[This is Part Two of a two-part series on last week's midterm elections. Part One, appearing yesterday, focused on the significance of the election and the message we should take away from last Tuesday. Today, the focus is on the impact the election will have going forward. Thank you to Bill and The Thinklings for the opportunity to share my thoughts.]

The events of last Tuesday are still being processed. Even now, there are six US Representative races that have yet to be called. But let us not let the fact that this election isn't even over keep us from beginning to talk about the next two years. (Where's the fun in that?) Many are already looking ahead to 2012, throwing names out like Hillary, Dean and Feingold as possible primary opponents to Obama. If any of those materialize, the GOP has to be considered the favorite to win the general election, regardless of their candidate. The Republican standbys include Palin, Romney and Huckabee while some new names have entered the fray like Chris Christie [who has given every indication that he won't run] and Marco Rubio [who would be the GOP equivalent of Obama in 2006].

But the final results of the 2012 election season will depend greatly on what happens in 2011. You will begin to see Republican Presidential would-bes, could-bes and wannabes begin to try and provide a meta-narrative to DC politics in a few months (it doesn't hurt that a few of them have time on Fox News). It will be a battle of message between these potential candidates and the White House. We’ll see whose narrative sticks, but if the Republicans can come together on a central message, they have a strong shot at winning the battle, especially when one considers the utter lack of message by the Democrats over the past months.
Read the rest of this entry . . .

[This is Part One of a two-part series on last week's midterm elections. Part One focuses on the significance of the election and the message we should take away from last Tuesday. Thank you Bill and The Thinklings for the opportunity to share my thoughts.]

Last Tuesday, a massive political overturn in the House of Representatives saw the Democrats handing a strong majority over to the Republicans. The Senate also moved towards GOP control, although the Republicans fell short of what they needed to own a majority. Governorships across the country slanted Republican as did State legislatures. In short, the GOP won big, but not as big as some had hoped. Still, you won’t find many Republicans complaining. All the while, underneath the surface of the electorate, the Tea Party movement went from relative obscurity to changing the face of government across our nation in just over a year.
Read the rest of this entry . . .

A Texas pipeline tycoon who died two months ago may become the first American billionaire allowed to pass his fortune to his children and grandchildren tax-free.

Dan L. Duncan, a soft-spoken farm boy who started with $10,000 and two propane trucks, and built a network of natural gas processing plants and pipelines that made him the richest person in Houston, died in late March of a brain hemorrhage at 77.

Had his life ended three months earlier, Mr. Duncan’s riches — Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $9 billion, ranking him as the 74th wealthiest in the world — would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher — 55 percent.

Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan’s four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury.

The bonanza in tax savings for Mr. Duncan’s descendants is sure to be unsettling to those who have paid estate taxes on more modest wealth — until Jan. 1 of this year, it applied to any estate valued at more than $3.5 million, taxing only the money exceeding that threshold, or $7 million for a couple’s estate.

The one-year lapse in the estate tax was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001, an accounting quirk in his package of tax cuts. Although Democrats pledged to close that gap and reinstate a tax for 2010 when they took control of Congress, they failed to reach an agreement last December.

The Treasury collected more than $25 billion in estate taxes in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.

OK, so there it is. Super rich guy dies, and due to a loophole, his estate won't pay taxes this year. First time that's ever happened. Now what's your reaction?

A. Hmmmm. That's interesting.Can't believe the Democrats let that one slip by.
B. That's great! Good for his heirs! After all a loophole is just a right they haven't taken from you yet.
C. That's outrageous! That money could have fed the poor or paid for healthcare, and instead this fatcat's money is being passed on to his kids perpetuating American Aristocracy that stay rich and won't let anyone else have a piece of the pie.

Does answer C surprise you? Read on dear friend...

Advocates of the tax say it is unconscionable that Congressional leaders have allowed the richest Americans to reap a new tax break at a time when deficits are soaring and the income gap between wealthy and poor citizens remains near historic levels.

“The ultrawealthy in this country will still be able to pass on enormous wealth to the next generation,” said Chuck Collins, who studies income inequality and has worked with billionaires like Warren E. Buffett and Bill Gates to promote an estate tax. Mr. Collins argues that the tax is a “recycling program for economic opportunity.”

