Government shouldn’t favor some industries with tax credits, while excessively taxing and regulating other industries

As states jockey to attract and keep business, the cookie cutter public policy as lobbied for by the National Association of Seed and Venture Funds (NASVF) has come to Minnesota.  Over 29 states adopted their version of The Angel Investor Tax Credit legislation, with some establishing their policy as early as 2004.

Minnesota’s massive state deficit and staggering unemployment has pressed legislators to “spur” job growth in any way; hence, the passing of a bipartisan Minnesota Jobs Creation Bill. This bill includes angel investor tax credits (redistributed revenue by government to targeted industries.) In today’s economy, it is extremely difficult for ALL businesses to find the capital necessary to start and expand.  So, why would Minnesota choose this legislation over other job growth efforts? Is it because the bill was already written, offering politicians of failing states a thoughtless and quick answer to the problems they created?

It is important to know why our desperate politicians find this legislation so attractive. Maybe it’s because they like to hold power over our private sector, actively engineering the state’s economy through tax credits, instead of lowering taxes for all and allowing the free market to drive sustainable jobs through natural market forces?  The only caveat, government doesn’t create jobs; it is a redistributing organ that may “create” short lived jobs in one industry, while its same effort destroys sustainable job creation in the areas it doesn’t favor.  There are no real positive gains.    

 
Yes, angel investors can fill a critical role in financing.  For some states who have adopted it, this type of tax credit serves as a targeted approach to encouraging entrepreneurial activity by reducing the risks and cost to the angel investors.  It allows states to address an economic development goal of diversifying their domestic industry.  This is the case in Michigan where their economy is dominated by the automotive industry; however, this is not Minnesota’s approach.   Our tax credits are targeted to government favorites:  University of Minnesota, green jobs, medical devices and bioscience industries, and nanotechnology; Industries that already fare well in Minnesota.  Interestingly enough, the other states choosing the Angel Investor Tax Credit legislation are also targeting these industries-all of them!

Minnesota could best compete with any state if we realized a broad tax cut and reduced the strangling regulation for all businesses.  Our legislators should strive to create a business friendly environment not just for a few industries, but for all business.  This would strengthen the richness of job choice and security, allowing Minnesotans to self-determined prosperity.
 

So the deeper question remains:  In what direction does this legislation take our state’s economy and how may it distort our marketplace?   Our shortsighted legislators don’t care to answer this tough question but instead continue the destructive path of raising taxes and doling out lobbyist driven tax credits under tight government control; they want to say who works and who doesn’t.  This kind of economic policy sees the common man as the masses, not as individuals who have his or her own hopes, dreams and plans in earning a living. 

In theory it seems easy to get behind this tax credit, but don’t get trapped in their thinking.  We need to delve deeper into our market problems and say this “easy vote” generates false hope and more problems for Minnesotans, our state economy and our future.

Viewpoint Requesting Politicians Pass a Professional Exam Gets Writer Removed From Volunteer Leadership Role

I wrote  the following viewpoint for our local newspaper.  As a result of this submission, I was remove from a leadership position in a collaborative state/city volunteer network.  The viewpoint was printed with two additions. The managing editor of our local newspaper inserted the names of two viewpoint authors without my approval; he added the names for clarity since my submission referenced their earlier writings.  One of the referenced names was a MN. State Senator who is also involved in the city volunteer network.  I was told my removal was due to other volunteers taking offense to my viewpoints and personal blog.      

<A viewpoint on December 30^th hailed the value of additional professional testing for new teachers in early literacy.  Although the Literacy Bill wasn’t groundbreaking in the world of education, it was predictable in the world of politics.  The new certification requirements came as no surprise after reading the Senator’s Guest Commentary in 2009. It quoted young teachers who shared their self-doubt and professed weakness in identifying reading deficiencies in some students.  Those confessions begged a question that was answered by more mandated testing.  Increasing test standards is a common solution born out of citizen groups, but hopefully these citizens were provided the diverse research that most teachers encounter in their career training.  

Most teaching degrees, like my M.Ed. program at Loyola University Chicago, comprehensively cover literary devices, scientific research and assessment.  They also debate traditional literacy programming to current trends.  Veteran teachers can speak to the ill-conceived removal of proper phonics programming, and changes in the public education literacy curriculum that initiated the decline in reading proficiency.  But of course the issue is far more complex than teacher methodology, curriculum design and school resources.  It also has to do with the spectrum of special needs and cultural barriers. 

