Monday, August 8, 2011

The Original Extremists

The Original Extremists by John Hinderaker
Republicans in general and tea partiers in particular have been getting called a lot of names lately: terrorists, Hezbollah, Taliban and–when Democrats are feeling more mellow–extremists who want to destroy America. Michael Ramirez reminds us who the original extremists were:



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/the-original-extremists.php
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?id=580306

Obama’s Fall to Earth

Obama’s Fall to Earth by John Hinderaker/Powerline blog

One of the first magazine articles Scott and I wrote was titled “Dan Quayle For President.” I believe Quayle was the vice-president at the time. The title was somewhat tongue in cheek; the theme of our piece was that conservative presidents may be derided as stupid, but somehow they keep having successful presidencies. Liberal presidents, on the other hand, may be praised as brilliant, but somehow they keep failing. The explanation, of course, is simple: conservative policies work, and liberal policies don’t.

This morning Dr. Milton Wolf made essentially the same point in the Washington Times, in the context of Barack Obama’s presidency:

Remember when liberals claimed Barack Obama was “probably the smartest guy ever to become president” and was “a sort of god”? Today they say “we are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes,” and the center point of his presidency is “a disaster.” So what changed exactly?

What has changed is that the Obama administration has been an abject failure. Dr. Wolf provides a useful brief catalog:

Consider the results thus far of the Obama presidency:


Two million-private sector jobs have been lost.


Unemployment jumped from 7.8 to 9.2 percent with a simply terrible 2011 first-quarter economic growth rate of just 0.4 percent.


A record 1 in 7 Americans is on food stamps.


Gasoline prices more than doubled, from $1.83 to $3.74 per gallon.


National debt increased 35 percent, to $14.5 trillion, or $137,000 for each taxpayer.


National unfunded liabilities increased 47 percent, to $114.9 trillion, or a cool $1 million for each taxpayer (and this does not yet include Obamacare).


America is on the verge of losing its AAA credit rating.

If you are a liberal, there are two ways of looking at this: you can conclude that liberalism is a failed ideology, or that Barack Obama isn’t as smart as you thought. It’s no surprise that most liberals prefer the latter choice:

So, as the liberal presidency of Mr. Obama becomes increasingly indefensible, the liberal is faced with an unthinkable dilemma: acknowledge the fundamental failure of his collectivist liberal philosophy, which tends toward socialism, or blame its failures on a single man whom, until just recently, the liberal deified.

And so we have the current liberal dissatisfaction with President Obama–which, as Dr. Wolf points out, was entirely predictable. You heard it here first: Dan Quayle would have been a better president.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/obamas-fall-to-earth.php

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Tea Party, Fix Your Gaze On 2012

Editorial: Tea Party, Fix Your Gaze On 2012 - Investors.com

Debt Battle: The Tea Party has proved its power — and its principle. Now it's time to declare an imperfect battlefield victory in 2011 and regroup for the more important struggle of defeating President Obama in 2012.

Champions of smaller government, low taxes and a freedom-driven economy shouldn't expect whatever the end result of "Boehner 2.0" is to be worth very much cheering, especially after Harry Reid's Senate gets through with it.

But with the clock ticking on the federal government's debt deadline, Tea Partyers should take whatever half-loaf now comes their way.

They've demonstrated that theirs is one of the most formidable grassroots movements in American history. What they stand for is right, and would make our Founding Fathers proud. And they've demonstrated that they're the real deal, not shills for those who are a little right of center within the Republican Party.

Bismarck might not be the Tea Party's favorite historical figure, but his advice has never been more pertinent than here and now: "Politics is the art of the possible."

Tea Partyers shouldn't lament that their preferred Cut, Cap, Balance approach, which passed the House, is impossible to get enacted into law in 2011; rather, they should take pride in realizing that because of their movement, real spending reform is indeed politically possible — just not this year.

They're poised to be a part of replacing Barack Obama with a Tea Party president. But that won't happen if they let Obama shift the blame for this economy to Tea Party-beholden GOP congressmen. What'll happen in that case is very likely the collapse of the Tea Party as a serious force.

Leaders of this great movement should know better than anyone that the war against spending is a long one. Even if by some miracle, $3 trillion or $4 trillion in cuts did materialize this year, we're still talking about government debt less than a decade from now approaching $30 trillion. This debt ceiling conflict is only the opening shot of their People's Revolt against such madness.

Entitlement reform and elimination of wasteful agencies, not to mention the possibility of a Balanced Budget Amendment being ratified by the states, are all battles that lie ahead. But they are battles that will be won only with control of both the White House and Congress.

What the Senate and House agree to is unlikely to include a BBA. Still, the Tea Party should take it, declare a partial win for its agenda and get to work ousting Obama in pursuit of the completion of their goals. GOP internecine warfare only wastes ammunition that will be needed next year — for the real fight.

As Sun Tzu advised, "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." For the Tea Party, now is the time to lock and load and wait till next year.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/580000/201107291854/Wait-Till-2012.htm

ATF: The White House Knew

ATF: The White House Knew - Investors.com

Scandal: A former ATF special agent tells Congress a National Security Council staffer was informed about Operation Fast and Furious before guns allowed into Mexico wound up at the murder scene of a U.S. agent.

The latest evidence that both the White House and attorney general knew and approved of Project Gunrunner and its deadly offshoot, Operation Fast and Furious, came this week in the testimony of William Newell, ATF special agent in charge of the Phoenix office, before Rep. Darrell Issa's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

That the "stench of cover-up," as Fox News analyst Brit Hume described the administration's handling of the matter, may reach even into the Oval Office itself was evidenced by Newell's testimony that he communicated with Kevin O'Reilly, a staffer on President Obama's National Security Council, about Operation Fast and Furious in September 2010.

O'Reilly was national security director for North America tasked with monitoring the activities of Mexican drug cartels. We are asked to believe he inquired about a program that was providing the cartels with guns but kept what he found out to himself.

