Fox News reported yesterday that the Pentagon has withdrawn its invitation to Franklin Graham to speak at its National Day of Prayer Services on May 6.  The invitation was withdrawn because of statements Mr. Graham made after September 11th concerning the nature of the Muslim religion.  It is no secret to any student of history that the goal of Islam is world domination.  The Koran makes that perfectly clear.  There are millions of peace-loving Muslims who practice Islam while ignoring that aspect of the religion, but unfortunately there are also a small minority who see world domination as a valid goal of their religion.  We ignore that fact at our own peril.  It seems to me that the Pentagon would be more aware of the existence of radical Islam than the rest of us.  The shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, recently should be a reminder of the fact that there are some aspects of Islam that are not peace-loving.  It should be noted that the group that originally protested Mr. Graham’s speaking was the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  CAIR has had some very questionable associations involving terrorist groups and is very adept at using the American legal system against Americans.  It is unfortunate that they were able to prevent Mr. Graham from speaking to the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer. 

Franklin Graham through his organization Samaritan’s Purse has done a lot of work globally to help people in Muslim countries.  He has spent more time visiting countries under Muslim rule than most people.  This is what the article says about his attitude toward Islam:

“Franklin, the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, told Fox News that he loves Muslim people and wants them to know that God loves them, even if they can be saved only through Jesus Christ.

“I want them to know that they don’t have to die in a car bomb, don’t have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God. But it’s through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone,” Graham said. 

Graham said said he loves the Muslim people, just not their religion — which he called “horrid” for its restrictions on women.”

It is very unfortunate that Franklin Graham will not be speaking at the Pentagon observance of the National Day of Prayer.  Aside from the fact that he has a son currently serving in Afghanistan, he has a lot to say.

According to the Republican Committee On Oversight And Government Reform website yesterday,  the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit decided to stay the December 2009 injunction by Clinton-appointed Judge Nina Gershon that the Congressional funding ban on the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) was unconstitutional.  Until the U. S. Court of Appeals further reviews the case, the ban will be in effect, and ACORN will not receive taxpayer dollars.

U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary Committee, released a statement yesterday that applauded the action that restored the ban on funding for ACORN.  The funding was denied due to criminal conduct and wasteful spending on the part of the organization.  Representative Issa pointed out that Congress does have the right to deny federal funds to an organization.

It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out.

Today’s Auburn Citizen posted an article about the eminent domain discussion surrounding Hilton Hotel’s plan to build a hotel and conference center in downtown Auburn, New York.

According to the article:

“A reporting crew from Fox News Channel was in Auburn all day Wednesday to cover a proposal for a hotel and conference center for a series on private property issues.

“The proposal has become the center of a local debate in recent weeks because the developer is asking a city development organization to use eminent domain if the property owners at the site won’t sell.”

When did developers obtain the right to ask a city development organization to use eminent domain to force property owners to give up their property? 

Also reported:

“Auburn Mayor Michael Quill also appeared in at least one segment, and was quoted saying that the city doesn’t “want to hurt” business owners, but also has to look at the “long range for the entire community.””

This is very simple.  Individual property rights are one of the tenets of the U. S. Constitution.  The 2005 decision on the Connecticut case by the Supreme Court was wrong.  It’s time to undo it.  The only reason the local politicians are supporting kicking out the current businesses is that they feel the Hilton Hotel, etc., will give them more money to spend.  This is wrong and needs to be stopped.  Just because my house or business is in a desirable location, I should not have to be in fear of my town government in cohoots with a developer taking my property from me and giving to another private owner.  This is not what eminent domain was intended to cover.  To take property for a road or a public purpose is one thing.  To transfer private property from one private owner to another private owner without the first owner’s consent is simply wrong.

Yesterday the New York Daily News reported that an Islamic group in Queens, New York, posted on their website, RevolutionMuslim.com, that the creators of South Park ‘would probably end up like Theo Van Gogh.’  (Theo Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 because of a documentary he made about violence against Muslim women.)   A spokesman for the group says that the statement was not a threat, it was just a statement of fact. 

According to the article:

“Despite
claims that they did not seek to invite violence against Stone and Parker, the
site also reportedly revealed where the “South Park” creators work,
and included a sermon calling for punishments for blasphemy against the Muslim
religion.”

