces.  Chinese intervention in October, 1950 again caught US and United Nations (UN) forces by surprise.    US and UN forces were nearly overwhelmed and President Truman declared a national emergency, resulting in the activation of National Guard and military reserve units to fight in Korea.  After two years of stalemate fighting along and around the 38^th parallel, North and South Korea agreed to an armistice.  Taking three years to fight-to-a-draw cost US forces 45 lives per day.

The Vietnam War experience, for servicemen, could best be summed up by the quote,” We the Unwilling, Led by the Unqualified, Are doing the Impossible, For the Ungrateful”.  President Johnson escalated the US involvement in Vietnam, aided by a Congress willing to give him unilateral power to conduct full-scale war based on an alleged second attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin.  Unclear objectives, underestimation of the enemy, loss of public support at home, and military decisions made by politicians in Washington instead of military commanders on scene led to over 58,000 deaths.  In spite of the scores who served in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese captured Saigon in April 1975 and the South Vietnamese government collapsed.  The US policy of containing communism in Indochina failed because of poor leadership at the highest levels.

 In response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US, we have been involved in a global war on terror.  Although our troops are no longer actively engaged in combat in Iraq, we still have troops in combat in Afghanistan.  Since 2011, we lost over 6,000 lives and nearly 42,000 were wounded.  Yet, The Heritage Foundation reports that, because of decisions by Congress and Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, much of the equipment used by military personnel, such as armored personnel carriers, helicopters, and tactical aircraft, are older than the servicemen and women who use them.

In September, 2012, the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked and four members of the diplomatic mission were killed.  An investigation report on the attack declared "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

As part of the debt ceiling crisis fiasco in 2011, the White House suggested a compulsory set of budget cuts that would go into effect if Congress failed to produce deficit reduction legislation totaling $1.2 trillion in cuts.  These cuts, known as the “sequester” and scheduled to begin on March 1, 2013, reduce the federal budget by $85 billion.  Half of the reduction comes from cuts in defense spending and half comes from cuts in nondefense, discretionary spending.

The Wall Street Journal points out the defense budget is less than 20% of the federal budget, but absorbs half the sequester cuts.  The Journal also points out that from 2008-2013, defense spending increased 11%, but over the same time period, total nondefense discretionary spending increased by 16.6 %.  That 16.6% includes an increase in Department of Transportation, for example, spending by 66.8% over the same time period.

Many presidents in US history have sent soldiers into battle and political decisions have cost soldiers’ lives.  We should know better.  Yet, it appears that Obama is more than willing to play politics with the military to try and force Republicans to raise taxes.  As The Wall Street Journal, says, “This fits Mr. Obama's evident plan to raid the military to pay for social programs like ObamaCare.”

While this round of cuts will not affect the number of troop deployments or troop paychecks, there is no certainty that the President and Congress won’t do so in the future.  But upgrades to military hardware and research and development of new technologies will be cut—those technologies intended to protect our soldiers in the field.   If we are willing to send baby-faced soldiers to defend the United States, we should not allow leaders to play politics with the support and welfare of our armed forces.  Nor should we elect officials who are willing to do so.  Our servicemen and women deserve so much better.

Be Nice Today

Another post from John Galt.  I'd like to thank John for trying to make the world a nicer place.

I’m hopeful for the future of this country.  She has weathered a lot.  When reading the history of this country, it hasn’t always been pretty and at times it has been downright ugly.  A snapshot of today isn’t very pretty either.  We have high crime.  The epidemic of murders in Chicago comes to mind.  This is the type of violence we thought we were above and would only see in news shots from foreign countries where we thought they valued human life less than we do.  We have over 46 million Americans living in poverty and over 31 million children qualify for the school lunch programs.  In this country of the American dream where we grow millionaires on every block (according to our movies), people are hungry and homeless.  In my snapshot of today, I see the threat of unemployment, stores closing, empty restaurants, and in general, little hope for change.  Has it always been this way, or does it seem to be worse now than in the past because technology makes it possible for us to hear about it more?   

On my drive home every day, I see panhandlers on every corner of the intersections.  One in particular has his dog tied on a very short leash to a signpost, all day.  I mention this because the first time I saw them, the dog was just a puppy.  This sight makes me so mad every time I see it.  I don’t know of the situation that put this man on the corner. This puppy’s experience with life is spent tied to a signpost in a busy intersection in the South’s scalding heat of summer and the damp drizzle of winter.  Is this the world we have created for all of God’s creatures?  Please don’t assume that I put an animal before people; I only use this as an example of where we are as a society today.  No matter how hard you try to look away, turn up the music and pray for the light to change, you can’t avoid the truth and the truth is ugly and tossing a few coins isn’t going to fix it.

What can you do?  First, as an individual, you must want to do something; desire to make a change.  This will require you to admit that there is a problem.  This will be a challenge for many, maybe for all of us.  By our omission, the country has become what it is.  As Thomas Jefferson said, ““All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”  Our country didn’t get into this state of disrepair from any one event and it didn’t happen overnight.  We are where we are as a country because of lot of poor choices, discourteous actions, political posturing, illness, gluttony, greed and sadness.  All of those single events--minor in consequence taken individually, but when taken collectively and then influencing the chain of events that result, create a world often unfit for a puppy tied to a signpost at a busy intersection.