That date, by the way, is three months before weapons permitted to "walk" into Mexico were found at the scene in Arizona were U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. Newell said O'Reilly had inquired about the status of Project Gunrunner to brief administration officials before a trip to Mexico.

Newell sent O'Reilly the requested information with the caveat, "You didn't get this from me."

Why was a National Security Council staffer asking about an operation that no one in the upper echelons of the administration was supposed to be aware of? We find it hard to believe it was for O'Reilly's personal amusement. Why would Newell request that he not be acknowledged as the source?

Certainly the whole area of drug cartels, cross-border violence and gun trafficking are matters of national security. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made a cause celebre of blaming the easy access to U.S. weapons for Mexican violence.

Are we to believe neither the White House nor the Department of Justice knew about a program that made that access even easier?

Administration officials have taken the Sgt. Schultz "we knew nothing" approach to any inquiries, only to be tripped up by their own words and actions.

Newell's email to O'Reilly is evidence that at least one person in the White House did.

Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee in May that he learned about the operation in the "last few weeks." In fact, as we've noted, Holder himself gave a speech to Mexican authorities in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 2, 2009, taking credit for Gunrunner as well as Fast and Furious for himself and the Obama administration.

Holder told the audience: "Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner."

At a June 29 press conference, President Obama told reporters, "As you know, my attorney general has made clear he certainly would not have ordered gun-running to pass through into Mexico."

Yet a video shows former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden telling reporters at a Department of Justice briefing of steps to expand Gunrunner "as part of the administration's comprehensive plan" and as the "president has directed us."

ATF agents have testified that they were ordered not to interdict guns before they passed into Mexico under this operation and evidence has surfaced that the FBI averted its eyes when an instant background check should have alerted them to two convicted felons transferring more than 300 guns.

The "stench of cover-up" grows stronger even as the mainstream media put a clothespin on their collective nostrils.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/579822/201107281902/ATF-The-White-House-Knew.aspx

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Ice age threat should freeze EPA global warming regs

Ice age threat should freeze EPA global warming regs The Examiner Op Eds Washington Examiner
Ice age threat should freeze EPA global warming regs By: Shannon Goessling

Rather than spiraling into a global warming meltdown, we may be heading into the next ice age.

The U.S. National Solar Observatory, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and astrophysicists across the planet report that the nearly all-time low sunspot activity may result in a sustained cooling period on Earth.

The news has sent global warming theory advocates scrambling to discount and explain away the impact on global temperatures. However, the "news" is not really that new.

Many reputable scientists have been warning for decades that we are nearing the end of the 11,500-year average period between ice ages. And the last similar crash in sunspot activity coincided with the so-called "Little Ice Age" in the 1600s that lasted nearly a century.

Despite increasing evidence that "global warming" climate change is not the unified scientific theory it has been promoted to be, vested interests continue to push for stringent limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

Certain investment banks and trading houses that stand to make billions on so-called "carbon credits," and the environmental sociologists who have as a stated purpose to change our way of life, are a powerful bloc.

In the Obama administration, this cabal has a willing "big stick" in the form the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has enacted draconian measures that will, by President Obama's admission, make energy costs "skyrocket."

The subject of intense litigation, the EPA regulations were enacted this year without congressional approval as required by the Clean Air Act and other laws. Estimates put the economic damage of these regulations at $1 trillion over the next 20 years, with a loss of between four and 10 million jobs.

Ironically, the current rush by global warming advocates to uncouple mounting evidence of global cooling from the global warming regime is not the first time they've backpedaled.

As referenced in ongoing litigation, the EPA admitted that generally applicable regulations would lead to "absurd" results, leading the agency to create a so-called "Tailoring Rule."

For example, global warming alarmists admit by their own calculations that reducing carbon emissions among a sample of large U.S. "emitters" to EPA-required levels might reduce the surface temperature by .00071 degree Celsius -- or 70 times lower than what is detectable.

Annual emission reductions sought would be replaced in 13 days by industrial growth in China. "Absurd" is understatement. So how do we handle "global cooling?"

In the 1970s and '80s, climatologists and astrophysicists were setting off alarms about pending global cooling and "the new ice age." Headlines in major weekly news magazines warned of a cooling catastrophe, with experts like famed astronomer Carl Sagan calling on industrialized countries to produce more carbon dioxide to offset the pending disaster.

High-level scientific proposals were advanced to redirect Arctic rivers, clear out swaths of high-density forests to release carbon dioxide, and even salt the Greenland ice caps with black carbon to attract sun melting in a global effort to stave off the impending ice age.

What happens during a "Little Ice Age?" Food-producing land becomes scarcer, food-growing seasons become shorter, and the world becomes a much more arid and less hospitable place. Think food shortages and the social unrest that follows.

The forces at work behind the global warming regulatory regime have, at worst, covered up, ignored and manipulated climate evidence to make the case that humans cause global warming and therefore humans should be punished.

At best, the mainstream scientific community is continuing to weigh the climate data as it becomes available. Caught in the flux are millions of Americans suffering under an economic tsunami that is anything but a theory.

The textbook definition of moving forward with global warming regulations is truly "absurd."

Shannon Goessling is executive director and chief legal counsel for the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/07/ice-age-threat-should-freeze-epa-global-warming-regs#ixzz1Tu4o9dvx

Signs of failure emerging in Obama's poll numbers

Signs of failure emerging in Obama's poll numbers Hugh Hewitt Columnists Washington Examiner
Signs of failure emerging in Obama's poll numbers By: Hugh Hewitt

Gallup is the gold standard when it comes to approval ratings for presidents, so last week's assessment by the polling company of the president's standing in the public surely shocked the Obama loyalists who thought that the battle over the debt ceiling had allowed their guy to shine.

Certainly he had every chance to make his case to the public, with press conference after press conference and a prime-time speech to boot.

The president wasn't pushed hard by his pals in the press room in the Q&A, and the coverage of the crisis was almost absurdly pro-Obama. But still his numbers plummeted to the lowest level of his rapidly collapsing presidency.