It has been years since I have watched South Park.  The show is not for anyone who is offended by coarse language or irreverence.  However, the show has probably mocked every aspect of our society and most celebrities during the time it has been on the air.  The show has been threatened with lawsuits on a regular basis and has enraged someone or other pretty much every week.  However, all that said, threatening death for comic satire is something new to America.  I really think we need to examine this closely and see how we should deal with this.  It seems as if the website could reasonably be charged with making threats.  It also seems that there is a radical element within the Muslim faith that bears more of a resemblance to the Mafia than to a religion.

Dennis Prager posted an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner today about the relationship between America and Israel under the Obama Administration.  Mr. Prager points out that only 9 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that the Obama Administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian. 

There are a few things we need to remember about Israel.  Israel votes with us at the United Nations more often than any other nation.  Israel also provides us with new technology and and intelligence.  Israel shares the ideals of the founders of America.  A rift between America and Israel does not further the cause of peace in the Middle East–it simply emboldens the enemies of freedom to act against Israel because they do not fear American retaliation.  As Iran has become a major threat to Middle East peace, the weakening of Israel (and the weakening of the Israel-American alliance) simply will embolden Iran.  Lastly, there are many conservative Christians in America who believe the Book of Genesis in the Bible when it says, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.”

If you look at modern history, you can see examples of this Biblical truth.  England lost its empire after it reneged on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (which was supposed to establish the State of Israel and the State of Palestine (in Trans-Jordan).  Germany was divided and economically cripped for a generation or more after Kristallnacht.  The parts of the Arab world that today are focused on hating Israel today are, for the most part, living centuries behind the rest of the world.  With the vast natural resources they have (oil, etc.), what is hindering their progress?

I for one do not want to see America abandon its alliance with Israel.  Whether or not you believe the Bible, I see nothing to be gained by testing this particular verse.  Ignoring the Biblical advice, we need to be friends with Israel just as a practical matter.  They have been good friends for a long time; we don’t need to desert them as their enemies grow stronger.

No, I don’t mean the SALT treaty–I mean salt–the stuff you have in a shaker on your dinner table.  Haven’t they got better things to do?  Like deal with the Iranian nuclear threat?

Anyway, according to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air yesterday, the government is moving toward creating the crisis that will allow it to regulate the amount of salt used in processed foods.  OK, there is too much salt in some canned soup, but those of us who read labels can avoid buying soup with too much salt, and eventually the companies who manufacture it will make more of the lower salt variety.  That is how the free market works.  However, the free market seems to be temporarily sent out to lunch.

According to the article:

“Officials have not determined the salt limits. In a complicated
undertaking, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads
and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and
beverage market, sources said. Working with food manufacturers, the
government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to
gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be
calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification.”

The article further points out:

“High-salt diets may not increase the risk of death, contrary to
long-held medical beliefs, according to investigators from the Albert
Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.

“They reached their conclusion after examining dietary intake among a
nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. The Einstein
researchers actually observed a significantly increased risk of death
from cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with lower sodium diets.”

So why in the world is the government doing this?  It seems to me that the government is interfering in an awful lot of different areas of our lives for no apparent reason.  Again, the consumer will naturally buy the products that they feel are healthier, the government does not need to intervene.  If the problem is an uneducated consumer, the answer is to educate the consumer–not more government regulation.

According to Associated Press posted at Yahoo.com yesterday, there is fear that another volcano is ready to erupt in Iceland.  The volcano, Katla, is under the Myrdalsjokull glacier, one of Iceland’s largest glaciers.  Because it would have to go through roughly twice the amount of ice that the current eruption had to go through, it would be a much larger eruption (and create more problems with the melting glacier as well as the ash cloud).  The new volcano is about twelve miles from the current eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano.

Above is a map of Iceland I copied from LonelyPlanet.  The current eruption and the anticipated eruption are in the bottom center of the map.  The picture in my previous article about the recent volcanic activity in Iceland was taken west of Grindavik, which is in the lower left hand part of the map.  Iceland sits where two tectonic plates meet and is an island powered by the ‘green’ energy of the volcanic activity where the plates meet and underneath the entire island.  Other than the fact that another eruption will negatively impact air travel around the world, we need to consider also the impact it will have on the people living in the area.