 For this reason, it’s always beneficial for an issue like this to resurface; however, we need to make sure that the new solutions generated from such short discussion are sustainable and address the core problem.  For instance, a prominent study out of the Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students cites over 16 studies that show that tutoring by “certified teachers (rather than paraprofessionals)” yielded more success.  So maybe the involvement of AmeriCorps literacy coaches should be reconsidered.  These minimum wage teachers (paid volunteers) may not be our best option in addressing the problem, and according to the American Psychological Association, this kind of tutoring can be “very expensive intervention.”  In our schools, we have general education teachers who hold Masters and PhDs.  We have certified reading specialists, ESL teachers, and special education teachers to help. Outside of school, we have an active non-profit sector who offers a plethora of free academic resources to struggling youth.  Schools could be provided a resource list to help students find free academic enrichment programs and tutoring, rather than us employing paraprofessionals during school hours- creating more bureaucracy and giving the students less time with certified educators.  Lastly, we have professional tutoring services for those who can afford it.

 Here is a final thought. Since we have citizen groups analyzing the shortcomings of our public school system, maybe we should also have them tackle the failures of our elected officials. This new citizen group will produce a real landmark bill:  The Confidence in Governing Bill.  Given that our elected political officials often dictate laws in regard to professional certification, it is imperative that they too pass a professional proficiency exam before entering their public job.  Before a candidate can file to run, they will be required to take multiple pre-skills exams like other professionals.  In all fairness, the growing budget deficit represents a GAP between the voters in Minnesota and their leadership.  This performance gap serves as a perfect opportunity to start measuring professional standards in governing. To ensure our cities, counties and state are economically successful and secure, our elected officials need to show competency in the following: economics, accounting, history, public finance, applied research methods, prudence in politics, ethics, and constitutional lawmaking among others.  Let’s not forget a special exam on the Minnesota Constitution and US Constitution as private property rights continue to suffer.

  If one is receiving their paycheck from the taxpayers, he or she must past a proficiency exam; especially in the areas he or she shows a weakness.  Let’s see if our public officials are willing to be as humble as those young teachers.  I propose a citizen group that addresses this crisis.  It must be nonpartisan in nature, and focused on protecting the integrity of our public sector.  Let’s do it for our future.  Let’s do it for our children.  Support legislation that demands our elected officials pass a competency exam before representing us.  >

Be wary of nonprofits that give awards to politicians

Cassandra of Troy warned her city’s people of the Trojan horse, and so now do I:  Beware of the awards given to your politicians; they are not what you think. 

Nonprofits are becoming an extension of big government; it shows through their aggressive, but comfortable lobbying, and in how they bestow awards on politicians who pass their legislation.  This self-centered, self-promoting act must be challenged in order to preserve the integrity of our elected office, and the credibility of our nonprofit sector in the public’s view.   Many grassroots nonprofits live by the valued creed of doing important hands-on volunteer work; however, there are also the politically driven ones, the government arms that work to keep their growing grants and insure certain political power in office.  As an educated public, we must point out the difference between the two missions.  So, let’s start with those groups that are obsessed with handing out “timely” and very “creative” awards to our politicians. 

As an active volunteer and educator who has been associated with many so called “nonpartisan” nonprofits and national organizations for the past two decades, I‘ve sadly witnessed the grab for unfair government funding and political power.  Whether it is a poorly ran regional nonprofit who fails to compete in the market for donations or doesn’t reach its intended group, or a national organization that was born straight out of a government department: the greed and agenda is clear.   These grassroots groups move increasingly away from their time honored missions of service, or they exist as a government arm that becomes a lobbying power often and ironically so, at the expense of those they serve or their own membership.

They start to overvalue the partisan “political relationships” they build in hopes of securing one-dimensional policymaking, stifling the healthy democratic process we need.  Worse yet, organizations become dependent on their government counterparts if it’s a homegrown nonprofit, or it continues down the path of misleading the good hearted public as those do which are born out of federal departments.   Moreover, truly deserving, effective and impactful nonprofits are marginalized-victims of not being in sync with political maneuvering.  Are those served by the successful organizations who follow pure missions less worthy of help?  Don’t these volunteers and their supporters deserve a fair playing field?  Or, should they too start a phony trophy case honoring politicians?

Of course, reasonable short term grants and the fostering of cooperation between government entities and community groups are essential to an extent, but that relationship should be nonpartisan in nature and not at the expense of individual freedoms or vital competition.  As I say on the multiple nonprofit and government boards I serve, we have our limitations and if we don’t stay on mission we risk losing the faith of our community and constituents.  So, I wince every time an award is bestowed on politicians prematurely or out of partisan favoritism.  Even though the titles are almost comical, (one recent award had a 7 word title), the comic relief is brief for volunteers like me, and others, who truly value honest community service, transparent missions, and fairness.  Because those organizations without the fancy statistical analysis skewed by government guidance are usually those who reach the common good through fair competition, realistic services and community support; they don’t just seek a local face to represent them, but are actually a part of the community itself.