What?!?!?! A recycling program for economic opportunity? Seriously? What is Mr. Collins thinking? That as long as a wealthy person is hoarding money, poor people don't have access to that same money, so when the gazillionaire dies, estate tax is the way that the hoi polloi have a shot at it?

You've got to be kidding me. It's like the image that people who think like that has is like a desert island, where there is a limited supply of food. And one guy has 90% of it, and the rest of us have 10%. And so when he dies, it would be wrong for his son to get all that food. It should be redistributed to the rest of us. (After the jump at the bottom you can read how stingy Mr. Duncan was with his wealth.)

Except that's not how money, the economy or how opportunity works. Because someone else has a lot, does not mean you automatically can't. It's as though Collins thinks that Mr. Duncan had all of his money buried in the back yard somewhere, and now that he's dead, we all want a shot at it.

They are acting like the dwarves, elves and men fighting over the gold stash after Smaug dies in the end of "The Hobbit". Everybody wants what they think is their rightful share of the gold now that the dragon who was hoarding it is dead.

But that's not how money works. Other than pile it under the mountain with a dragon guarding it, or put it in the vaults at Gringott's Goblin Bank, wealthy people can only do one of three things with the their money:

A. Spend it.
B. Invest it.
C. Give it away.

That's it. There are no other choices.

Both of which helps the economy and spreads the wealth around. Why can't people understand that?
Read the rest of this entry . . .

When the economy stunk while George W. Bush was President my fellow conservatives did not blame Bush. They said it was market factors or an inheritance from Clinton's mistakes, etc.

Now that the economy still stinks under President Obama, my fellow conservatives are blaming his "failed administration" (which has only been running a year and change). I didn't vote for the man, don't agree with most of his governing philosophy, and wouldn't vote for him given a second chance, but I'm so sick of the us vs. them that is American popular politics.

It works the other way too. When gas prices were high under Bush, it was his fault. Cheney and Big Oil and all that. Then they came down, but nobody said, "Hey, thanks, Cheney!"

It's redonkulous. I think most Americans are unable to engage in politics without thinking of it as warfare, as personal conflict, as Our Side against Those People. And it's more reason why I hate, hate, hate politics and will be glad when Jesus' kingdom is fully consummated and man-made "give us a king" government will be thrown into the void never to return.

H/T Enkurio

This is weird.

A 10-year-old homeschool
girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.

The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.

...

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."

I hope this isn't a trend. I can remember a friend of mine being rejected from a PALs (Peer Assistance and Leadership) program in high school because in his interview they found him to be too dogmatic in his religious beliefs. They especially didn't like that it was important to him to convert others to Christianity. (I learned from that, and managed to shape my answers better to avoid that same rejection...I got in.)

Someone who believes they are right in matters of religion seems to be a threat to the multi-cultural secular establishment.

The state is poking its finger to far over the wall of separation.

I think she'll ultimately win this battle though. The free exercise clause of the constitution is just too strong to be overshadowed by the state's interest in a child having a "tolerant" worldview.

1- Bi-partisanship, smartisanship, dumbisanship...oh, phooey. When virtually EVERY member of the other party votes against it, maybe that should mean something if you actually care about bi-partisanship. But it doesn't. At the end of the day, idealogy is what matters. And this is liberal idealogy, plain and varnished.

2- We don't have the money. Seriously, we don't. Read carefully now. "WE. DON'T. HAVE. THE. MONEY." Of course, on the upside, if China decides not to loan us the money the stimulus package won't be able to be implemented anyway. This last sentence is not a joke and my tongue isn't in my cheek. I'm serious. The money will have to be borrowed from foreigners.

3- It's mostly government spending. Do you seriously think that money can be used most efficently by government entities to stimulate the economy? That's like deciding to send a team of five year olds to water your garden by walking from a pond to your garden with sponges. Yeah, some water's gonna get there...

4-So many of the jobs "created" are temporary construction jobs. I mean, come on, people. Do you really think that's going to stimulate the economy or have long-term impact? Yes, it will help some construction companies and workers for a couple years, but then what?...

5- The debt amassed here that will have to be paid by your children's tax dollars is beyond most of our comprehension. Think about how much of your monthly mortgage payment goes to interest. Now multiply that by a million, or a billion or a trillion or a gazillion. Oh, nevermind. Who knows how much anymore?