This is a link to a video I found on facebook (posted by Operation Snakebite), Lost In Translation.  The video deals with the problems our American soldiers are having in Helmand Province in Afghanistan due to the language barrier.  The language and cultural battles are difficult.  There are three major languages in Afghanistan and it is difficult to find translators.  It is amazing to see the poverty of the Afghanistan people and their reluctance to ask for the help they need without the approval of the village leader.

The news is full of the Securities and Exchange filing fraud charges against Goldman Sachs.  The timing, however, is interesting. 

According to the article:

“Internet surfers who entered “Goldman Sachs SEC”
into Google were directed to the president’s campaign Web site via a sponsored
link titled “Help Change Wall Street.”

“The White House’s political arm paid for the keywords —
but would not say how much.”

Meanwhile, the White House is claiming they had no advance knowledge of the lawsuit.  The Obama Administration is using the lawsuit as a prop to push its financial regulation legislation.

The idea of financial regulation is a good one, but there are some problems with this bill.  The bill includes a $50 billion bailout slush fund to help any business that is “too big to fail.”  The money is administered by the Treasury Department–not by Congress.  That is unconstitutional (if anyone is paying attention to the Constitution these days).  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in the financial reform bill–they are not being reformed, despite their role in the mortgage meltdown crisis that began our downward economic spiral. 

The current bill is approximately 1,500 pages long.  Is Congress capable of writing and passing a law that anyone can read and understand?  If not, we need a new Congress.

Yesterday, Investors.com posted a story on what is happening in the health insurance industry in Massachusetts.  The story was posted to shed light on some of the possible consequences of the national healthcare reform bill that was recently passed.

One of the arguments used in supporting the healthcare reform bill was that it would provide affordable health insurance coverage for all Americans.  Under the recently passed bill, everyone must purchase health insurance of pay a fine.  In theory this is a good idea–it provides a larger pool of covered people and spreads the cost around.  However, there will always be people who take pride in gaming the system.  That is what has happened in Massachusetts.

In Massachusetts the fine for not having health insurance covereage is about $900 a year.  The cost of coverage is about $2000 to $3000 a year. 

According to the article:

“Last year, Charles Baker, former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, one of Massachusetts’s largest health plans, noticed some health insurance brokers posting comments on his widely read blog. They were suspicious that people were applying for health coverage after a medical condition developed, got the care they needed, and then dropped the coverage.”

Mr. Baker decided to look into this.  According to the article, this is what he found:

“From April 2008 to March 2009, 40% of the individuals who applied to Harvard Pilgrim stayed covered for less than five months. Yet claims were averaging about $2,400 a month, about six times what one would expect.”

Needless to say, this greatly impacts the actuary tables the insurance companies use to calculate rates.  This has created a nightmare in terms of the insurance companies asking to raise their rates (the law of unintended consequences) when the legislation was supposed to bring down the cost of health insurance.  We can expect more of the same in the national healthcare reform if it is not repealed and replaced.

As an art project in a California school, the first grade students were asked to draw a magic carpet and say what they would do with it.  This is one child’s project.

This is the link to constitutingamerica.org, a website started by Janine Turner (formerly of the CBS series NORTHERN EXPOSURE).  The mission of the site is to reach, educate and inform America’s youth and her citizens about the importance of the U.S. Constitution and the foundation it sets forth regarding our freedoms and rights.  The site includes educational information on the U. S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers, scholarship opportunities for students, and all sorts of resources to learn more about the documents that laid the foundation for America.

Check out the site–it’s easy to get around and fun to explore!

Today’s Washington Times reports that President Obama and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar will announce by April 30 whether or not backers of the Cape Wind Project off Cape Cod Massachusetts will be able to proceed with their project.

The project had been opposed by the late Senator Kennedy.  Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick supports the project, Senator Kerry has been publicly noncommittal, and newly-elected Senator Scott Brown says he generally supports wind power, but does not support Cape Wind. 

As a resident of Massachusetts who lives in an all-electric house, I have a few questions.  If this wind farm goes forward, how much of the electricity in Massachusetts will it provide?  How will it impact the cost of electricity for Masschusetts residents?  What impact will it have on fishing off the coast of Massachusetts?