My plea, please research these groups handing out accolades.  Ask for their list of past honorees; don’t be surprised if you see a disturbing pattern.  You will find many of these associations are created by our government.  One recent award was given by an association closely defined, if not created, by the Department of Education. Unfortunately, it’s the shadow government that insures party favoritism and is self perpetuating.   I dare say they may not have our best interest in mind, nor that of the common good, or of our children, seniors, and families: you name it.  They just want a bigger government check and more power or protectionism.   Look at recent awards and research the political strings attached.   You will become very disappointed, just as I was when I read about government funding for “paid volunteers”: what an oxymoron! Let the politicians and the organizations know we are not that gullible.   And finally, let’s usher back the time when honors are bestowed on politicians after lifelong service-after they are out of office!  Critics will cry that such practice wouldn’t benefit the group or politician now –EXACTLY.   Let’s stop the shenanigans.  Let’s tell organizations to hold their applause until the curtain has fallen on one’s service, or else, we will become suspect of their cause.

Moderates and nonpartisans ……. bad for the country

Some voters seem obsessed with the terms nonpartisan and moderate when they defend a candidate.  As if the terms speak to great leadership or better judgment; they do not.  In fact, they may even open one up to the criticism of being a political player or self-preserver.  I gather this trend started with candidates themselves, trying to capitalize on the vague premise of being a nonpartisan or moderate even though they are endorsed by a political party, beholden to a political platform and tied to an ideology defined by special interest supporters. 

 In fact, look at the financial donations made to each candidate and then study their voting records; not just yesterday’s vote, but their portfolio.  How many amendments do they support by colleagues on the other side?  How many bills do they coauthor or cosponsor with other parties? What percentage of votes does a candidate need to “sacrifice” to political opponents in order to earn the title nonpartisan?   If one is a moderate, nonpartisan Democrat should that person vote 50% of the time with Republicans and vice versa?  The concept is silly is when put in practical terms, concrete terms.     

 These trained politicians know how to play people.   So, who is being sold the wrong goods?  Is it the party which endorses them or the voters who misunderstand the nonpartisan or moderate line?  Either way, the only person who wins this game is the candidate.  And most likely, the political party that funds their campaign benefits, not the individual voter who thought the candidate was a kind person of varied opinions.

 An interesting historical perspective  and use of the term nonpartisan is offered by Wikipedia:    “In U.S. history, the Nonpartisan League was an influential socialist political movement, especially in the Upper Midwest, particularly during the 1910s and 1920s. It also contributed much to the ideology of the former Progressive Party of Canada. It went into decline and merged with the Democratic Party of North Dakota to form the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party in 1956.”  So, being nonpartisan is historically being a Democrat, maybe even a Socialist if you look at the root of such a word in its political, cultural context.   Then there is the dictionary term of nonpartisan, “one who is not influenced by, affiliated with nor support the interests or policies of no single political party.”   If one studies the voting record of legislators, one knows that none of them come close to this definition.   If you visit the Capitol and watch the consistent votes against amendments, one sees the party line towed for most votes.  But are a few crossover votes worthy of calling someone a moderate? 

 So, why do voters place such trust in these terms?  They fight common sense in doing so.   And, if candidates use these labels to promote them, then why don’t they run on a third ticket as an independent?  No, these candidates are a convenient façade for their political parties who use them to collect votes, stay in power and grab special interest money.  In their arrogance, they figure the voter doesn’t really know what a moderate is but it’s comfortable.  And sadly, the voter never really learns who the candidate is as a policy maker, because she’s positioned herself void of any tangible views; it’s a convenient way to avoid judgment and scrutiny. 

 Voters should reject these labels in order to focus on the process, the law and the issues.  Don’t be trapped by the partisan language of the day: the image maker’s dream of a nonpartisan or moderate figure.  Hidden agendas are there.   The votes are there, even though the “moderate” knows you won’t investigate.  She’s banking on you connecting with her last message –not looking at the big picture, not looking at her body of work.

 I urge us to be issue centered, to demand strong debate, good law and purposeful conviction from our candidates.  Moderates are followers and they waste our time with staged listening sessions.  You see, if they only listen, they don’t need to explain or answer; it’s another brilliant ploy to avoid accountability.  We cannot expect listening sessions and Town Hall meetings to replace meaningful dialogue on issues.  Such political chat allows moderate politicians to push mediocrity in thought and policy.

 Worse yet, the nonpartisan position is a hiding place for politicians who don’t have the courage to fight for a belief system, or lack a belief system that can stand  the challenge of counter arguments.  We need legislators who clearly state their purpose in government and defend their position through insight and skillful debate.  That is what leaders, decision makers and intellectuals do.  They set the pace of discourse and manage the myriad of views while educating and convincing folks to do what’s right, even in the face of negative public perception.  People who hold strong convictions are seeking truth.  They are constantly on the quest for knowledge.  Moderates ask for a free pass, always looking for the convenient vote; they cheat their constituents by avoiding tough decisions and deep debate, habitually leaning on shallow talking points and simple narratives just for show.  This behavior eventually garners no respect from colleagues or constituents in the long-term. 

