The Compromise: The Tea Party Erects a Speed Bump
The battle over increasing the debt ceiling for the United States government ended today when Congress approved and the president signed a bill that would raise the current debt limit by 400 billion dollars. The House vote was 269-161 and Senate approved the measure 74-26. It was a hard fought battle that kept the nation and world on edge for days.
I’m greatly disappointed in the compromise–though pleased with some details–and have been thinking about a phrase that describes the ordeal we have just experienced:
You can’t see the forest for the trees.
Here are a few of the trees: The mainstream media is calling the debt ceiling compromise a huge victory for the Tea Party movement. They say that Barack Obama’s showed strong leadership, politics as usual was demonstrated by both parties, and that the “compromise” was a good thing in the end.
They are wrong.
These are just trees–not the bigger picture.
What’s really happened is that the Tea Party managed to erect a temporary speed bump in front of runaway government spending and begin to re-frame the debate. The “forest” of financial disaster still looms in front of us–dark and foreboding.
We must continue to fight to save our Republic.
Before we discuss the bigger war and battles that lie ahead, let’s look at the “speed bump” that was erected this week.
Here’s how the Family Research Council saw it:
“The framework…would raise the debt limit by at least $2.4 trillion and get Obama and congressional Democrats past their target date: Election Day 2012. In return for this generous political cover, Democrats would agree to a modest $1 trillion in supposed cuts spread out over 10 years; $350 billion of those “upfront” savings come from gutting national security resources.”
“A trillion dollars over 10 years is not sufficient to impress credit rating agencies, which have threatened to downgrade America’s credit status. In fact, Moody’s announced that: “Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, would likely lead Moody’s to adopt a negative outlook on the AAA rating.” The current plan does not improve upon either of those earlier plans.”
“In addition to the $1 trillion, the framework sets up a ‘special’ congressional committee that would seek $1.4 trillion in ‘deficit reduction’ by the end of 2011. Of course, for liberals, ‘deficit reduction’ is synonymous with ‘higher taxes.'”
“If the commission’s recommendations are not enacted, across-the-board spending cuts would be triggered, half of which (nearly $500 billion) would come from national security spending. Every honest observer knows the problem is entitlement spending, not the defense budget or a lack of revenue. Defense spending has been on the decline for decades, as a percentage of GDP. It is currently below its historical average of 5.2 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) grew from 2.5 percent of GDP in 1965 to over 10 percent today and represent 60 percent of the total federal budget.”
The Heritage Foundation saw the debt ceiling compromise in these terms:
“Unfortunately for taxpayers, most of these cuts are to what the country would have spent, not what we are spending. In other words, the government will keep growing, just at a slower rate. The Left will have the satisfaction of raising our credit limit for six months but spreading the pain of cuts over 10 years. Obviously, we have no way to estimate what inflation will be in 2021, but we can look back on the cost of living over the last 10 years and see that the value of the dollar diminished by about 24% since 2001. If the next decade is similar to the last, then $1 trillion in cuts today will be more like $800 million in cuts tomorrow. “
“To help hold Congress’s feet to the fire on deficit reduction, the deal does asks for a second wave of spending cuts this year. The only hitch is, those cuts would be determined by a select number of congressmen. It’s been dubbed the Super Committee, and judging by the description, there’s a lot to dislike. Twelve members (six from each chamber and six from each party) will have to find ways to slash the deficit by another $1.6 trillion before the end of the year. If they don’t, a surge of cuts to the defense and Medicare budgets would automatically go into effect.”
“On the bright side, the agreement does make a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment a condition of the final deal. Any victories the GOP can claim in this debate are owed to hard-core conservatives like Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa), and Louie Gohmert (Texas), who held firm in the face of enormous political pressure. Without their resolve, there would have been little to negotiate.”
So here’s what it all means–to get back to the “forest” analogy. I want to lay this out in stark terms so that you don’t miss the big picture:
Today, the United States government is 14.5 trillion dollars in debt. In less than two years we will be over 17 trillion dollars in debt–and gobbling up 25% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Our historic average is 18%. We are currently running deficits of over 1.5 trillion dollars a year–for as far as the eye can see. We borrow forty- three cents of every dollar that we spend. Next year, the so-called “cuts” will be a measly 22 billion dollars.