This project was first announced in 2001.  It seems as if the answers to the above questions should be fairly easy to find, but when I did a ‘google’ search, I got a lot of entries and very little information.  One of the points I did find was that because the consumer would have to pay for the construction of the wind farm, electricity rates would actually go up.  I also learned that since only 3 percent of Massachusetts’ electricity is oil-generated, the wind farm will have no impact on oil imports.  I also came across an article that explained that Denmark, a leader in wind energy, is moving away from wind and considering nuclear energy.  Although wind energy is ‘green energy’ it does have some risks–there are concerns about how wind farms affect the bird population of an area.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.  I really don’t think I have enough information to form an opinion at this point, and I suspect there are many other people who feel that way.

The Minnesota Star Tribune posted an article on Saturday about the three hikers who have been held prisoner in Iran since July 31.  Originally, Shane Bauer, 27, his girlfriend, Sarah Shourd, 31, and their friend Joshua Fattal, 27, were detained and put in jail for allegedly crossing an unmarked border.  Since then, the three have been accused of spying and placed in Tehran’s Evin Prison.

According to the article:

“Iranian officials initially said the hikers were detained after allegedly crossing an unmarked border. In the months since, several reports, including a BBC story April 9, have surfaced saying that the Iranian government had “credible evidence” that the hikers had links to U.S. intelligence agencies.”

Does anyone truly believe that?  Middle Eastern dictatorships have a track record of holding hostages for political purposes.  I suspect these young people are being held hostage as a result of Iran’s continuing its nuclear program and the United States objecting to that continuation.  I also think that some of the problem here is a President whose actions have made him appear weak in the eyes of many of our enemies.  When America has a President who appears to be weak, the enemies of democracy and freedom engage in mischief.  We may have to wait until 2012 to get these hostages back–just as we had to wait for Jimmy Carter to leave office and Ronald Reagan to step in during the last Iranian hostage situation.

Today’s Washington Examiner quotes Israeli President Shimon Peres as saying that Iran is a threat to the whole world–not just to Israel.  He made that statement while speaking at a memorial service for soldiers and civilians killed in Israel’s wars and terror attacks.

The Washington Examiner reports:

“Peres added that a threat to “the peace of the Jewish people always carries the danger of turning into a threat to the civilized world as a whole.”

David Aikman, former journalist for TIME magazine, is quoted as saying that Jewish communities everywhere in the world have often been known as the ‘canary in the coal mine.’  The way a government behaves toward Jews is the first sign of how it intends to treat all the people under its control.  We need to keep this thought in mind as we watch the nations of the world deal with the threat of Iran going nuclear.  Israel is not the only nation at risk, and if we ignore the risk to the entire world, we do so at our own peril.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported yesterday that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned that the United States does not have a policy in place for dealing with Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.  This may be one of the reasons that Iran was not discussed in President Obama’s recent nuclear summit–the Administration has no answer on how to deal with the problem.

The obvious answer to Iran becoming a nuclear power is to support the people who want to overthrow the current regime in Iran.  That would most likely end the country’s progress toward nuclear weapons.  However, President Obama’s unwillingness to at least verbally support the ‘green revolution’ in the past makes this solution unlikely.  The only economic sanction that would impact Iran would be shutting off its supply of refined gasoline.  Iran has a huge supply of oil, but no refineries to speak of.  The danger in this solution is that we might alienate the people involved in the ‘green revolution’ in the process and make things more difficult in the future.  There are also doubts that other countries would join us in this effort.

There are no easy answers here, but to do nothing is to accept the fact that Iran will join the ranks of nuclear nations.  Since Iran is the worlds greatest supporter of terrorism (Hamas, Hezbollah, and sometimes Al Qaeda), that is not a reasonable solution.

Yesterday’s Washington Post reported that President Obama has extended hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners.  Although this may surprise some people reading this article, I don’t have a problem with that–as long as he extends the same rights to heterosexual partners that are not married.  I don’t support gay marriage–I feel there is a potential that if gay marriage is legal, we will trample the conscience rights of pastors who believe in the Bible.  I do think, however, that compassion requires visitation rights to people who have lived together and made a commitment to each other–gay or straight.

