At the risk of being a reactionary, can we please stop overreacting to tragic events?
At the time of this writing, the horrific shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and nearly 20 others in Tucson, AZ, is barely 24 hours old. And this columnist is as concerned about these kinds of senseless killings as the next person. Moreover, my sympathy and condolences go out to everyone injured and killed in Tucson.
But, at the same time, it never ceases to amaze me how Americans have a penchant for quickly reacting to these events, leaping to wild and unsubstantiated conclusions, and suggesting knee-jerk remedies. In the case of the Tucson shooting, immediately some people tried to pin the rampage on the Tea Party Movement, or at a minimum, suggested that conservative rhetoric somehow caused the shooter to commit this crime.
For the record, the shooter has no ties with the Tea Party Movement. However, the speed with which some pundits tried to draw that correlation is at least as dangerous as any language used by conservatives and Tea Partiers.
My point is this. Why do Americans have this fixation on finding someone or something to blame for every tragic event? And worse yet, why do we often implement a solution to a perceived problem that is at times worse than the originating event?
Take the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill. A horrible accident, but rather than accept that, the U.S. Government immediately started seeking someone to blame instead of cleaning up the mess. The Attorney General launched an investigation and promised to prosecute the law breakers, as if poor judgment is the same as willfully breaking the law. Deep water oil and gas exploration was stopped even though the U.S. needs the oil and we have the best safety and environmental record of any nation in the world. Oil has been seeping naturally into oceans for eons at volumes far greater than man-caused spills or leaks. Nonetheless, we overreacted to the Deepwater Horizon spill resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of good-paying jobs, increased cost of energy for all Americans, billions of dollars of decreased revenues to the U.S. Treasury, and equipment and exploration operation taken to riskier places in the world perhaps resulting in greater threats to the environment.
Take the gross overreaction to the marginal science that suggests human-caused carbon dioxide emissions may cause catastrophic global warming. One reaction was to create tax incentives for hybrid cars that rely heavily upon batteries that use lead and sulfuric acid. Did anyone ever stop to think about where lead comes from or what sulfuric acid spilled in a car wreck might do to the environment? And what happens to the old batteries when a hybrid quits running? There are very few places to dispose of old batteries because most facilities have been shut down in an overreaction to a few bad apples who did not handle battery waste properly.
Another equally wrong-headed response to global-warming fear mongering was to encourage more corn be used for ethanol fuel production. Notwithstanding the fact that corn uses more energy than it creates, this policy diverts corn from the food production chain. Less food means higher costs and more poverty. Poverty is the single greatest threat to the global environment. Just take a look at the environmental damage occurring in third-world countries. Progress and prosperity will be the only way we work through whatever environmental problems may exist in this planet we call home.
Next time there is a plane crash watch the new media flock to cover the story and spend days analyzing what went wrong or searching for someone to blame. Americans react to this news coverage. Every time an airplane crashes—despite the fact that air travel is statistically one of the safest modes of travel—Americans respond by flying less and driving more. Yet, your chances of dying in an automobile are about 24 times greater than the likelihood of dying in a plane crash!
It is not just the news media that overreacts to tragic events. There are those ambulance-chasing lawyers who never saw an accident that did not represent an opportunity. The anecdotal stories are endless. You have heard about the law suits and huge awards against service providers and manufacturers over things like hot coffee spilled in a lap or limbs cut off because someone tried to trim the hedge with a lawnmower. Please, must I suffer through yet another safety device that makes my tools harder to use and more expensive just because some idiot pulled a stupid stunt?
Everyone is talking about the new TSA procedures of groping and fondling people in a feckless effort to decrease terrorism on airplanes. I believe that terrorists long ago figured out that using airplanes as weapons is too hard. Now they are more likely looking at train stations, subways, and other places where a lot of people gather and the security is less rigorous. Yet, here we go again, overreacting instead of being forward thinking and proactive.
Americans tend to focus on “What” and “Where” of the tragedy instead of the “Why.” And sometimes the “Why” just defies explanation. Other times, the “Why” does not matter because nobody could have foreseen the event, or nothing could have prevented it. Whether a terrorist, or a crazed killer, uses an airplane, bomb, car, gun, or a pocket knife matters much less than the fact that in a free society we have to accept a certain level of risk. Out West there is a saying, “I’ll live ‘til I die, unless a tree falls on me.”