That’s six days of federal spending.
A dirty little secret–the true “Satan Sandwich”of our current deficit binge–is that none of the “cuts” that are mentioned above are actual reductions in spending. Federal entitlement programs–currently 60% of the US Budget–increase 7-8% each year. All so-called “cuts” are really cuts in the growth rate of Big Government–nothing more.
Imagine your family bringing in $60,000 a year in income, but spending $100,000. You are $1,000,000 in debt and it’s begun to grow exponentially. To stop the bleeding, you decide to spend $107,000 next year instead of $108,000. And on and on.
If you did that in the real world, you would crash and burn.
Sound crazy?
Well, that’s the Federal Government “dealing with the problem.” There’s no real reckoning with reality–just a slight retarding of a nasty habit that will have devastating consequences in this nation and the world economy if we allow it to continue.
Yes, we do need to give the Tea Party legislators credit. Without 120 courageous members in the House of Representatives, the debt ceiling would have been raised with a yawn–and there would be no discussion of “cuts” of any type. During the first two years of the Obama administration, when the liberals controlled all branches of government, we spent four trillion dollars inflating our National-Debt-and-Government Monster.
Thanks to the Tea Party, a speed bump has been erected. It doesn’t stop the runaway car–it just slows it slightly. It’s a small victory in a big war, but unless we win the war, the United States is finished as a nation.
A black, ugly, destructive forest of financial disaster still looms in front of us. The liberal elements still control the White House and half of Congress. If we do not stop them, the United States as we know it will be added to the ash heap of history.
We will be Greece–times one thousand–and fade into obscurity.
As people of faith and courage, our marching orders remain clear.
1. We must decisively win back control of the United States Senate in the 2012 elections to stop the progressive spending insanity. We must increase our majority in the House of Representatives.
2. We must defeat Barack Obama in 2012 with a conservative candidate with spine and vision to make the hard choices to pare down entitlements.
3. We must pass a responsible balanced budget amendment and have it ratified by the states. Our leaders in Washington will never have the guts to do it.
4. We must change our current tax code from a job-squelching progressive income tax to a fair tax or a flat tax. This would make the United States the investment haven on the world.
5. Over time we need to pay-off our 14.5 trillion dollar debt.
To accomplish the above legislative goals, we need to change ourselves first. As individuals and families, we need to reject irresponsible debt and live within our means. We need give up our entitlement mentality and take more responsibility for our own lives.
The government does not owe us a certain standard of living. It owes us an “honest money–just society” that gives equal opportunity to all people and protects us from our enemies.
And to accomplish that, we need more of God in our hearts and practices.
This coming Saturday, August 6, “The Response” is taking place in Houston, Texas, and many cities around our nation. I encourage you to participate. It’s a national call, led by Texas Governor Rick Perry, for America to return to its God-fearing roots.
The Tea Party erected a speed bump–a warning.
But only a prayerful, repentant response to God can get us completely turned around and moving in the right direction as a nation.
The Debt Ceiling Debate: Compromise is a Language of the Devil
In the 1981 Oscar award-winning movie Chariots of Fire, Eric Liddell’s father gives his soon-to-be-famous son some wise advice:
“Eric, you can praise God by peeling a spud if you peel it to perfection. Don’t compromise. Compromise is a language of the devil. Run in God’s name and let the world stand back and in wonder.”
I believe the United States Congress desperately needs to heed that advice this week. Soon they will be forced to act on raising the debt limit for our nation. We are already 14.5 trillion dollars in debt, and President Obama wants more. There is tremendous pressure to compromise.
Even Fox host Bill O’Reilly, whom I agree with most of the time, is encouraging Congress to enact a compromise. He says that we need to do it “one more time” to stop an economic Armageddon.
Michelle Bachmann says no. The Tea Party freshmen representatives are saying hell no.