The problem with legalizing gay marriage is the question of what happens when a pastor who believes the Bible condemns homosexuality refuses to marry a same-sex couple.  Does he have a right of conscience to refuse to perform that marriage?  Does a photographer who believes the Biblical position on homosexuality have the right to refuse to take pictures?  Could we honor everyone’s rights by allowing civil unions and not involving the church?  I don’t claim to have the answers to these questions–I bring them up simply to make the point that this is a very complex issue, and we need to find a way to protect the rights of as many people as possible.

Boston.com is reporting today on the efforts of Massachusetts to bring down the cost of its mandated health insurance.  The companies that sell health insurance in the state are beginning to sell policies that prohibit the insured person from using the more expensive (and popular) hospitals such as Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s for their care.  It saves money for employers buying insurance for their workers, and it saves money for the individual buying insurance, but is this really a good idea?

It would be nice to lower health insurance costs, but when the law required that insurance companies had to insure everyone who applied for insurance, costs were bound to go up.  The state interference in the healthcare insurance market has totally skewed the actuary tables.  Because people can buy insurance for a period when they know they will have major medical expenses and then drop the insurance, the previous actuary numbers no longer apply.  The insurance companies are trying to stay in business with a reasonable profit margin (yes, they are entitled to make a profit), and the state (which does not necessarily understand how health insurance works) is trying to control them.

It’s time Massachusetts realized that its universal healthcare plan was not really a good idea.  Affordable insurance coverage for everyone could be achieved by easier means.  Let’s begin with tort reform, high risk insurance pools, commerce across state lines, and tax deductions to buy health insurance.  Those things might actually work.

The March 2010 issue of Imprimis ( a publication of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan) featured an article by Andrew McCarthy.  Mr. McCarthy was an Assistant U. S. Attorney in the South District of New York.  He led the terrorism prosecutiion agains Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (and others) in connection with the World Trade Center Bombing.  Because of his experience as Assistant U. S. Attorney and his involvement of the trials of the World Trade Center bombers, he understands terrorism very well.

The article deals with the concept of habeas corpus, and Mr. McCarthy explains it in terms that people like me who don’t understand legal jargon can understand.  He points out that Article I, Section 9 of the U. S. Constitution states:

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be usspended, unless whne in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

He points out that when our country is in danger, our Constitution adapts and imposes the laws and customs of war.  He also states that, “The Framers of the Constitution understood that the rights we cherish would be little more than parchment promises unless we could defend ourselves and defeat our enemies.”  Unfortunately, in recent history we have lost this principle. 

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

“The Constitution of Justice Jackson–like the Constitution of Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt–is that of a free, self-governing people. Such a people does not surrender control of the most fundamental political decisions–such as those concerning national defense–to officials who are not politically accountable. Nor should our elected officials voluntarily surrender control of those decisions. We must reject the idea of entrusting our security to judicial processes or we shall eventually find ourselves neither secure nor free.”

Please follow the above link and read the entire article.  It is very enlightening.  This article was quoted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College. 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the Democrat’s passage of the pay-go rules which require them to fund any new legislation they pass, rather than creating larger deficits.  Remember the celebrating in February when they passed the bill?  Well, since they passed it, they are 0-3 in complying with it.

Mr. Morrissey cites a Politico article in his post that states:

“The short-term unemployment benefits bill, which was headed toward final passage in the House on Thursday night, also includes the COBRA health program and a Medicare reimbursement adjustment known as the “doc fix.” The bill bypassed pay-as-you-go rules because it was designated as a temporary “emergency” spending plan.”

Mr. Morrissey points out that the Democrats will probably avoid the constraints of the pay-go rule in next year’s budget by not passing a budget.  They will fund the government at this year’s budget levels and then increase those levels after the 2010 elections either waiving pay-go or increasing taxes significantly.  Either way, the American people lose.  We need to remember as we plan for the coming year that the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010.  The expiration of those tax cuts plus the tendency of the Democrat Congress to spend our money very freely does not bode well for the economic future of America.

I haven’t yet written about President Obama’s nuclear summit because I hadn’t found an article that summed it up for me.  Well, the wait is over!  Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the Washington Post today that kind of summed up my reaction.

Mr. Krauthammer points out in his article that the two major threats to the world in the area of nuclear weaponry were ignored at the meeting.  Iran was not on the agenda; as the world’s largest supporter of terrorism and racing toward a nuclear bomb, Iran should have at least receive a mention of some kind.  The other threat that Mr. Krauthammer points out is Pakistan, a country that is friendly to us, but is rapidly increasing its plutonium production, which is adding to the world’s stockpile of fissile material every day.  The government of Pakistan is not noted for its stability, and their status as a growing nuclear power could easily constitute a future problem.