 You’ve probably heard about some of the strategies to make this country better—something we can do as individuals such as paying forward a good deed, do just one nice thing for a stranger, willingly lend a hand, be more courteous than usual, smile and mean it, volunteer—the list of possibilities is endless.  Most of these strategies involve putting another before yourself and maybe pushing you out of your comfort zone.  Easier said than done in this world saturated with technology, over-scheduled and self-centered.  But, don’t wait to be nice.  When you have lunch with someone, put down your phone and have a real conversation with the person with you.  Don’t text while you drive and instead concentrate on driving safely—for your safety and for those around you.  Hold the elevator for the person running across the lobby.  Donate pet supplies to the local shelter.  Make eye contact with someone you pass and smile.  There is plenty of time for regret and all of the “I should have…”  Set an example for others and do the right thing, the kind thing, even if no one is watching.  Do one nice thing today.  Maybe tomorrow you will do two.

Check Your Premise

Another thought-provoking post from John Galt.  

I was asked yesterday if I thought the Liberal-left cared more about “people” issues than the Conservative-right.  First, I understand that this is a trap and there is no right answer, so whether you agree or disagree is immaterial.  But think a bit about the group dynamics in play.  From my view, the Left tends to be more focused on the trendy issues of the time like sexuality, immigration, or social programs.  I see these issues as entitlements for the individual.  These are self-centered causes that compete against one another for a larger piece of the entitlement pie.  Entitlements may be in the form of more press, larger headlines, new laws, or more funding.  It is all about the squeaky wheel of the moment.  But, when the individuals, screaming for support of their top 10, top five or top causes, are in a collective group each screaming for their top causes, it is every man for himself and every woman for herself.  It is never for the greater good, it creates division. 

Let me dispel with the notion that there is such thing as a social norm, or average on the value of social issues in this country, much less the world.  If you lined up each individual’s top ten values, it is highly unlikely that a majority of the country would have the same ten in the same order.  So, no matter how loud you scream for your issue, few are going to scream just as loud for your number one issue.  So, it is a competition for which there will be winners and losers, be it funding, legislation, or public support, for your cause.  And, screaming so much about it becomes badgering at some point; your voice is no longer effective because people have tuned you out. 

I, as a conservative, am tolerant of other’s top causes, but I don’t have to embrace them or adopt them as my own.  My willingness to be tolerant gains me nothing in the media or by the groups.  But, because I will not embrace or adopt the cause as my own and champion it, it is inferred that I am against it.  There are different degrees of support between for or against.  In this land of the free, as I recall, I don’t have to love what you love.  I prefer not to be bludgeoned about the head by it.  I’ve done my homework, assessed the impacts of the issue on the country and on my own life, and determined my position on the matter.  I’d appreciate it if you would agree to disagree with me.  It will save us both a lot of time.

So before you take in that breath, are you really asking, or demanding, change for the betterment of the country or is it about you?  If it puts more in your treasure trove than another’s or moves your cause higher up the flag pole, maybe you aren’t the champion of humankind you thought you were.  The Left has long been labeled the “bleeding heart” Liberals, so ask yourself if you are bleeding for everyone or for yourself and your interests first and foremost. 

Before I leave the Left, there are also a lot of posers that fill your ranks, but won’t bleed for your cause.  They are the people that don’t really have a dog in the fight, but think they achieve social cool by association.  They hop from topic to topic with the flow of media interest, but never are willing to do more than wear the t-shirt under safe conditions.  They won’t march in your parade, sign a petition, or discuss the cause outside their circle of like-minded friends.  The Left is lucky for these groupies, however, because they are the uninformed voters that vote for a president for his stand on social issues, like gay rights, when he has no authority under the law over these issues.

In history, the Conservatives have been characterized as the money makers that generate wealth on the backs of the workers and reap all of the benefit.  But, don’t they also create jobs?  I believe, as a conservative, that the opportunities are there for the taking, but you have to put forth the effort--there are no handouts.  It is up to the individual; it is their responsibility to take advantage of the opportunity.   For this, Conservatives prefer less laws that bound the possibilities or that limit opportunities.  Maybe this appears to be every man for himself.  But by creating wealth, they also have the wealth to give to charity, to create jobs, and to invest.  This creates an economy that thrives, produces tangible products and innovation.  Through this, we have better schools, better crops, safe water, ample food, more efficient cars, and research that continues to push the boundaries. 

So, in the end, who cares more about the people in this country?  It is hard to say.  I bet both would say they are more concerned about individual rights and opportunities.  This country is supposed to be all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Every person has a different measure of success of those rights.  Each approaches it a different way, but anything that helps the greater good, helps us all by definition.  So before you hit me over the head with your protest sign, I ask you to think about your cause and if it really will make this country better if you get a bigger piece of the American pie than your neighbor.  So take a minute and check your premise. 

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.