Tag: State of the Union address

Posted on

funny, God

Unknown

 

What if God has a sense of humor?

Well, I can’t say anything for certain, and yes, I realize it’s not very scriptural or academic — maybe not even all that mature — but what if God has a sense of humor?  I kind of like thinking of the whole big God of the universe like that…

 

What if somewhere — wherever somewhere is — he’s watching us, witnessing our successes and failures, subtly and sometimes not so subtly cheering us on… always rooting for us?  … always in our corner?  He’d be in everybody’s corner!

 

What if, too, as he observes — desiring for us to fully learn and grow and actually become mature — what if he also takes note of those areas in each of our lives where we don’t rely on him, acknowledge him, or give him any credit? … and so he masterfully and creatively allows for circumstances to exist, giving us added opportunity to rely, acknowledge, and give credit?  … giving credit to where it is due, dare I suggest?

 

Friends, I must first admit that there are many areas that I don’t fully rely, acknowledge, nor credit the God of the universe.  Too often I take too much credit.  If I were to go back in time, for instance, remembering one of my all-time favorite moments, I would share that when I won the Purdue University intramural racquetball championship, my first thought had far more to do with how good and talented I was — than acknowledging the One who made me good and talented.  We like to think we’re so good, smart, and talented, and that thinking often obstructs the opportunity to know and rely on God.

 

So what if he has a sense of humor?  And what if he uses that to teach us?

What if?

 

Again Tuesday night, the climate change debate arose.  Actually, let me change that.  There was no debate.  In fact, the President’s exact words were:  “The debate is settled.  Climate change is a fact.”

 

I get that lots of scientists believe man is responsible for a perceived trend that the Earth is warming.  I get that many members of the Democrat Party wholeheartedly also believe the trend (note:  not all; Sen. Joe Manchin [D-WVa] did not join in with his likeminded peers’ prompted applause).  I also get that a lot of people believe the trend solely because the Democrats sans Manchin & co. declare it as truth.  I get, too, that still more refuse to believe it solely because of those who declare it as truth.

 

Let me again share:  I don’t know if global warming/climate change/next-most-convenient term is true or not.  I don’t know.  I’m not a rocket scientist.  And last I heard, Pres. Obama was not one either.  My point, though, today speaks not to the arguable hubris of declaring the debate over, but rather:  where is God in the discussion?  Where is the reliance, acknowledgement, and credit to the God of the universe?  If we are having a conversation about the planet’s possible warming, shouldn’t we submit ourselves to the One who actually created the planet?  … the One who obviously would know far more than the rest of us?  Friends, I have said this repeatedly.  No conversation about whether the world is warming or not can be had without God as part of the discussion.  What do the ancient scriptures say?  … about the Earth?  … about our need to care for the Earth?  … and about any future end?

 

For those who believe solidly in climate change (and may actually be rocket scientists), they contend the Earth has warmed approximately 1.53°F in the last 130 years; they don’t have tons of data prior to 1880.  Yet here with the Earth warming, the United States has experienced an unprecedented, freezing cold winter; it’s snowing in New Orleans!

Doesn’t God have a sense of humor?!

 

I mean no disrespect.  I don’t know if climate change is real.  What I do believe is that God masterfully and creatively allows for circumstances to exist, giving us added opportunity to rely, acknowledge, and give credit to him.  When we omit him from the debate, maybe he gets our attention by allowing snow in New Orleans.

Just maybe.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

state of the government

sky and columns of supreme court building in washington d.c.

Today marks our 5th annual State of the Government address.  In our initial analysis, we made the following primary observations:

The State of the Government is too partisan.

The State of the Government is too influenced by money.

The State of the Government is too big.

The State of the Government is financially imbalanced.

The State of the Government is too far removed from the Constitution.

 

Allow me first a few brief notes on each state…

 

Government is too partisan.  So first just the facts…  House Republicans stymie the President’s major policy initiatives; Senate Democrats stymie the Republicans; the President utilizes Executive Orders to bypass Congress; and each of them complain about the other.  So which came first:  the House Republicans, Senate Democrats, the President, the chicken, or the egg?  The point is that each always blames their partisan behavior on someone else.