  Moderate politicians also lack clear perspective and refuse to bring rigor to discussion because that’s not politically safe.  No matter what office a candidate is running for, make sure to get past the handshakes and smiles, the vague semantics and appeasing language.   Make sure to ask them about their voting record, and if respect and fairness will precede them in every debate.   That’s something worthy of campaigning on-recognizing what needs debate and what doesn’t.   This isn’t happening with the moderates in office now and the public is left with bad policy.

 So, since both parties claim nonpartisan members, let’s start demanding each candidate clearly display their personal integrity, values, and position on issues.  Don’t let either party claim to have “free thinking” nonpartisan moderates, when we know it’s just a façade for a hidden ideology.

Keep Students in School, no Activism Unless Educated

Recently I visited the Minnesota State Capitol Building in order to watch the House in session.  It was a beautiful day in Saint Paul and yet another rally was taking place.  A passerby told me and others that this was a gathering of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) groups.   I don’t remember the sticker he was sporting and I didn’t care.  They have a right to rally and lobby just as I had done a few weeks earlier voicing my political views at the Tea Party.  However, it seems the two rallies differed in their message.  The GLBT groups want more government interference, while we stress our need for less government intrusion in our lives.  Either way, we both understand the process of making our voices heard even though one was rallying for protected group rights, while the other rallied for protected individual rights.   I happen to believe both rallies and their participants have more in common than they may think, but this post is about specific participants I encountered at the Capitol that day, not about any social issues at hand.    

 

Once inside I took my seat in the gallery.  My friends and I sat with some young students who were visiting from an inner city Minneapolis school.   Being a teacher I asked the rhetorical question, “Is there school today?”   They were from the age group that I taught.  In fact, they seemed like familiar faces to me.  They all wore alternative clothing.  They had piercings, odd (or some would say hip) hairstyles.  They wore rainbow belts, hats, shirts and stickers.   I had taught and nurtured similar students in my own classroom and respected them as individuals, often protecting them from outside threats; today was no different. 

 

 It was obvious by their purposeful dress, and the directives coming from the adult supervisor, that they were there for the GLBT lobby day.   Given I take our own kids to some rallies I have little issue with our youth participating in activism, but my concerns today were around the lack of understanding these kids had of what was happening at the Capitol, the role of our government and the legislative process.   Moreover, the students were taken out of school during the week, even bused to the Capitol in what seemed to be taxpayer funded buses.  This so called “field trip” bothered me as an educator, taxpayer and parent. 

 

The kids themselves were very polite.  I appreciated their individuality, but sadly they had no clue as to what was going on.  This was not to say that they weren’t alert or smart, in fact between playing with their electronic devices and engaging in casual student chatter, they asked several questions of me.  In their multitasking they were listening to me and my companions.  We were discussing the bill being debated on the House floor:  The Early Childhood Bill.  The situation was quite ironic.  I explained to them the details of the bill as argued by the author and then educated them on the proposed amendments by the minority.  We also helped them track the roll call and voting.  So, as Democrat legislators discussed how we needed to start our children’s public education earlier in order to close achievement gaps, improve child care quality and ready kids for better learning, I sat next to kids who were yanked from their public schools to participate in activism without actually being taught about government or meaningful civic duty; so much for trusting the school system with preparing our kids for higher achievement.  This is why our public schools (not always fairly) and the Democrats get accused of immorally institutionalizing or indoctrinating our children; some use children for their own political purposes.   

 

Before I could chat with the supervisor, another man ran up to the students, “It’s your time!  Stand up and let them see you!”   They lazily stood up while I watched the legislators lift their heads to the gallery and begin their generic clapping.  Some of those legislators are teachers themselves and should have been disgusted with how these kids were being used as props to push GLBT related bills.  Again, it’s not the fact that the GLBT were lobbying.  I happen to belief in domestic rights for gay partners.  I happen to believe that being homosexual isn’t a choice; although some exploit the gay community in order to be in vogue.   No, I was disgusted by the fact that these kids weren’t educated on how to promote a “good” bill or law based on the merit of its detailed language. 

 

When my kids join me in activism, they are given a lesson.  They are taught the process and given both sides of the issue.  I let them know they have choices and those choices have consequences.   They are given perspective and context.   I don’t use them for a head count.  I don’t take them out of school or use anyone else’s resources to engage them in my own personal activism.  It is a learning experience and a personal duty they are taught.  The students I met at the Capitol deserve that education too, or else they will feel just as misunderstood and empty as they did prior to the experience, and their future activism will be misguided, misunderstood and less effective. 

 

The legislators and activists that day led with good intentions, but fell short on meaningful, long term legal and educational progress.  And in the wake of their shortsighted self indulging practice, these kids who they supposedly fought for were lost in the process. 