6- It's socialism. So much of this involves government takeover and/or handouts it's .... I don't have a word.

7- Tax Cuts would work better. When people have more money, they spend it, or invest it. That's how the economy actually works. Really. And by the way, I mean actual tax cut, meaning that you send less of your money to the government. I don't mean "tax rebate" checks, or "tax refund" checks which are actually wealth redistribution when people who don't actually pay income tax get checks. I mean actual tax cuts where you and companies having to pay less at the end of the year. Or how about a tax moratorium? Rather than spending billions of dollars, why not just suspend taxes for one year? Well, OK. I don't know far $787 billion will go. Will that support our Federal Gov't for a few months maybe? During that "tax-free period" the government can borrow money to fund itself, and fund all the states too. How's that for stimulus? :)

8- The liberals used this as an excuse to spend money on their pet projects. The list of things in this package law "wish-list come true" is truly ridiculous. For congress and state governments it's like Christmas. And like the Little Shop of Horrors, those pets are going to keep growing and demanding more and more, long past our ability to feed them. "Feed me, Seymour."

9- Now more people will be on the dole. How are we going to keep paying those people once the stimulus money runs out? It's hard to go back people. Just look at Social(ism) Security. We used to live without it. Now it's political suicide to even think anything against it. And right now some of you are thinking about me, "Hey, my grandmother lives on social security. How dare you!" Exactly.

10-State and Local Governments are salivating. Today Texas Governor Rick Perry announced that contrary to his previous statement that Texas wouldn't take its billions from the Federal government, he's changed his mind. He wants to spend that money enhancing border security. State governments are going to be duped into taking that money and boosting social programs. And once the federal funds run out, they'll be faced with state government programs that they can't pay for, but that the public will continue to expect. It's political suicide to stop hand-outs. But they can't wait to get that money to do all kinds of things. Do you think they'll cut local taxes since they are getting so much outside funding? NO WAY! Now they get to do more.

11-Headlines like this one - How stimulus will affect you - The $787 billion package passed by Congress offers tax breaks, tuition help, and more. » What you'll get (from the Yahoo Home Page)

Greed is greed, Mr. President. Whether it's a corporate CEO or a plumber. And here you are not just encouraging the deadly disease of "I-want-itus" but creating it too.

12- The same Government that broke our economy by making banks adhere to their liberal agenda, is trying to fix it by making more industries adhere to their liberal agenda.

13- The same President that decries "corporate greed" is now fostering greed among state and local governments in ways previously unimaginable.

14- I don't think it's going to work. It reminds me of a story my former pastor told me. He had a church member who was a dermatologist. The pastor asked the dermatologist to look at a rash his son had. The doctor said,"We have two options. I can write you a prescription for a cream, and the rash should go away in about 6 weeks or you can just wait for it to go away on its own" My pastor said, "How long will that take?" "About 6 weeks", came the reply.

Please tell me good things about "Porkulous Rex" in comments. I'd love to hear something positive. And I don't mind being proven wrong. (Well, not too much anyway. ) Or maybe you want to tell me why you're mad too. How long can we make this list?

OR PLEASE DO THIS FOR FUN - How many cool nicknames can you folks come up with for this monstrosity?

From Al Mohler:

The pornography industry has a big stake in defending itself against legal challenges and restrictive laws, and it has been stunningly successful in doing so. One of the leading legal defenders of pornography has been David Ogden, a lawyer who can only be described as a First Amendment extremist, who has even argued against laws against child pornography.

President Barack Obama has nominated David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General of the United States. This nomination is both ominous and dangerous. Given David Ogden's high visibility in defense of pornography, this nomination sends a clear and unmistakable message. The pornography business will have a friend in high office in the Department of Justice.

(Via Vitamin Z)

I was looking forward to digging into the details of the Obama Agenda, as found on the Change.gov site. I already had two posts up on it (here and here).

Looking at the site just now, I see that the Agenda portion of the site no longer contains detailed sections on specific agenda categories. It appears that the Obama transition team has cleaned out most of the detail from the site. So for now, there's not much to talk about.