 

Government is too influenced by money.  Again, people blame someone else or a single judicial decision for this issue, focusing on the speck in another while ignoring the log in their own eye.  Based on objective research, it’s my conclusion that the moral digression due to money increased exponentially during the Carter administration, when lobbyist restrictions were significantly eased.

 

Government is too big.  Let’s make this metaphorically simple.  Who watches their pennies more:  a small business on a tight budget or a massive business with no budget?  In 2014 the federal government is expected to spend near $4 trillion — and they have no budget holding them accountable.  There is no way all those pennies are being spent efficiently… or probably, even counted.

 

Government is financially imbalanced.  Whether monies are spent on war, Obamacare, or wars on Obamacare, the government continues to make no attempt to balance their budget.  Any entity with this much deficit spending this long with no repayment plan would cease to exist.  However, the elect keep kicking the financial can down the road paved by future generations.

 

Government is too far removed from the Constitution.  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  Our founders desired a country that would be just, internally peaceful, and externally protected.  Too many today, though, feel omnisciently justified dictating exactly how all should prosper, how our tranquility is insured, and what a union that’s perfect should be.

 

So where do we start?  Where do we go in order to truly, respectfully find solution for a government that’s broken?  Is it by the President enacting more Executive Orders, as some say he will pledge tonight?  Or does that only make government more partisan, “more big,” and “more-you-get-my-point”?  In an interactive November series, Intramuralist readers affirmed that solution begins with the following:  term limits and money limits… limits!  And next — and always — our leaders must embrace respect… for us… for one another… for varied opinion… in public and private… in all interactions… cameras on or off.

 

These past 5 years, the Intramuralist has concluded that while the State of the Government has digressed over several decades, until we responsibly address partisanship, special interests, size, spending, and straying from the Constitution, we will be challenged to admit the Union is strong.  I don’t believe our Union is permanently broken.  I do believe, though, that ordinary people need to be more involved.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

Obama’s equality

Stack Of Cash

Let’s be frank.  As I’ve said from the onset of the Intramuralist, no one need to agree with me.  Really.  I’m comfortable enough in my own skin to omit my opinions… and to admit that some of them may be wrong.  I also may not know which ones are wrong.  Guess what?  Some of yours are wrong, too…. and you may or may not know it.  That said, we must still trod through all discussion and debate respectfully; such is key to solution.

 

My right-or-wrong opinion shared this day concerns the upcoming policy push by Pres. Obama.  You can expect it to be hammered home in this week’s State of the Union address.  Friends, allow me to play most all my cards on the table…  when Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ran for president in 2008, there was much about him and his charisma that excited me.  He was/is no doubt brilliant and incredibly gifted. Privately, I admiringly called him “Barackstar.”  But the chief concern I expressed when he initially ran for office was his lack of economic experience.

 

In all honesty, I care less about the party a person hails from than their background and experience.  The fact that then Sen. Obama had little economic experience concerned me greatly.  I desire a president who is first and foremost ethically above question — and then has proven experience working with diverse people groups and running a multi-million/billion dollar state/operation.  The U.S. economy is a 16 plus trillion dollar operation; it’s important to me that our leader has some experience with such.  Pres. Obama, oratorically attractive as he was, did not have such experience.

 

Economists can gather and respectfully debate how such has affected his policy advocacy thus far.  That is not the point of today’s blog.  The point is that in 2 days, on Tuesday, Pres. Obama is going to stress “income equality.”  In his annual State of the Union address, he is going to make the point for all the world to see (or at least for the United States) that wealth among American households is unequally distributed — and that the federal government has the responsibility to redistribute that wealth, in a way for all intents and purposes, that’s arguably fairer to all.

 

Great.  That makes many of us feel good.  Here’s my question:  feel good or not, does it make economic sense?

 

Please hear me on this.  Feeling good about a specific policy means less than whether or not the policy makes sense.  Say what you want.  Say what you want to energize the people.  But if the policy does not make sense, it matters not how we feel.  If the policy is not economically logical, then the policy should not be advocated for — and cannot be economically sustained.

 

This is not a criticism of Pres. Obama.  He is a fantastic politician who is oratorically gifted, but again, he has little economic experience.  Liking the President, wanting to support him and his policy initiatives, speaks nothing to the credence of whether or not his initiatives are economically sustainable, good, and true.