That only 13 percent of Republicans applauded Obama wasn't all that surprising. The president's harsh and hyperpartisan rhetoric had guaranteed that the GOP faithful would give up on the man from "Hope and Change."

The underwhelming showing among Democrats where 72 percent support the president was something of a shock. Gallup didn't provide the breakdown of African-American Democrats versus all others, but that underwhelming 72 percent has to be lifted by his still high standing in the black community.

It was the verdict of the independents, however, that really must have rocked the White House and the Chicago gang that had so carefully crafted the president's endless loop of buzz words about "balance," "compromise" and the "adult in the room": Only 34 percent of these voters support the president.

Thirty-four percent of the great middle-of-the-road-undecided-open-to-the-best-man-and-argument Americans. To quote the Bob Dylan song, "Things have changed."

These numbers rolled in before the public got word that the economic growth rate had dipped again to a scarcely visible 1.3 percent in the last quarter.

And that headline arrived just as Merck announced another 13,000 layoffs, and the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 4.2 percent, the S&P 500 3.92 percent and the Nasdaq 3.58 percent in the markets' worst week in a year.

What's not to like about the Nobel laureate, except perhaps the Libyan fiasco, the continued nightmare of Obamacare's rollout, and an exploding "Fast and Furious" scandal?

Imagine if the Republican message machine had been at all competent for the months of June and July as the president pushed the country toward the fiscal cliff and demanded killer tax increases from an already reeling private sector.

The president's political prospects are now so bleak as to tempt him to start the two-minute drill 15 months out from the election. Why wouldn't he unveil an "October-surprise-of-the-month" club. He has proven himself willing to say anything, so why wouldn't he start doing the unthinkable?

Obama has already broken with long-standing precedent by ordering his Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, even though no Circuit Court of Appeals has yet called into question the law's constitutional foundation.

He has already floated an assault on the First Amendment and federal contracting law with the idea of an executive order compelling government suppliers to abandon their rights under Citizens United without any statutory authority for the move.

The president threatened seniors with a Social Security cutoff not once but twice, and he fairly invited a market panic in his now infamous Friday night tantrum in the White House press room.

So why wouldn't a desperate president try the absurd 14th Amendment argument floated by the hard left that he could move the debt limit by himself?

Why wouldn't he use a collision with the debt limit to direct his Treasury secretary to pay everyone but the seniors and the military and then blame the GOP? That's the Chicago Way.

What the Gallup numbers illuminated, with a glare so bright that not even all the mainstream media can miss it, is that the public has taken the measure of the president and his economic and foreign policies.

The Republicans could conceivably put the president back in the game by nominating a candidate that scares the middle even more than the president does, but that will take some doing.

The really interesting question is where would his numbers be if the special operators hadn't killed Osama bin Laden? That and the other query: How low can those numbers go?

Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/07/signs-failure-emerging-obamas-poll-numbers#ixzz1To3GEfSS

Friday, August 5, 2011

Liberalism: A Luxury We Can’t Afford

Liberalism: A Luxury We Can’t Afford by John Hinderaker in Economy


It is hard to overstate how bad yesterday’s economic news was. First-quarter GDP growth was revised downward from the originally-estimated 1.9% to an almost-nonexistent 0.4%. Second-quarter GDP growth was estimated at 1.3%; if it is ultimately revised downward to the same extent as the first quarter estimate, it will go negative. A double-dip recession is now a real possibility.

It is often said that liberals don’t understand how the economy works or how wealth is created. The truth is, I think, worse than that. Many liberals believe that our society is too rich, too vigorous, consumes too many resources, and–this may be the worst affront of all–makes millionaires out of uneducated bumpkins. Thus, increasing the nation’s wealth has never been on modern liberalism’s agenda.

When the Obama administration took office in the wake of an economic crisis, it did not view the poor economy it inherited as a problem to be solved, but rather an opportunity to be taken advantage of. “Never let a crisis go to waste” was the administration’s mantra. Instead of pursuing policies that could have strengthened the economy, the Obama administration cynically enacted a “stimulus” bill that amounted to little more than a payoff to public sector unions and, taking advantage of a 60-day window in which it had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, rammed government medicine down the throats of the American people. The administration threatened at every turn to raise taxes, blocked the development of American energy sources, multiplied counterproductive regulations, distorted markets with bailouts, and treated business as a combination of whipping boy and honey pot.

The results were predictable: our economy now teeters on the brink of a decline the consequences of which we cannot begin to foresee. Normally-supine business leaders are finally speaking up:

As the economic recovery stalls and the debt debate in Washington fuels market uncertainty, business leaders — many of whom were once close to the White House — are increasingly airing their fears that President Obama’s policies are stifling job creation.


Kimberly-Clark Corp. Chairman and CEO Thomas J. Falk told a Senate panel this week that the administration’s proposal to raise the tax on foreign earnings of American-based firms “would put U.S. companies at a significant disadvantage.”


The move “would slow economic growth in the U.S. and impede the creation of U.S.-based jobs,” Mr. Falk…said Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee.


Leaders in the oil and gas industry say the administration could clear the way for the creation of thousands of domestic jobs if it weren’t beholden to environmentalists. As one example, they point to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a massive construction project that has been awaiting approval since Mr. Obama took office.

Liberalism is a sort of parasite that feeds on the wealth that free enterprise creates. Liberalism exists for two reasons: 1) to stuff the pocketbooks of those who have learned to live at the taxpayers’ expense, and 2) to feed the moral vanity of those who can’t resist meddling in other peoples’ lives. When times are good, the economy can drag a fair amount of liberalism along behind it. But when times are hard, liberalism is a luxury we can’t afford.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/liberalism-a-luxury-we-cant-afford.php

Walker’s Vindication | The controversial Wisconsin budget reform saves teachers’ jobs

Walker’s Vindication The Weekly Standard

The controversial Wisconsin budget reform saves teachers’ jobs. by John McCormack
Emily Koczela had been anxiously waiting for months for Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s controversial budget repair bill to take effect. Koczela, the finance director for the Brown Deer school district, had been negotiating with the local union, trying to get it to accept concessions in order to make up for a $1 million budget shortfall. But the union wouldn’t budge.