This may have been a wise move. In reading the site previously, the agenda sections read more like campaign documents than transition documents. My guess is that the transition team started the Change.gov site out with, primarily, text from the campaign site. They quickly learned that that probably wasn't the best idea, as people began poring over the details and treating them not as campaign talking points but as the formal policy proposals of an incoming President.

In any event, when and if the site gains more content, I'll get back to posting on it.

This is the first in a (potential) series of posts regarding President-elect Obama's agenda, which can be found on Change.Gov.

In this post, I will briefly deal with the following excerpts from his Service agenda:

Americans Not Asked to Serve After 9/11: President Bush squandered an opportunity to mobilize the American people following 9/11 when he asked Americans only to go shopping.

. . .

Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation's Schools: Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year.

. . .

Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.

I'd like to state here at the beginning that service is a good thing. I highly respect people who have a heart for service, and I've known young people who have gone far beyond the goals stated here, and have given many hundreds of hours per year in service to their church, community, and world.

When we serve others, we reflect the image of Christ. "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." - Mark 10:45.

The President of the United States affects the culture. He or she can "set the tone" in a country. President Kennedy effectively did this in his inauguration speech by famously declaring "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

I do, however, have a few issues with the Obama plan. Many of the issues I'm raising are pragmatic cautions, as there are some inherent difficulties in programs such as those proposed here.

But first, a note regarding the agenda text itself. As on most pages of the Obama agenda, a good amount of space is given to criticism of George W. Bush. As I've stated before, I can understand the desire for contrast, but GWB is effectively done now, and I'm wondering what good it does to continue to bash his policies. I remember the aftermath of 9/11 and remember a great many Americans doing everything they could to heal and repair the damage of that attack and comfort those who had lost loved ones. Americans were mobilized and, for a blessed moment, unified. They didn't need the Government to tell them to do so. And thousands upon thousands volunteered for the military and have served us valiantly. Many have given their lives.

But set that to the side.

Regarding the "50 hours per year" requirement for middle and high school students. This represents probably about an hour or two per week during the school year. What do you think of this requirement? I'm not necessarily against it, but I do have some questions.

• What is meant by "Community Service"? Does existing service work count? My eldest daughter is already in a voluntary service club at her high school. My hope is that her work there would count toward her fifty hours.
• To require something is to setup up a system of incentives and punishments. Will this be a class grade? How will it be enforced?
• What will be the cost of administering this program? Will it be an unfunded mandate, with costs to be picked up by the schools? Will there be federal workers hired in each school district to administer the program?
• Will students (like my daughters) who are already actively engaged in community service outside of their school, for instance, through their church, be able to count that work toward the requirement? What if a student volunteers four hours a week at a crisis pregnancy center. Will that count?
• Finally, as has been debated elsewhere, is service still service when it's coerced? Does this point belong in the debate?

Depending on the answers to some of these questions, there may be some real issues with this program. There is no doubt that for young people who have never served anyone, performing community service, even if forced, can only help expand their horizons beyond themselves (and hopefully do some good for the community). However, there are a fixed number of hours in the day. For students already engaged in service, there is a real chance that programs like this will merely divert their efforts from service that is not Government-approved to service that is more to Government's liking.

Regarding the 100 hours of community service in College, the questions above also apply. In addition, the following jumped out at me:

$4,000, for 100 hours of work? That equates to a salary of $40/hour. That is what people who make $80,000 a year get paid. Does that seem to be excessive pay for picking up trash or planting trees?

In addition, laws of economics still apply even when intentions are at their best. If most students take advantage of this and receive a $4,000 tax credit, this will mean that there is a larger money supply for education, and tuitions will most likely just rise around $4,000, resulting in a wash.

Finally, I would like to list all of the new and existing "corps" mentioned in this section of the Obama agenda:

• AmeriCorps (expanded from 75,000 to 250,000 personnel)
• Classroom Corps (new)
• Health Corps (new)
• Clean Energy Corps (new)
• Veterans Corps (new)
• Homeland Security Corps (new)
• Peace Corps (expanded to 16,000 personnel)
• Green Job Corps (new)

The final question, regarding all this: How much will it cost, and how will it be paid for?

I'd be interested in your thoughts, both pro and con, regarding this aspect of the Obama agenda.