I agree with them.
Here’s why.
It’s been amazing to watch the debt limit debate over the past few months. Now we are approaching the supposed August 2 “D-Day” when, if we do not raise the debt limit, the current Administration is saying that the US will default on its bills and create an economic catastrophe.
A number of plans have been floated over the past few weeks. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer says that “the debt ceiling looms. Confusion reigns. Schemes abound. We are deep in a hole with only three ways out: the McConnell Plan, the G6 Plan and the Half-Trillion Plan.”
— The McConnell essentially punts the issue till after Election Day 2012. A good last resort if nothing else works.
— The G6, proposed by the bipartisan Gang of Six senators, reduces 10-year debt by roughly $4 trillion. It has some advantages, even larger flaws.
— The Half-Trillion raises the debt ceiling by that amount in return for an equal amount of spending cuts. At the current obscene rate of deficit spending — about $100 billion a month — it yields about five months’ respite before the debt ceiling is reached again.
“In my view, the Half-Trillion is best: It is clean, straightforward, yields real cuts, averts the current crisis and provides until year-end to negotiate a bigger deal. At the same time, it punctures President Obama’s thus far politically successful strategy of proposing nothing in public, nothing in writing, nothing with numbers, while leaking through a pliant press supposed offers of surpassing scope and reasonableness.”
So there are the options. We could add a fourth and fifth. The fourth is President Obama’s option. He wants to raise the debt ceiling at least two trillion, raise taxes at least one trillion, and make essentially no cuts in entitlement programs. He plays the game of negotiation only because he knows the American people are not with him and he wants to be re-elected in 2012.
His true desires are a recipe for national suicide. As Bill O’Reilly rightly pointed out, the national debt per day under President Clinton was over $500 million; Under George Bush it was 1.6 billion; And under Barack Obama it has ballooned to over 4.2 billion dollars.
Per day.
And Barack Obama does not have the wisdom or political sense to do anything about it.
But there is a fifth option. It is the courageous one. It is the prudent one. Michelle Bachmann the House freshment are shouting it from the Congressional roof-top:
It is time to stop the insanity.
Don’t raise the debt ceiling.
That would be an heroic act–one that FINALLY turns the massive ship called the United States in the right direction. It would force the powers-that-be to reckon with reality– to deal with the massive problem we currently have with federal spending. It would truly stop an economic Armageddon from happening in the near future.
We are near the tipping point. The US Titanic is sailing idiotically toward a massive iceberg. We need to stop the engines, put them in reverse, and begin going the right direction with fiscal courage and responsibility.
If not now, when? If not our current leaders, then who?
Bill O’Reilly says we need to raise it “one more time.” That’s what the politicians have been saying for thirty years. It never happens. We always kick the can down the road. Procrastination does not work. It only saddles our children and grandchildren with insurmountable slavery to public debt.
If we don’t raise the debt ceiling, the Republic will survive. As Heritage economist J.D. Foster has pointed out:
“Both immediately and long after it reaches the debt limit, the government would have far more than enough revenue coming in that the Secretary of the Treasury could use to pay interest on the debt. Nor would preserving the current debt limit put at risk the full faith and credit of the United States government, as the President’s chief economic adviser has claimed. The government would continue to pay net interest as it comes due.”
“In fact… the Bipartisan Research Council released a Debt Ceiling Analysis that showed that even if the August 2 deadline is missed, the federal government would still have enough revenue to pay for: ‘all interest on Treasury securities (thus avoiding default), all Social Security obligations, all Medicare and Medicaid obligations, all Defense contractor bills, all Veterans payments, and all active duty troops, and still have almost $7 billion left over for other items.’ Congress can and should take its time to get this right.”
I agree with Erick Erickson of Redstate.com who has been encouraging the Tea Party freshmen:
“Don’t compromise. I’ve thought about it. I don’t think you can get any compromise worth supporting because like an alcohol refusing to admit he has a drinking problem, Washington politicians are refusing to admit they have a spending problem. When they cut spending, they do it dishonestly — through accounting tricks and cuts to growth rates, not actual cuts. We can’t send Congress to rehab. We cannot allow yet another Washington deal.”