“We laid off 27 [teachers] as a precautionary measure,” Koczela told me. “They were crying. Some of these people are my friends.”

On June 29 at 12:01 a.m., Koczela could finally breathe a sigh of relief. The budget repair bill​—​delayed for months by protests, runaway state senators, and a legal challenge that made its way to the state’s supreme court​—​was law. The 27 teachers on the chopping block were spared.

With “collective bargaining rights” limited to wages, Koczela was able to change the teachers’ benefits package to fill the budget gap. Requiring teachers to contribute 5.8 percent of their salary toward pensions saved $600,000. Changes to their health care plan​—​such as a $10 office visit co-pay (up from nothing)​—​saved $200,000. Upping the workload from five classes, a study hall, and two prep periods to six classes and two prep periods saved another $200,000. The budget was balanced.

“Everything we changed didn’t touch the children,” Koczela said. Under a collective bargaining agreement, she continued, “We could never have negotiated that​—​never ever.” Koczela, a graduate of Smith College and Duke University Law School, is no Republican flack. She says she’s a “classic Wisconsin independent. I vote both parties. I voted for Senator [Russ] Feingold but I voted for [Republican state] Senator Alberta Darling too.”

In Brown Deer and school districts across the state, Walker’s budget repair bill, known as Act 10, is working just as he promised. To make up for a $2.8 billion deficit without raising taxes, state aid to school districts (the largest budget line) was reduced by $830 million. Act 10, Walker said, would give districts “the tools” needed to make up for the lost money as fairly as possible.

But union leaders argued that the fight over the budget repair bill had nothing to do with balancing budgets. It was all about stripping public employees of their “collective bargaining rights.”

“We have said all along that this isn’t about pay and benefits,” Mary Bell, president of the state’s teachers’ union, said in February. “We are prepared to implement the financial concessions proposed to help our state in these tough times. But .  .  . we will not be denied our right to collectively bargain.”

Acceding, at least rhetorically, to higher benefit contributions​—​5.8 percent of salary for pension (up from nothing) and 12.6 percent of health care premiums​—​looked like a smart tactic. It made teachers seem reasonable and focused the fight on collective bargaining “rights.”

What few people may have understood, though, is that these are “rights” that most people, including federal employees, don’t have. But Americans don’t like taking away anybody’s rights. The polls in Wisconsin showed voters overwhelmingly opposed to “weakening” or “stripping” or “eliminating” collective bargaining rights. President Obama called the bill an “assault on unions.” Democratic state senator Lena Taylor compared Scott Walker to Hitler.

But as the abstract debate over collective bargaining collides with reality, it is becoming clear just how big a lie the Big Labor line was. Now that the law is in effect, where are the horror stories of massive layoffs and schools shutting down? They don’t exist​—​except in a couple of districts where collective bargaining agreements, inked before the budget repair bill was introduced, remain in effect.

In Milwaukee, nine schools are shutting and 354 teachers have been fired due to a drop in state funding and the end of federal stimulus funding. But if teachers there agreed to the 5.8 percent pension contribution, the school district says it would rehire 200 of those teachers. (Other changes could offset the rest of the layoffs.)

Despite the promise from Mary Bell that all teachers would contribute something toward their pensions, Milwaukee teachers’ union president Bob Peterson won’t agree to the change. In doing so he’s made it clear that “collective bargaining rights” is code for “union veto power.”

“You have a choice: layoffs or pension contributions. Do you see that choice?” a local Fox News reporter asked Peterson. “Why did you make a choice of layoffs?”

“I didn’t lay off anybody,” Peterson replied. He thinks Milwaukee teachers have conceded enough and blames Walker’s budget cuts for the layoffs. But a year ago​—​before Walker was elected and when Democrats controlled all branches of government​—​there were also layoffs.

Given the choice between fewer benefits and layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers’ union chose the latter. In 2010, 482 teachers, including Megan Sampson, a young educator named an “outstanding first year teacher” by the Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English, got the axe. CNN reports that this year “Milwaukee teachers are offering meals and moral support to 354 fellow educators who will be laid off.” Meals and moral support? The union’s got your back. A job? Not so much.

The only other district seeing such massive layoffs is Kenosha, where 212 teachers will be fired this year. “Kenosha is in the same boat as [Milwaukee], with a collective bargaining agreement signed before Walker took office that lasts until June 30, 2013,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on July 16. “But most other Wisconsin districts have avoided layoffs and massive cuts to programs.”

One striking feature of Walker’s budget repair bill is the flexibility it has given school districts to balance their budgets. For example, things are looking up in the tiny town of Pittsville in the heart of the state, where the district balanced its budget mostly through increased pension contributions and not replacing four retiring teachers.

“We didn’t change anything in our health care at all,” Superintendent Terry Reynolds told me. “If Act 10 hadn’t passed,” he said, “I don’t think the teachers’ union would have wanted to approve the 5.8 percent contribution” to pensions. “That would have been a hard battle to fight. I’m not sure we would have saved dollars there.” Enough money was freed up that Pittsville property taxes will decrease by 9 percent next year.

While class sizes increased slightly in Pittsville, they’re going down in the Kaukauna school district, where the school board used the budget repair bill to turn a $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. In addition to the 5.8 percent pension contribution, the board pared back personal days from ten to five, increased the deductible for a family health insurance plan from $250 to $500, and required middle school and high school teachers to teach six classes instead of five. Any or all of these changes could have been vetoed by the union under a collective bargaining agreement.

The reforms will allow Kaukauna to spend $300,000 in merit pay for teachers next year and offer more Advanced Placement classes and languages like Chinese or Arabic in the future, according to board president Todd Arnoldussen. Bringing down class sizes “was a win for the kids and a win for everybody,” he told me.