EFCA Dangerous to our Workers, our Freedoms

Must we sacrifice our individual rights in order to please or pit one group over another?  It’s imperative we seek fairness, balance and the protection of workers’ individual rights for the goodness of our workplace, community and national republic.  I fear for the employee who is left in the crossfire between union leaders and business owners; the Employee Free Choice Act puts the American worker exactly in this dangerous position.    As EFCA strives to shift unjustifiable power to one bargaining group, it squeezes out responsible measures for healthy labor relationships, ultimately harming both the businesses and its employees.  

 

Understanding historical reasons for unions is essential in weighing if EFCA is necessary.  But, acknowledging the changes in our legal system and government landscape gives greater perspective as to why EFCA isn’t needed and will only curtail labor relation progress.  This unnecessary stress on the workplace is especially unwise in this economic recession, and will have a negative impact on union leaders, laborers and business owners alike.

 

 Since the birth of unions through the Wagner Act of 1939, and the amendment under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, government agencies were started to enforce various employment laws that have made much of the union’s role obsolete.  In fact, the reasons for decline in unionization are partly due to these laws:  the Equal Pay Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; The Medical Leave Act, and more.  Secondly, the decline of U.S. industry, growth of global competition, and deregulation are also factors explaining why unions are struggling to form or keep members; unions must now work harder to convince workers of their role and effectiveness.  Lastly, some major unions are notably less organized and therefore have lost their ability to apply successfully for new union contracts or keep affiliations with each other strong.   So, history has its place in defending unions; however, the present factors offer a new understanding as to why some unions are worried.  Enacting a law that gives unfair advantage to these struggling unions over the worker and employer, in both elections and collective bargaining, will put them in the position that unions often accuse business owners of:  the aggressors.  

 

EFCA does not correct any wrong doing in the workplace.  There is no basis to override the National Labor Relations Act unless one believes that the natural decline of unionization is reason for government assistance and unfair practices for recruiting new members, even if the employees DON’T want the union.   EFCA would strip the ability of a business to manage the direction of their company.  Unfortunately, the automotive industry is a sad example of how a poor business model influenced by an abusive union fails miserably together.  EFCA will guarantee more problems like those in Detroit.    EFCA includes a mandatory–arbitration provision, which will allow a government appointed arbitrator to make binding decisions, dictating terms to both companies and their employees.   Could you imagine the workplace when complex issues like wage rates, retirement benefits, subcontracting rights, work assignments, work hours and medical benefits aren’t jointly agreed upon?  Lastly, the all-American way to promote valuable ideas and individual rights, elections, would cease in many cases.   Not having a secret ballot or right to an election will create one protected group, resulting in unfair labor practices and forced membership.

 

Moreover, aggressive employer conduct is already unlawful.  Yet, some workers are accusing unions of being more aggressive as they become desperate to keep members and acquire new contracts.  Employees say unions use forceful tactics to get union cards signed.  Union agents argue with employees about the merits of unions and court them while off the job.  Some union agents are even known to fill out cards for their colleagues without consent or watch over them while they sign cards.  These complaints are the underpinning of recent polls that shows the majority of union members oppose eliminating secret ballots.  If workers want to join the union they should, if they don’t want to their government shouldn’t forcibly make them through unfair laws. 

 

The question is not whether unions should exist or not.  This is not the intent of EFCA.  If unions stay professional and organized they have a rightful place in labor relations. But, we should agree that the law must protect all workers no matter what the position –blue collar or white collar.   Healthy negotiations cannot survive with EFCA in place.  In fact, it is counterproductive and the politics will destroy any goodwill shared between the negotiating parties.   Regardless of whether one believes which group is the aggressor, business owners or union agents; the worker is always the loser.  According to University of Chicago’ Law School Professor Richard Epstein, if EFCA passes, the employers will rightfully defend themselves under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.  If the Democrat legislators are successful in passing this act, it will force companies to lay off employees and hire less.  How does this help the union, business owner or worker?  

 

Our federal government shouldn’t be more concerned with the Union Organization than it is with the individual worker. As a former member of a teachers union, I appreciate that position as much as I appreciate my own NEA or AFT unions.  Let’s put this power hungry ECFA to bed and instead rise up together for a stronger American workforce.

Notre Dame Chooses Pop-culture Politics over Meaningful Commencement

What a disgrace.  Our country’s premiere Catholic university invited President Obama to deliver their commencement address.  Worse yet, the University of Notre Dame is bestowing an honorary doctorate on our Pro-abortion President.  Although the school has a history of inviting sitting presidents as guest speakers, asking this president whose policies, appointments and executive orders stand in conflict with catholic beliefs, sends the wrong message to their alumni and fellow Catholics; that pop culture politics is more important than the Catholic Doctrine and their value system.