No we can’t–not any more.
It’s time for some heroes to arise! Time for some real leadership.
Let’s be honest about this whole debt-ceiling debate. This is all about the growth of government–which has become a voracious monster in the 21st century. Barack Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling, as many others before him, to continue to grow Big Government. Obama is a quasi-socialist. He wants the American government to increasingly control the lives of every business and each American. He wants us dependent on government for control reasons.
There’s another reason he wants no spending cuts, no entitlement reform and is committed to raising taxes. He has to pay for Obamacare–his signature act. Obamacare will not save the nation money. It is the biggest new entitlement program in history–and it must be funded by raising taxes.
Ultimately, the debt ceiling debate is all about which worldview triumphs – biblical/Christian or secular/socialist. Those with a Christian worldview want to shrink our monstrous government, put more power (and money) in the hands of the people, stimulate freedom, create jobs and an opportunity society, and re-birth the American pathway to success.
The biblical idea of taxation is 10 percent–the tithe. Its foundation is paved by faith in God, personal and public morals, and free enterprise capitalism. Above twenty percent is considered slavery.
The alternative is the current path of the Administration. Encourage faith in government, continue to diminish Christian morals (like marriage), tax the rich, create class warfare, re-distribute the wealth to key interest groups, and create a dependent society which looks to man–not God and self–as the protectors and providers of our future.
This man-controlled government wants 20-100% ofa nation’s wealth to use as it pleases. It’s like a financial cancer that is never satisfied with the monies it is devouring.
We must stand our ground–say no more–and kill the cancer.
But those who want bigger and bigger government will use a familiar tactic to try to line up public opinion on their side. They will appeal to Congress to compromise.
Compromise. It sounds like such a wholesome word.
The mainstream press, which is in the president’s corner and desires a secular/socialist America, is touting the need for compromise. Compromise sounds so fair–so bi-partisan. They say that, yes–we should make some cuts (preferably in a future that never arrives), and yes–we need to raise taxes.
Doesn’t that sound fair? Each side gives a little bit.
But compromise is only appropriate when both sides are bringing positives to the table. My wife and I compromise all the time. She oftentimes stresses the need for grace in relationships, the need to be loving and understanding with people. These are good values. I usually bring the “truth” side to situations. What good principles do we need to choose? How do people need to change?
Grace is good and repentance is good. So compromise here is usually helpful.
But in the debt limit debate, we do not have two positive forces to balance. Incurring more debt and raising taxes in a recession are not good things–they are terrible choices at this juncture in history. The only good choice is to stop racking up more debt. Force yourself to live within your means. Make the hard choices that will bring America back to solvency and hope.
The sinking Titanic could have compromised. Some could have said, “Put all the life boats in the water and fill them to capacity.” The other side could have said, “No, we need to bail harder and not use half of the lifeboats.”
In this case, one side was right and the other completely wrong. Compromise would be fatal for thousands of people.
In the debt limit debate of 2011, compromising by borrowing more trillions, raising taxes, and not dealing with ballooning entitlement programs, is a non option.
It’s the language of the devil.
Let’s pray for our leaders to do the right thing. The American future is at stake. The world economy just may hang in the balance.
Do what the nation needs Congressmen and women! Turn the ship around!
If you do, we will praise you.
And maybe our nation will be saved.
Getting Away With Murder–And What We Can Do About It
I followed closely “the trial of the 20th century”– the O.J. Simpson murder case–and more recently the “trial of the 21st century” involving Casey Anthony and the death of her daughter, Caylee.
When the jurors reached the Simpson verdict in 1995, I was traveling with a friend out of state. When the media announced the arrival at a verdict, we high-tailed it to a television set where we eagerly awaited the outcome.
Last week was similar. When I heard on the radio that the Casey Anthony verdict would be announced at 11 am, I arranged my schedule to tune in. Both Shirley and I watched in silence as the decision was read to the nation.