But as Patrick Meyer, the head union negotiator in Kaukauna, says in a video, “morale has been terrible” in the district. Might teachers be spread too thin now? “Elementary teachers already teach seven hours a day,” says Arnoldussen. “That’s a horrible argument. I mean, come on. Six classes at 50 minutes.”

If morale is down, interest in teaching at Kaukauna isn’t. An opening for an elementary teacher attracted “over 500 applicants,” says Arnoldussen. “So you obviously have a huge amount of people that really want to work for Kaukauna .  .  . under our noncollective bargaining agreement.”

Just three weeks after Walker’s budget went into effect, its sweeping success is already apparent. But will it be enough to spare the six Republican state senators who face recall elections on August 9? Whether or not the Democrats gain the three seats they need to take over the senate, Walker’s collective bargaining success won’t be undone anytime soon. But a victory could embolden Democrats, who are gearing up for a recall election against Walker as early as the spring of 2012.

“I don’t think they think the sky’s going to fall,” says Emily Koczela of Brown Deer residents, who will vote in the recall election of Republican state senator Alberta Darling.

As for the teachers, “some of them will feel better in a year or two.” Koczela says the union told them that “this is all a sham. There isn’t really a budget shortfall. If we just all stop giving tax breaks to wealthy corporations you’ll all be fine.”

“They didn’t know who was lying to them.” But soon enough they will.

John McCormack is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/walker-s-vindication_577310.html?nopager=1

Thursday, August 4, 2011

One picture--fill in your own 1,000 words

A media bias trade

A media bias trade by William A. Jacobson

While journalists at mainstream media publications regularly tout their professionalism and lack of bias, the people who consume their services see the bias for what it is:

Likely voters hold a dismal view of the news media, generally regarding reporters as biased, unethical and too close to the politicians they purport to cover, according to a new poll for The Hill.

A full 68 percent of voters consider the news media biased, the poll found. Most, 46 percent, believe the media generally favor Democrats, while 22 percent said they believe Republicans are favored, with 28 percent saying the media is reasonably balanced.

The fact that the electorate is wise to the bias does not mean the bias isn’t damaging. It’s just that the damage moves mostly in one direction, leading to differences in perception of bias:

While negative views of the media are common among all sectors of the electorate, some intriguing patterns emerge deeper in the poll’s findings.

Self-described centrists and liberals, for example, tend to hold a less unremittingly harsh view than conservatives.

How about this. Conservatives take control of CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, AP, Reuters, and so on, and liberals get the Murdoch empire? I’d take that trade in a heartbeat.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/07/a-media-bias-trade/

Dodd-Frank's winners: Revolving-door regulators

Dodd-Frank's winners: Revolving-door regulators Timothy P. Carney Politics Washington Examiner
Dodd-Frank's winners: Revolving-door regulators By: Timothy P. Carney

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) adds a grade of F- to a 'report card' for the Dodd-Frank Act one year after the legislation passed July 15, 2011 in Washington, DC. Republican members of the committee gave grades of F to all aspects of the bill.It may not prevent another bailout or protect consumers from dangerous financial products, but the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law -- now one year old -- has already benefited one group of people: the government officials who wrote and implemented the law before cashing out as lobbyists or consultants for Wall Street, hedge funds and big banks.

The top staff lawyers in charge of crafting the legislation in both chambers of Congress have both left Capitol Hill for K Street, as has a Securities and Exchange Commission staffer who helped implement the law. This is "private-sector job creation, Obama-style," as blogger Ira Stoll drolly notes.

The Great Wall Street Cashout is another example of how President Obama's agenda of bigger government -- and congressional Democrats' style of leaving the key details up to executive-branch regulators -- accelerates the revolving door and breeds crony capitalism.

Dodd-Frank was supposed to prevent future bailouts, tamp down on excessive risk taking by financial institutions and, through a new agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, protect regular people from predatory lenders or harmful and complex financial products.

Then-Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., was banking committee chairman and the Senate sponsor of the bill. Banking committee chief counsel Amy Friend was a chief aide in crafting the Dodd-Frank bill, and she also played a central role in crafting a housing bailout bill (known as "The Bank of America Bill") in the summer of 2008 and the Wall Street bailout that autumn.

Dodd retired from the Senate in January to make millions running the Motion Picture Association of America (Hollywood's lobby shop) and Friend also monetized her public service -- particularly her role in writing Dodd-Frank. She became a managing director at Promontory Financial Group, which describes itself as "the premier global financial services consulting firm."

Promontory, founded by longtime Democratic operative (and maximum donor this year to Obama and Dodd's House counterpart, Rep. Barney Frank) Eugene Ludwig, bragged that Friend was instrumental in shaping Dodd-Frank, and that at Promontory she would help clients with "the regulatory implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which, at 2,300 pages, is one of the most complex and wide-ranging overhauls of the financial regulatory framework in decades."

So Friend's job is to use her firsthand knowledge of the bill and connections to power (in addition to Capitol Hill connections, Friend visited the White House at least five times during the Dodd-Frank process) in order to help banks and Wall Street firms navigate and tweak the new regulations. That's putting public service experience to work for special interests.

Friend's House counterpart did the same thing. Daniel Meade came to serve as chief counsel on Barney Frank's Financial Services Committee from K Street's Hogan & Hartson. After passing Dodd-Frank, he went back to K Street (the firm is now called Hogan Lovells) to help the regulated entities deal with the regulations.

Hogan Lovell's announcement on Meade's return called him "a principal draftsperson of substantial portions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform" and assured clients, "At Hogan Lovells, Meade will resume his practice representing financial services entities and other entities impacted by the regulation of those entities in connection with a broad range of regulatory and transactional matters, including issues related to the Dodd-Frank Act. ..." Credit Suisse is a Hogan client, as are mortgage insurance companies.