Mr. Krauthammer points out:

“So what was the major breakthrough announced by Obama at the end of the two-day conference? That Ukraine, Chile, Mexico and Canada will be getting rid of various amounts of enriched uranium.

“What a relief. I don’t know about you, but I lie awake nights worrying about Canadian uranium. I know these people. I grew up there. You have no idea what they’re capable of doing. If Sidney Crosby hadn’t scored that goal to win the Olympic gold medal, there’s no telling what might have ensued.”

The Obama nuclear summit was another example of the charade this administration has become.  There was a lot of pomp and circumstance and very little substance.  Hopefully we can replace Congress and the President soon enough to prevent any permanent damage to our country or the world. 

On April 14, the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee posted a chart of all the new taxes that have been enacted by the Obama Administration.  The chart is a pdf file that can be found at Republicans.WaysandMeansCommittee.  It details all the increased taxes passed by President Obama and Congress since he took office.  A look at the chart easily explains why the Tea Parties exist!  Many of these taxes will go unnoticed because they are placed on corporations.  Any tax placed on a corporation is generally passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for the product.  As consumers, we notice that the price of some things goes up, but we don’t necessarily understand that it is because of a federal tax.

Meanwhile, according to The Hill yesterday, the President joked at a fundraiser that the Tea Parties should be thanking him for his tax cuts.  There are an awful lot of people who just filed their tax returns yesterday who might not agree with that statement.

This is a crowd shot of the Worcester Massachusetts Tea Party.  There were approximately five thousand people there.  The number of people who are concerned with the growth of our government and the increases in the amount of taxes many Americans will be paying in the future is growing.

This is a picture from today’s Worcester Tea Party.  The coffins were marched to the podium to the sound of a bagpipe playing “Amazing Grace.”  The coffins represent the death of the American Dream, financial stability, the individual, the U. S. Constitution, free markets, and our children’s future.  The message of the Tea Party was that everyone needs to be involved in our government and that the American people need to hold their elected officials accountable for their actions.

This is the face of the Worcester Tea Party 2010.  Her shirt says, “Born in Taxachusetts.”  There were five thousand or more people in attendance.  Some of the candidates that are running in the Republican primary elections for Congress in the district that includes Worcester were there. 

The crowd included people of all ages–parents, students, children, and grandparents.  One of the speakers was a college student whose family had immigrated to this country about ten years ago.  He expressed his parents’ concern that America was moving toward the type of government they had fled in Russia.

The headline at the Newsweek website today is “Today Is The Best Tax Day Of Your LIfe.”  The article is written by Robert Samuelson, who points out that because of growing deficits, increased healthcare spending and the baby boomer generation beginning to retire and collect Social Security, the amount we pay in taxes today may be the lowest amount we pay for a long time.  According to the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, 47 per cent of American households do not pay any taxes.  Among the elderly, 55 percent pay no income tax.  Among households with children 54 percent don’t pay taxes.  Among married couples filing jointly, only 38 percent don’t pay taxes.  Until the tax burden is somehow spread evenly among the people, there will be no incentive to cut spending and reduce taxes.

The article points out:

“To which (increased federal spending and endless budget deficits) there’s at least one obvious solution: raise taxes. By all estimates, the budget outlook is daunting. The latest projections of the Congressional Budget Office reckon the cumulative deficits under President Obama’s policies to be $12.7 trillion from 2009 to 2020. In 2020 the estimated annual deficit will be $1.25 trillion, or 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product), despite assumed “full employment” of 5 percent. And the deficits get larger with every succeeding year. Given unavoidable uncertainties, these precise projections are likely to prove wrong. But their basic message seems incontestable: there’s a large and growing gap between the government’s promises and the existing tax base.”

 

Please read the entire article to see the full picture of where we are and where we are going.

Has it occurred to anyone that the answer to the problem may be to cut the size of government?  The biggest mistake America ever made was to air-condition Congress.  If it were not air conditioned, we could send them home when the weather got warm and they would be forced to live as ordinary Americans for the summer!