My reaction to both verdicts was the same—stunned disbelief with knots in my stomach. In both cases, I agree with a majority of people that a murderer was set free and an innocent victim denied justice.
It’s time to make some changes in the criminal justice system.
I have some recommendations.
First, let’s re-visit each gut-wrenching case. In the OJ Simpson trial, as in most murder trials, there were no eyewitnesses but loads of circumstantial evidence. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were cruelly killed with a knife in cold blood—her throat slit and his body slashed. The evidence clearly pointed to Brown’s estranged husband, O.J. Simpson who had the motive, the erratic behavior, and various clues that pointed his direction.,
The case ultimately hinged on a bloody glove–that was linked to the crimes–being found on Simpson’s Belmont estate.
The jurors had this decision to make: Either O.J. Simpson killed his wife and Ron Goldman, or a sinister detective planted evidence to make it look that way.
These were the only two reasonable choices.
Bad cop or guilty O.J.
The jurors in the O.J. trial chose the bad cop theory and claimed racism was behind the “planted evidence.”
We all screamed that they were wrong and that it was a travesty of justice.
Now there is the Casey Anthony acquittal. Anthony’s three year-old daughter, Caylee, was found dead in December 2008 in a swamp near the Anthony home. Casey was the last person to be seen with Caylee on July 15, 2008. Her death was clearly a murder because duct tape was found on her mouth and nose (skeletal remains) and her lifeless body had been placed in two plastic bags and a laundry sack and tossed into a swampy woods.
There were other forensic clues. A chloroform search on a computer, the duct tape linked to Casey’s house, the smell of death in the trunk of her car, and a strand of hair consistent with Caylee’s also found there. But the forensic case wasn’t a slam dunk–and dueling experts came to different conclusions.
To me, there were two damning pieces of evidence that put this case beyond a “reasonable doubt.” First was Casey’s behavior after the little girl’s death. She had failed to report her daughter missing for thirty-one days and partied virtually the whole time. Grieving mothers don’t celebrate and have tattoos put on their shoulder that say “Bella Vita” (Beautiful Life). She then lied about a fictitious nanny who was supposed to be watching the child, about a rich boyfriend, and about where she worked.
Over time, Casey Anthony proved to be a pathological liar.
Probably the most “honest” moment of the trial was hearing Casey’s mother, Cindy, react in a 911 call to her first suspicions of what had happened to Caylee. When Cindy realized her granddaughter had been missing for over a month, Cindy called 911 in clear distress with these chilling words:
“I can’t find my granddaughter. She (Casey) just admitted to me that she’s been trying to find her herself. There’s something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.”
Casey had abandoned her car in a parking lot. The stench of death reeked from the trunk.
I know the smell of rotting flesh, having experienced it a few times when I’ve been around deceased corpses. Human decomposition is a unique and horrific smell–and you never forget it.
In this moment of tearful honesty, Cindy Anthony had discovered the truth: She suspected her own daughter was responsible for killing their granddaughter. During the trial, though the forensics were debatable, the circumstantial evidence was glaring. Casey was the the last person with Caylee; Chloroform computer search; Duct tape from the home; Abandoned car with the smell of death; Partying for thirty days while the little girl’s body rotted; Lying to everyone about everything.
However, during the trial, Casey’s defense lawyers were successful in fabricating theories and blaming others for Caylee’s death. They said that the Anthony home was dysfunctional. They blamed the murder on Casey’s father, George Anthony, who they claimed had abused Casey as a child, was an adulterer, and may have helped cover up or participate in the death.
But their biggest smokescreen, shared in opening arguments, was that Caylee’s death was an accident that went “terribly wrong.” They offered zero proof of this theory. It also made no sense. Why would a child’s accidental death place her in a bag with duct tape and send the mother out partying for a month? When a child accidently dies, you call the police, you grieve, and you have a memorial to honor the loss of the precious life.
You don’t party, lie, and cover up.
Yet, incredibly, when two of the jurors spoke about the verdict afterwards, they both had apparently bought the “accident” theory. As to Casey partying for a month, one of them said, “Yeah, that was bizarre.”