Then there's SEC official Jordan Thomas, who cashed out to law firm Labaton Sucharow. Thomas will start Labaton's "Whistleblower Protection Practice," a role for which he is particularly fit, the firm explained in its release: "Notably, Mr. Thomas played a leadership role in the development and implementation of the SEC's Whistleblower Program, which was enacted by the Dodd-Frank Act."

It might not be fair to blame Friend, Meade, Thomas or the dozens likely to follow in their footsteps for finding the most lucrative use of their skills and experience. But this Great Wall Street Cashout -- parallel to the Great Health Care Cashout that has already sent lawmakers and staffers scrambling to represent the drug makers, hospitals and insurers affected by Obamacare -- reflects bad incentives. Banks would feel less compelled to hire these legislative authors if industry faced simpler, fairer, or cleaner laws and regulations (not to mention less-intrusive or more laissez-faire legislation).

Consider the moral hazard created as those left behind on Capitol Hill and the SEC watch their colleagues triple their salaries thanks to their role in crafting major legislation. Everyone will want a hand in some major regulation or subsidy bill affecting a deep-pocketed industry.

If you're looking for Dodd-Frank's big winners, they're easy to spot: They're the ones passing through the revolving door.

The big losers, according to a Bloomberg Government Study: 23 of the largest public financial companies in the United States face $22 billion in additional expenses and lost revenue, and likely a good deal more once all the regulations are put in place.

Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/dodd-franks-winners-revolving-door-regulators#ixzz1TXQ5DsBK

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Obama approval rating hits all-time low, according to poll

Obama approval rating hits all-time low, according to poll

The president's approval rating is hovering around 40 percent.  JENNIFER EPSTEIN

A new poll shows that President Barack Obama’s approval rating has plummeted to a new low as talks to raise the debt ceiling stalled and the president stayed out of the public eye after a Monday night speech through early Friday.

The president’s average approval rating on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday was 40 percent in Gallup’s daily tracking poll released on Friday. His approval rating averaged 46 percent in June, and was at about the same level for most of July.

Obama’s rating had last gone as low as 40 percent in Gallup’s daily poll, but not since April.

Among Democrats, his approval rating was 72 percent, while with independents it was at 34 percent and with Republicans it was 13 percent. During the last three weeks, Obama averaged a 79 percent approval rating with Democrats, 41 percent with independents and 12 percent among Republicans.

The poll was conducted July 26-28 and surveyed 1,463 adults. The error margin is plus or minus three percentage points.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60232.html#ixzz1TXBhr5GF
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148739/Obama-Approval-Drops-New-Low.aspx

The Debt Deluge--worse than you could possibly imagine

Is It Over for Global Warming Alarmism?

by John Hinderaker in Climate


Is It Over for Global Warming Alarmism?

This could be the last nail in the coffin of the global warming alarmists: NASA data show that the amount of heat that the Earth has been losing into space, from 2000 to the present, is far greater than the alarmist models predicted.

This conclusion is critical because all scientists, alarmists and realists alike, agree that the direct increase in Earth’s temperature caused by additional CO2 in the atmosphere is too small to worry about. The alarmists’ claims are based entirely on hypothetical indirect consequences of additional CO2. But these alleged feedback effects are not based on empirical observation, they are merely hypothesized by the alarmists and incorporated into their computer models. For a long time, we have known that the models’ predictions are contradicted by empirical observation. In the world of science, this is called refutation of a theory, but global warming exists in the realms of politics and religion, not science.

What is important about this most recent finding, reported in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing, is that it cuts straight to the bottom line. If not as much heat is being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere as the alarmists’ models posit, that is the ultimate proof that those models are wrong:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. …


The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

If these data hold up, the alarmists and their political supporters will owe the realist scientists one of the biggest apologies in the history of science.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/is-it-over-for-global-warming-alarmism.php
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Was This Obama’s “Read My Lips” Moment?

Last Look from Across the Pond: Was This Obama’s “Read My Lips” Moment? by Steven Hayward

I understand why Tea Partiers and even conservatives who drink decaf might think the debt ceiling deal isn’t very good, even allowing for the current strength of forces on the political chess board. But judging from the UK papers on offer this morning here at Heathrow airport, Obama has had his head handed to him. The Independent has a big photo of Obama on the front page, with the headline “Obama Humbled.” The cutline describes the debt ceiling deal as “widely seen as a major defeat for the U.S. President.” The full story on page 4 bears the headline “Obama Forced to Swallow Tea Party’s Demands.”

Curiously, The Independent’s “Viewspaper” op-ed page has several articles not available online that all take the same tone. One of them is from an American, the conflicted Dave Weigel, who thinks the deal will prove fatal to the Democratic Party: “This debt deal is a gun-to-the-head recanting of everything Obama and his Democrats say they believe in,” and risks sending the Democratic Party “spiraling into depression.” By contrast, the left here in the UK notes that even David Cameron is embracing tax increases to reduce the UK’s large debt level. (Needless to say, it is useless to point out to folks over here that David Cameron couldn’t even carry a moderate Republican district in Connecticut if he had to try his act in the U.S.)

To which we can only say, let us hope so. Perhaps this deal is in fact the political equivalent of President George H.W. Bush reversing his “read my lips: No. New. Taxes.” pledge in 1990, which contributed mightily to his subsequent loss on 1992. And so we have the best of both worlds politically: a deal that leaves the Tea Party unsatisfied and therefore fired up for the next battles and election cycle, and a demoralized liberal base that can’t come to grips with the fact that socialism is over because we’ve run out of other people’s money—a point made in Toby Young’s blog on another British paper today, The Telegraph.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/last-look-from-across-the-pond-was-this-obama%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cread-my-lips%e2%80%9d-moment.php

The Dumbest Thing Said In Washington Today


The Dumbest Thing Said In Washington Today by John Hinderaker

We linked earlier to this Politico story using our “Picks” feature–which, by the way, we hope you have discovered and found useful. Most attention has gone to Politico’s report that Joe Biden compared Tea Partiers to “terrorists,” but that wasn’t the dumbest thing anyone said in Washington today. That was just the desperate hysteria that we see from Democrats every day.