As a Catholic and an extended member of their Alumni Association, my husband and entire family attended Notre Dame or Saint Mary’s College, the lack of leadership in our American Catholic system frustrates and disappoints those who have been taught to revere Catholic principles.  The university’s decision to extend an invitation to a President who has actively sought to repeal pro-life policy, while promoting and initiating anti-Catholic agendas, will disenfranchise those Catholics who hold true the principles that life should be protected and religious freedom preserved.

Strong Catholics have a variety of criticisms against this President.  One of his first executive orders was to overturn the Mexico City Policy implemented by Ronald Reagan.  The government policy required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services abroad as a method of family planning.  Obama instead chooses death over life, destroying the family structure.  He continues this culture of death with his radical pro-abortion cabinet appointees.  The Kansas Governor Sebelius, his nominee for the Dept. of Health and Human Services secretary, has an infamous track record of extreme pro-abortion stances.  She repeatedly vetoed measures limiting or regulating abortions.  She even vetoed a bill expanding informed consent measures and protecting women from coerced late-term abortions.  She honored notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller who is shown campaigning in Associated Press photos holding her campaign t-shirt.  Tiller is currently charged with 19 counts of performing illegal late-term abortions, or partial birth abortions.  He was caught on camera by the brave group, Students for Life.

And, what about his campaign promise to Planned Parenthood:  FOCA, which is a wish list for the ever growing liberal appetite for abortion.  It nullifies requirements that abortionists be licensed physicians, while also nullifying parental consent and notification laws.  It removes waiting periods and repeals the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, among other damaging policies.

His most recent attack on life is manifested through his government funding of the unethical human embryonic stem cell research.   Private embryonic stem cell research has yet to yield any scientific advancement.  It is also not necessary as Adult Stem cell research proves more promising and continues to have success.  According to Wolfgang Lillge, M.D. “Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).” Obama’s choice to play God with human embryos, stripping the potential for life from each embryo, doesn’t speak of the hope we are taught as Catholics.

Obama also showcases his disregard for religious freedom, and Christians in general, with his recent proposal to rescind in its entirety a federal “right of conscience” rule which protects medical providers who refuse to perform procedures under moral objections-protecting Catholic, pro-life doctors from going against their faith.  These courageous doctors must feel betrayed by the Notre Dame decision.

More disappointing news for Catholics is Obama’s unwillingness to control his Democrat Congress from cutting a popular and successful school-choice program in Washington, D.C.  In a time of unprecedented earmarks and wasteful spending, it’s interesting how this administration targets a five-year-old, federally funded voucher program which serves about 1,800 schoolchildren, allowing them to attend private schools. How many children attending Catholic schools through this voucher system is unknown, but the impact and intent of this policy will surely weaken the Catholic School system.   Obama’s emphasis on choice favors only choice for those who disagree with our value system.   It is evident in his policy and priorities.

Another red flag for Catholics is Obama’s proposal to impose new limits on charitable tax deductions; churchgoers quickly realize the affects of such policy on the revenue that Catholic churches need for survival.  Lastly, Obama’s recent reorganization of President Bush’s Faith Based and Community Initiatives Department is damaging too many catholic charitable organizations. With Obama moving the controversial and politically driven 2010 census project under this department, it exposes his intent to distort the primary mission.  A mission that under President Bush assisted Faith based organizations in competing for public dollars as mounting evidence showed Christian groups were discriminated against through political favoritism.  I attended the2006 FBCI White House Conference and witnessed a true bipartisan effort to preserve faith based organizations that were outreaching and outperforming less effective, politically favored programs.

As a Catholic and longtime volunteer I praised Obama’s grassroots message of service and organizing.  Now, I question his sincerity, as all Catholics should given his actions.  He might sound like a prophet, and we may want him to be a saint, but his actions prove he is far from the value system we hold dear.  And unfortunately now that Obama has accepted this invitation to speak on our beloved campus, Notre Dame’s Golden Dome, a symbol of real HOPE to Catholics everywhere, just lost a little of her golden shine. 

 

Churches and other faith organizations should serve God’s agenda, not that of a Political Party

 

Church is a spiritual sanctuary for most. As adults we use this time for self reflection and rejuvenation, to escape the everyday stress of work, family and community so to focus on our personal relationship with God. As parents, we bring our children in hopes that they learn about Christ and his teachings, so to live a meaningful and rich life of both self fulfillment and service. But, once in a while, our mission is interrupted by a “guest speaker”, maybe a visiting priest or a community partner; today was one of those days.

Our guest today was a priest, the Chief Executive Officer of Catholic Charities for the twin cities Arch Diocese. He spoke of the good deeds performed through their services and encouraged Christians to live the covenant they have made with God outside of the church, in the larger community. His message: we are to treat others as children of God, because we are made in the image of God. Of course Christians and conservatives live this message, preferring to do their good deeds privately, personally touching those who are in need. Charity is worth little if there is no human connection, without the personal contact the “exchange” becomes a meaningless short term fix to one’s situation; there’s no repair of the path which may have lead them to their poverty, no enduring human support system is achieved.