No, it was evil–and they weren’t able to see it.
Like most of America–and the world–I’m deeply troubled by both of these verdicts that made a mockery of justice. As a biblical Christian, I’m committed to seeing God’s will “down on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). That will includes God’s passion for justice.
Yes, it’s inevitable that in a fallen world mistakes will be made. I believe the Casey Anthony jurors were sincere when they came up with their verdict. I really don’t blame them.
But eternity will reveal they were wrong. A murderer was set free. A little girl was treated unjustly. And all of America was taught that if you’re a good enough liar you can beat the system. That alone will produce terrible consequences in the coming years.
I hope we use the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony travesties of justice to make some changes to our criminal justice system. Here are some recommendations:
1. Don’t permit the rejection of potential jurors due to their moral principles or faith. I was once rejected from a jury because I was a “Christian who was pro-life.” The defense lawyers didn’t want principled, moral-thinking people deciding their case! They wanted to bamboozle fuzzy thinking, immoral people. Free societies–which ought to be tried by citizen juries–a Constiutional right–can only stay free when people of faith and morality serve. For those quick to say that our Constitutional system worked in the Casey Anthony trial, I would remind you of the words of John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Same with juries.
2. Don’t force jurors to deal with the finer nuances of law or sentencing. Part of the problem in the Anthony case was obvious confusion over whether they should convict, beyond a reasonable doubt, of Murder One, Manslaughter, Child abuse, etc. That shouldn’t be the jury’s job. Let them keep to the basics. Was a murder committed by a certain party? Then leave the sentencing or type of murder to legal professionals (a judge or judges) who can give the proper sentence for the crime.
3. Don’t allow defense lawyers, or prosecution teams, to present “theories” to the jury that they are not required to back up. If they state a theory, they must present evidence to confirm it. If they don’t attempt to do so, they lose the case or are disqualified from finishing the proceedings. This will stop a lot of “lawyer lies.”
4. Beyond a “reasonable doubt” does not mean beyond a “shadow of a doubt.” There will always be some doubt where evidence of terrible crimes is limited. It was totally reasonable to believe, based on the circumstantial evidence, that O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony committed murder. Much greater clarity of understanding is needed here.
5. We should also re-examine whether our laws against self-incrimination promote justice. In the Bible, people suspected of various crimes were required to testify themselves as to their innocence or guilt. This testimony is extremely valuable. It certainly would have convicted O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. Does pursuing true justice require honesty, from all parties involved?
6. We need to be much swifter in dispensing justice. The Bible is very clear on this point. Long trials and years of appeals dull the heart and mind and lead to poor decisions. They also lead to more crimes being committed because of the lack of swift justice which is a restraint on evil.
7. Television crime shows have falsely given the impression that all cases can be solved by forensics–or that they are the key to convicting people. No–circumstantial evidence is extremely important. In the death of Caylee Anthony, DNA could not be found due to exposure to the elements for six months. But the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Casey Anthony as the killer.
Erick Erickson of redstate.com shared some of the wiser words on the Casey Antony verdict:
“Casey Anthony got off because she worked the system. In a fair and impartial court system this happens. It’s too bad. But the worst part of this is the idea that we can take the denial of justice for a toddler who was brutally murdered and use it to pat ourselves on the back about what a great society we are.”
“Are we a great society because a young, damaged single mother who claimed her own father molested her left her daughter with him to go drinking? Are we a great society because we produce people who would rather go to wet t-shirt contests than look for their missing children? Are we a great society because our citizens try to frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit? Or are we a great society because people like that can find a way to get off?”
“The Casey Anthony verdict doesn’t endorse our criminal justice system; it exposes our crumbling society. The courts can’t always dispense justice, it is up to society to protect our children. We need to bring back public shaming, we need to bring back the idea of moral responsibility separate from legal responsibility.”
We need a renewal of our society–including the vital areas of law and justice.
Let’s pursue it, for Caylee’s sake.
Also for the needed re-birth of the fear of the Lord in our land.