No, the dumbest thing followed just after in Politico’s story:
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry [Congressman Mike] Doyle [D-Pa.] said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

“Impossible to spend any money?” This fiscal year, the federal government is spending $3.8 trillion. It is a curious feature of the debt deal that there is no way to know how much money the government will spend in FY 2012, but it is almost certain to be significantly more than this year’s figure. And the only solid “cuts” in the debt deal add up to $7 billion–a small fraction of the planned increase in spending between FY 2011 and FY 2012.

In what world does a budget of $4 trillion–no, wait, that’s not right, the government doesn’t even have a budget–mean that it is “impossible to spend any money?” Only in the parallel universe of Washington, D.C., where a doubling of federal spending since 2002 means that we are not “spending any money.”

Have there ever been politicians in Washington as out of touch with the American people as today’s Democrats?

UPDATE: A little while ago, a liberal host on CNN tried to get Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, to say something bad about the Tea Party. Sessions’ response, as tweeted moments ago:

Tea Party have been called ‘terrorists’; I would just say they put some terror in the hearts of the big spenders.

Sessions has announced that he will not vote for the debt ceiling bill, I suspect mostly as a protest at the ongoing circumvention of the statutory budget process. One of the diabolical aspects of the debt bill is that budgets for FY 2012 and 2013 will be “deemed” to be in effect, even though in fact, no budget will be proposed, reviewed in committee, debated or adopted. Will that make President Obama the first chief executive to serve an entire term without ever having a budget in place?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/the-dumbest-thing-said-in-washington-today.php

What's Obama got against the Lone Star State?

What's Obama got against the Lone Star State? Examiner Editorial Opinion Washington Examiner
By: Examiner Editorial

President Obama seems determined to use suffocating bureaucracy to bring Texas down with the rest of the country.New unemployment claims rose this past week and total unemployment across the nation edged upward to 9.2 percent. The national economy simply isn't growing anywhere near as fast as President Obama claimed it would when he and the Democratic 110th Congress pumped $859 billion worth of stimulus into it. Job creation has all but ground to a halt in recent months. If the country is not at the precipice of the second dip in a double-dip recession, it clearly is in a jobless recovery.

The one bright spot in the national economic picture is Texas, which has an economy busting out all over with new jobs. Nearly half of the estimated quarter-million new jobs that have been created since February 2009 were created in Texas. But Obama seems determined to use suffocating bureaucracy to bring Texas down with the rest of the country.

Consider the excessive delays imposed on the energy industry in the Gulf of Mexico by Obama's Department of the Interior in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Other states border the Gulf, of course, but the Gulf region's energy industry is centered in Texas, so when the federal government stops issuing drilling permits and promulgates costly new regulations on drilling in the Gulf, Texas suffers most. An econometric study released Friday by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., describes the magnitude of the Obama administration's regulatory strangulation of the Gulf energy economy:

"The Obama Administration has systematically blocked domestic energy production in the Gulf of Mexico, and today's report puts that action in stark terms. It documents a 250 percent increase in the deepwater exploration permit backlog with a decrease of nearly 80 percent for plan approvals and deepwater drilling. That means a loss of $9 billion in capital investment in 2011, along with a projected loss to the government of $25 billion in royalties and tax payments over the next three years, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of jobs lost."

Also getting into Obama's anti-Texas act is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with its new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. This rule is clearly designed to shut down coal-fired power plants in the nation's heartland. Because EPA is giving industry far too little time to adapt to the new rule, starting next year millions of people are going to have to make due with less electricity for air conditioning and heat. Lots of people will be put out of work as well.

And elsewhere in today's edition of The Washington Examiner, Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, notes that EPA's own computer modeling showed his state does not contribute significantly to the emissions the rule seeks to reduce. But EPA officials refuse to explain why they insist on applying the new rule to Texas. At this rate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry may have to run for president as a matter of self-defense.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/07/whats-obama-got-against-lone-star-state#.TjJD0eLu63s.blogger#ixzz1Tsel8SV6

Monday, August 1, 2011

Obama's Gulf Oil Slowdown Costing 230,000 Jobs!

House Report: Obama's Gulf Oil Slowdown Costing 230,000 Jobs!

The oil lease regulatory process is holding holding back oil exploration and production activity in the Gulf of Mexico. This delay is preventing economic benefits that will spread past the gulf states, to the entire country if only the gulf oil activity activity were allowed to match industry capacity.

That was one of the important findings Restarting “the Engine”–Securing American Jobs, Investment, and Energy Security, a study done by IHS CERA and IHS Global Insight which was released by the House Oversight Committee today (and embedded below).

Committee Chair Rep Issa commented about the study's release.

"The Obama Administration has systematically blocked domestic energy production in the Gulf of Mexico, and today's report puts that action in stark terms. It documents a 250 percent increase in the deepwater exploration permit backlog with a decrease of nearly 80 percent for plan approvals and deepwater drilling. That means a loss of $9 billion dollars in capital investment in 2011, along with a projected loss to the government of $25 billion in royalties and tax payments over the next 3 years, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of jobs lost.

"Our domestic energy resources are the largest in the world. Tapping these resources will create more than 500,000 jobs in the next three years, grow the economy and put us on the path to recovery.

The study looks at the plan and permit levels in the six months following the lifting of the deepwater activity moratorium in October 2010. The analysis finds a:

•250% increase in the backlog of deepwater plans pending governmental approval

•86% drop in the pace of regulatory approvals for plans

•60% drop in all GoM drilling permits

•38% increase in the time required to reach each regulatory approval required.

One unexpected finding from the study was that “an increase in oil and gas activity reverberates throughout the broader economy,” said James Diffley, senior director of IHS Global Insight’s U.S. Regional Economic Group. “Each new hire (in the Gulf) results, on average, in more than three additional jobs in an array of industries around the country” – not just in the Gulf region.