After examining the operating report and listening to Father speak of their Social Justice program I had a few questions and comments. Through the Social Justice Program, Catholic Charities help register new immigrants, and others who are in need, to vote. So, I wonder exactly how they prepare these voters to cast an intelligent and mindful vote, avoiding the pitfall of partisan politics and the misunderstanding of our government’s role. How do they make sure these voters aren’t rushed into seeing government as just a provider of free services? These are questions I will pose to Father in a letter. In the literature provided by some Social Justice satellites, they speak of advocacy toward Health care, protection form foreclosures and human services. I wonder how Christian it is to ask such things of a government. Should we not strive to uplift each other through our churches, communities and personal outreach versus through forced taxation and politically controlled decision making?

Father shared that his goal for Catholic Charities is for them to go out of business, which would mean there would be no more people living in poverty. I applaud his goal; no one wants our poor to stay weak. He said that when a person comes for services this person is feeling no self-worth, so their volunteers and staff let this person know that he/she is God’s child. This person is told they have self worth and a God given purpose. After the homily, I approached Father and said: “Father, I am a volunteer of many years. My husband and I support Catholic Charities and honor your service. However, the goal you spoke of will soon become a reality thanks to our federal and state governments. And unfortunately, when they service the poor and down trodden, they won’t bring God to those people. The will instead say that there is a politician to thank, a political party to vote for in the next election. It won’t be charity, but a political power grab. Do you not fear government charity? Be careful of what you wish for and how you engage in Charity with politicians.”

Father answered me with an awkward smile and raised eyebrows. The volunteer behind their table of literature just looked irritated by me, or maybe she was confused by my forwardness- either way she was speechless. I just can’t help but to think of Jesus’ arrival and how he confronted the high priests for their political dealings and the enslavement it caused the people; or, how Jesus turned the heart of the tax collector. Why would any Christian church or faith based community embrace, even encourage large government and limited rights for individuals? Our founders fought against the oppression of government for religious freedom. Once we allow the government to take over charity and create religious partnerships with them, the church will lose. It will lose its mission, its role and its influence in the community. Is our Society ready to worship a State Church? Government will not promote God through their services and therefore we also risk losing that connection between each other and our creator.

Although Father did better than other guest speakers, I caution this trend. In the past we have had guest priests who’ve irresponsibly twisted scripture to support the political agenda of Global Warming. We have had guest speakers from the Social Justice Program say that we are not good Catholics unless we support higher taxes. This trend of bringing politics into places of worship is driving a wedge between followers and their faith organizations or churches. This political speech and wielding of power away from Christ or God is disgraceful. We must keep charity personal, within our faith’s values and close to our communities. Government will only hinder people from finding their faith; they will politicize the poor, and divide this country through forced taxation, class warfare and power affiliation. History speaks to this upset of balance and we must heed its lessons.

Doctors as Political Pawns

Tonight I went to a public hearing on our Governor’s proposed budget cuts.  It was a “stacked” house, yes “stacked”, not packed.  People had to sign up in advance to speak.  As the community hearing approached, an email from a Democrat Legislator was leaked.  The party was sending a “traveling team” to each community hearing, so much for trusting the will of the people.   Of course I signed up immediately following the action alert and patiently awaited my turn.  But, before I spoke on the devastating job cuts in the private sector and how it’s Government’s turn to sacrifice, a doctor stood up and told a familiar story about a women who couldn’t afford her $4.00 medicine.  It was almost the same story that our legislator told at the Town Hall meeting.  After confronting the doctor, I found this story to be just another talking point for socialized medicine!

I asked the “good” doctor if he knew anything about this patient of his.  He started with the biggest smile thinking he was an admirable man for bringing such a story to my attention.  He saw himself as a hero because he was speaking for the “vulnerable.”  So I asked again, what do you know about this patient?  He said all he knew was that neither she nor her husband had healthcare.  He then revealed that it was the follow up appointment she couldn’t afford, not the $4.00 medicine he had indicated earlier in his public testimony.  His story changes as he reads my face;   I don’t believe him.   I told him I heard this story before.  He said I know they had children too.   I stated that we have three children and one with CP.  I told him that I didn’t appreciate this questionable story being used to prop up socialized healthcare.    He knew nothing about this woman, whether she could pay or not.  What she spent her money on or what her priorities were.  He called me judgmental; a typical comeback for liars.  He asked how we spend our money and I said it doesn’t matter; we pay for our healthcare.  We are not using our child to promote a false promise, to garner political gain.  He stormed out saying I don’t have to take this; Oh doctor but you do.  You and the other unethical doctors must start facing the questions around your testimonies, the ones that seem to be fed talking points on a political agenda.