 

Hence, it doesn’t matter how we feel.  Economically, we cannot extract wealth from the wealthy, redistribute to the un-wealthy, and then make the un-wealthy somehow prosperous.  It does not make economic sense.

 

Such then prompts me to investigate the President’s motives.  I do not know what his motives are.  I will say that again:  I don’t know — we don’t know — none of us truly know — what the President’s motives are.  But I do know that with Obamacare escalating in unpopularity, there is motive to remove the national focus off of that subject.  Let’s get the focus onto something more popular… something the people can support… income equality… yes… it’s unfair!  Let’s distribute wealth more fairly!

 

Great emotional argument, my friends.  The wiser challenge is whether it makes sense.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

state of the government

Today marks our 4th annual State of the Government address.  In our initial analysis, we made the following primary observations:

 

The State of the Government is too partisan.

The State of the Government is too influenced by money.

The State of the Government is too big.

The State of the Government is financially imbalanced.

The State of the Government is too far removed from the Constitution.

 

The following conclusion has also been expressed these past 4 years:  “The State of the Government has digressed over several decades, and until we responsibly address partisanship, special interests, size, spending, and straying from the Constitution, we will be challenged to admit even the Union is strong.”  My strong sense is the above is still true; the question is what can we do.

 

Government is too partisan.  Pre-speech analysis from multiple, varied sources suggest that Pres. Obama’s speech will be aggressively progressive this evening.  As Politico states, the President will “pay lip service to bipartisanship, but don’t expect anything like the call for peaceful collaboration that defined his first address to a joint session of Congress in 2009.”  Is the partisanship right?  Is it wrong?  Let me not answer the question; let me only ask another:  does this approach help?  Rightly or wrongly, during both the Obama and most recent Bush administration, the partisan divide has only gotten bigger.  If persons within either party or the media have intentionally drummed up partisan passion in order to propel one side of the divide, then they have done an ethical disservice to our country.

 

Government is too influenced by money.  Sticks and stones seem to fly on this issue, with people blaming one person or party or a singular judicial decision.  Based on objective research, it’s my conclusion that the moral digression due to money increased exponentially during the Carter administration, when lobbyist restrictions were significantly eased.  Until lobbyist monies are again restricted, the purity of our democratic process will continue to be obscured.

 

Government is too big.  Let me make this is as simple as possible.  Who watches their pennies more:  a small business on a tight budget… or a massive conglomerate with no budget?  The nonpartisan CBO projects the cost of the federal government to be $47.2 trillion over the next 10 years.  That’s an annual growth rate of approximately 6.7%, trouncing the growth of the private sector.  In a government that was created for the people and by the people, it was never intended to do all things for all people.  There is no way $47.2 trillion is being spent effectively.  And there is no way all those pennies are being counted.

 

Government is financially imbalanced.  Whether monies are spent on war or domestic programs, the government continues to spend.  They don’t balance their budget; they don’t even have a budget.  No business entity that attempts to operate with continued deficit spending for this long with zero plan to pay it back would be allowed to exist.  The elect continue to simply kick the plan for balanced spending down the road.  Is it because, as some say, in this economic state, we can’t do that right now?  Or, as I believe, do they avoid cutting spending in the sake of political expediency?  Let’s balance the budget.  Let’s make a plan.  Let’s stick to it… like every other wise, existing household in this country.

 

Government is too far removed from the Constitution.  Far too many are far too comfortable believing contemporary opinion trumps foundational truth.  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  The above Preamble was written to inspire an improved government (improved from that which was established via the Articles of Confederation).  Our founders desired a country that would be just, internally peaceful, and externally protected.  They desired our citizens would be blessed and free.  Too many today justify legislation that dictates exactly how people should prosper, how tranquility is insured, and what (in their opinion) is a more perfect union.

 

As said previously amidst these posts, far be it from the Intramuralist to suggest that the State of the Government is the sole fault of the current congress and administration.  But far be it from the current congress and administration to suggest it is the sole fault of their predecessors.  The reality is still true that the State of the Government has digressed over several decades, and yes, until we responsibly address partisanship, special interests, size, spending, and straying from the Constitution, we will be challenged to admit the Union is strong.

 

Respectfully,

AR