The study reports that there is some sort of logjam in the regulatory process, however it does not report what the logjam is or how it was caused. That answer may come from a study Issa released in late May when Issa's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a scathing report about the nation's energy saying in part that the President has deliberately created policies which would cause energy prices to rise.

"The United States has the largest reserves in the world—resources that can provide good paying American jobs and fuel our economic expansion. But standing between that energy and U.S. consumers is an obstacle course of government red tape, regulation, delays and obfuscations," Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said. He pointed to statements by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu about intentionally raising energy costs for Americans and how these goals are being implemented throughout the government.

The committee's report found that U.S. domestic energy resources are currently the largest on earth—greater than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada combined. It also said that the recent EPA and Department of Interior regulatory actions, some in collaboration with environmental groups or outside normal scope, are having a detrimental impact on independent energy producers.

Once again it seems as if the Barack Obama's politics has taken precedence of over the needs of the country, not just the energy needs but in this case a much-needed, no cost to the taxpayer stimulus to the economy.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/07/house-report-obamas-gulf-oil-slowdown.html

The Theology of Social Security

The Theology of Social Security

When the American church helped usher in Social Security, it abdicated its responsibility to care for the poor. By Douglas E. Baker

The presidential election of 1932 was unquestionably about change. The people desired it. The candidates promised it. What was unknown was what that change would look like should the major candidate of the hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, actually win.

On Sept. 23, 1932, in a pre-election speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, one could catch a glimpse of just how different the America of the future would look from the America of the past should Roosevelt take over.

"The task of statesmanship has always been the redefining of these rights (life and liberty) in terms of a changing and growing social order," Roosevelt said. "New conditions impose new requirements upon government and those who conduct government."

With these words, the break with the past was all but certain. The speech received little attention until after the election, when many remembered the statements almost as prophecies of what would soon come to pass. The position advocated by Roosevelt would be the exact opposite of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson—the two men largely responsible for the ideas and writing of the U.S. Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence maintains that certain rights are not discovered and granted by any one person or any group in power. Rather, they are inalienable and fixed. They are to be regarded as a sacred endowment to each person, and no governmental idea should ever take supremacy over the worth and value of the individual and their God-given rights.

The American experiment sought to wed the idea of freedom and virtue without the need or desire for a strong government to administer the details of life for every citizen. The American idea was an elimination of restraint by the government to be replaced by the constraint of virtue taught by institutions in society other than the government. The home, the church, the school and other voluntary associations were to be the primary relationship of life through which order and honesty were maintained.

The Great Depression, with its widespread economic emergencies, tested this idea and caused many to desire a government-run economy where predictability and security would be normal because most (if not all) personal and business decisions would largely be regulated by a governmental bureaucracy. New Deal legislation brought with it price controls on food, government insurance, monetary subsidies for bad years on the farm or in business, tight regulation on industry, new and expensive regulations for business and high tax rates.

Immediately following Roosevelt's speech in San Francisco, many theological journals and Christian denominations used the exact phrases of the soon-to-be president in their publications. Many discarded traditional interpretations of key Scripture texts to support a new political theology which mirrored Roosevelt's revolutionary New Deal. The close connections were not noticed at first, but after the laws were passed, it clearly was seen that without the church, much of the legislation could not have passed Congress. The president designed the policies, the church applied the pressure and the nation inherited the consequences.

On June 29, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order 6757 created a Committee on Economic Security to draft legislation for a government-run retirement system. The committee consisted of the secretaries of labor, treasury and agriculture, the attorney general and the Federal Emergency Relief administrator.

Their first order of business was to examine policies currently in place to determine their viability for the nation. Even during the Great Depression, some private insurance companies and other companies managing annuities and pensions had performed well during such an economically volatile time. Policies were proposed to rearrange tax structures and reduce tax rates to allow for the continued expansion of these companies, but such ideas were jettisoned for a government-run plan modeled after those in Germany and Prussia.

The committee presented its report on Jan. 15, 1935, and it recommended the following: worker's compensation, unemployment benefits, health benefits, disability benefits, old-age benefits, survivors' benefits and maternity benefits. During the hearings before the U.S. House and Senate, it became apparent that the cost of running such a system would be very high. Suggestions to scale back the program were met with disapproval by Roosevelt, who stated that the system should be kept solvent through the imposition of a payroll tax. Contributions would be required by the employer and employee. Roosevelt's idea was to create what would seem to the worker like a self-financing insurance plan. In reality, the "premiums" were mostly paid by the worker because the employer often lowered their wages to lower their cost to the government.

Roosevelt privately admitted that many business leaders who opposed his proposals were right with their economic theory, but he boldly stated that "those taxes were never a problem of economics. They were politics all the way through."

Sen. Bennett Clark, a Missouri Democrat, offered an amendment that would allow businesses to opt out of the government plan if their own plans offered more generous benefits. The Clark Amendment passed by a 51-35 vote in a Democrat controlled senate, but FDR threatened to veto the entire bill unless the amendment was removed. It was, and Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on Aug. 14, 1935.

Throughout the process, appeals were made to American businesses and workers by church leaders to love their neighbors as themselves and to work to bring about an end to the social injustice of not caring for the aged and infirm.

What is disturbing when reviewing the history of this time is how many Christian ministers defended the actions of government as fulfilling Holy Scripture's mandates to care for the poor, provide for parents in their old age and give to those who ask of you.

With this shift of thinking, the state began to function in roles once reserved for the church—to the detriment of any who would question the legitimacy of the legislation on theological grounds. The same reception awaits those in the modern day who seek to resist any "progressive" social policy in any way for fear that they will be branded as uncaring or un-Christian in their ideas.

Has government power expanded to such a degree that the church now has no voice at all in the public square? Perhaps, but the modern era of public policy reveals just how much the government has gained and how much the church has lost.

Douglas E. Baker is the former Executive Editor of The Baptist Messenger, and serves now as Assistant to the Provost of Union University. Follow him via Twitter or Facebook.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Theology-of-Social-Security-Douglas-Baker-07-20-2011?offset=0&max=1