I spoke with two state legislators after my encounter with this doctor and found out that at least three other doctors have used this same story to promote socialized healthcare.  This is how desperate some people are for power, they even risk their professional integrity by becoming part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

 

The American Psyche Needs Repair

As a conservative who supports limited government I was anxious to hear Democrat legislators explain our recession at a recent town hall meeting; a recession spurred by excessive government and a growing dependent public. Conservatives suggested limiting government during days of surplus, especially given the federal spending by both parties. Since those hard choices weren’t made in better times, government and the public must curb appetites for subsidies now. With state and federal deficits mounting, our politicians must cutback. By no fault of their own, taxpayers are losing good paying jobs at an alarming rate. Those “wealthy” neighbors making a combined HH income of $150,000-$300,000 are being laid off and can’t afford the myriad of taxes that special interests & government dependents demand. Corporations are filing for bankruptcy as a result of government intrusion and a loss of consumer confidence in their state capital or the White House. The revenue stream is weakening from both the private and corporate sector. Not only damaging state and federal revenue, but also the waterfall revenue to workers, investors, businesses partners, unions and non-profits that would have benefited from their business and philanthropy. At the meeting, I expected an outcry by concerned Americans asking legislators to return us to a free market economy, fewer taxes, limited government powers, while demanding a public denouncement of the socialistic stimulus package. I found the opposite and left questioning my fellow citizen’s lack of Constitutional understanding and the state of our democracy.
This crippling liberal attitude toward becoming subjects of the state has weakened not only our economy but our American psyche. Even a moderate State Senator recognized this problem as she attempted to protect businesses and job holders from the crowd’s demand for higher taxes. Yes, the public wants more of your paycheck; the one you’re trying to preserve. Who cares if it barely covers your growing expenses and increased taxes, because it’s needed to feed a power hungry government and the mob mentality. Their message: How dare you be independent! We are all connected. It’s your moral duty to forcibly care for another, even if that dependent is capable of doing so on their own, like the adult who didn’t prioritize buying her $4.00 prescription. She was presented as one of our most vulnerable by a State Representative. I replied that our son with cerebral palsy was more vulnerable. That he deserves our family’s resources before she; it is our responsibility and right to provide for our family before giving to a stranger whose behavior is unknown. Those blinded by the failed notion of socialized medicine don’t understand that a demand on their government is passed along to their neighbor; those neighbors’ rights are sacrificed, their care compromised by depleted resources and private choices taken away. Or maybe they do but don’t care? Is this moral or fair?
The pro-government neighbor or competitor doesn’t care about your rights or your employees; instead they push for socialism, a historically proven failed system. Personal sacrifices don’t matter to that individual or political party who wants government powers to serve them by taking from others. When government subsidizes one group of citizens over another or one industry over another, people are divided –left to fight for political favoritism. It’s disturbing how we live in a country of unprecedented opportunity and freedoms yet encounter people who demand entitlement to other’s earnings and rights. This shift of responsibility to care for growing sectors of our population and aiding less competitive industries through government will not work. It is through traditional support of a free people’s willingness to help others that we all thrive and reclaim power from politicians. We are the greatest nation of givers- volunteerism and charity are a part of our national pride, yet when government redistributes wealth and services to feed power it starves America’s willingness to support and connect as private citizens, and it stifles our free market ingenuity; the American spirit dies.
Excessive government oppresses. Excessive power corrupts, creating a government class over its people. Look no further than the tax evading nominees to Obama’s cabinet, or our own cheat -Al Franken. Look at this irresponsible deficit growing, spending bill that won’t stimulate anything-remember the failed stimulus rebates under Bush? Sure, the 20+ lobbyists in Obama’s administration are pleased. The special interest campaign donors are celebrating. However, hard-working Americans demand better; they reject this historic shift of power from the private citizenry to its rulers. Our pop-culture says socialism is in vogue, and with it stays uncontested luxuries for our politicians-private planes, drivers, and unjustifiable per diems, built in pay raises. History tries to teach us, the Constitution tries to protect us, but we think the situation will correct itself.
Let’s be reminded of our founding fathers’ early debates and community discussion in local taverns. They fought for intellectual freedom from tyranny, and for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the face of an oppressive government and illiterate population. Our American ideals were born from these community debates and they are at risk. Conservatives and moderates must join forces and attend local discussions. Debate your misguided neighbors so that Americans can realize again, what made this country unique and prosperous: self-government. Support politicians in making good decisions by challenging their viewpoints and offering solutions for long term prosperity, not short term political gain.
One of our Democrat Congresswoman, who’s an economist, surprisingly said, “We are shooting in the dark,” when responding to this economic crisis. But, an intelligent citizenry knows better and won’t be delivered into servitude.