You can bet your boots that the Tucson shooting will once again invigorate the gun-control zealots. However, the reality is that guns are no more the cause of murders than pencils and pens are the reason for hate mail or books led Hitler to perpetrate the worst hate crime in history.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." It seems to me that every time we overreact, another liberty is sacrificed at the alter security. Let us mourn for the victims; care for the survivors; find, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators; but let’s avoid the temptation to overreact and apply more cures that are worse than the problems.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
No More Resolutions, Please
On this New Year’s Eve, I am sure many of you are making resolutions for 2011. Some are resolving to exercise more and lose weight—a perennial resolution after the bounty of the Christmas Season. Others are resolving to do things such as pay down debt, save more money, or start retirement planning.
Whatever your resolution is this year, I am sure it is well intended and honorable, but the odds are overwhelming that by the second week of January your resolution will have devolved to disillusion. It happens every year to millions of Americans. In fact, there is a cottage industry dedicated to helping you set your sights lower and providing advice on how to do better at sticking to your resolutions.
My advice is to resolve to make no resolutions. Don’t make promises you can’t or won’t keep. Jesus cautioned us to not swear by any oaths, but rather, “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’.” Good advice.
Many people are optimistic for 2011, because they believe the 112th Congress with a new Republican majority in the House and the Senate will resolve to balance the budget, end earmarks, shift the U.S. economic policy back toward free enterprise, and restore integrity to a Federal government. My advice at the national level is the same as my personal advice—don’t expect a whole lot of change. It is not that I don’t think change is necessary; it’s just that change is difficult. If it is hard for us to keep our personal resolutions after two weeks, how can we realistically expect dramatic change in an institution that, despite having a new Republican majority, is about 85% unchanged?
More to the point, our Constitution has built in dampers on radical change through a system of checks and balances. Gridlock is alive and well and the current Democrat in the White House has the same policy agenda even if Congress wants to go in a different direction. And then you have the steady hand on the tiller—a Supreme Court that rarely experiences any significant shift in ideology.
George Washington, at the Constitutional Convention, argued for a stronger Executive Branch and more power for the President, but the rest of the Founding Fathers, still feeling the sting of a dominant King George and the English monarchy, opted to vest more power in the Congress. Their belief was that the Legislative Branch, especially the House of Representatives with two-year terms of office, would be closer to the populace and better represent the will of the people.
Even if they believed the Legislative Branch would better represent the people, the Founding Fathers were not naïve about the trappings of powers and how the potential for greed and corruption was always a potential stumbling stone for our democracy. Not wanting any branch of government to dominate, they built in enough flexibility in the Constitution and some Presidents have exerted greater powers of the Executive Branch.
Historically, we have seen shifts between Congress and the President in the balance of power in the United States. Abraham Lincoln used Executive privilege to enact many of his anti-slavery policies and to prosecute the Civil War. So much so, that after his assassination, Congress reacted by putting a stranglehold on Andrew Johnson’s Presidency. That Congress even went so far as to impeach Johnson for charges that basically amounted to nothing more than daring to disagree with Congress. Fortunately, for the republic, the Senate failed to convict Johnson and we continue to have vigorous and healthy disagreements between Presidents and Congress.
Theodore Roosevelt used the bully pulpit to ram his policies through Congress and sometimes by Executive Order. Woodrow Wilson engaged the United States in World War I largely by Executive Power, a move that cost him dearly when he tried to get Congress to approve his life-long dream of establishing the League of Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt took a note from his cousin’s playbook to implement some of the most sweeping legislative policies in history. Kennedy, and later Johnson, used the Executive Power as Commander in Chief to engage the U.S. in an undeclared war in Viet Nam. This led Congress to enact the War Powers Act and severely limit the President’s power to wage war.
Currently, we live in a time of unheard of Congressional power. There is virtually no matter that Congress does not deem itself fit to investigate or regulate. While budget deficits grow, Congress has annually failed to enact appropriation bills for the Federal government for nearly four years in a row. Instead they punt by passing Continuing Resolutions. Yet, Congress somehow finds the time to hold hearings on issues such as steroid use in baseball, or to castigate industry leaders for their policies because they don’t run their business the way Congress thinks they should.
In recent years, Congress has developed legislative gimmickry such as earmarks, or continuing resolutions, or pieces of legislation so large that only the dedicated few ever read them before they are passed. The current state of legislating in the United States is such that it is nearly impossible to hold a Member of Congress accountable for their vote and this is by design. Acts of Congress are like ornament-laden Christmas trees; there are so many babbles and bells that you are bound to like some of them. If you listen to campaign rhetoric, it is difficult to tell who is good and who is bad. There is always some vote that can be used to portray a candidate in a certain light, either good and bad.
And, what about Congressional Resolutions? Congress annually passes hundreds of resolutions, most of them non-binding. Many of these resolutions are of less consequence than you resolving to exercise more and lose weight in 2011. Congress recognizes things such 50th wedding anniversaries, community leaders, local heroes, and a variety of people groups—all good stuff and no doubt these people have done something special. But, if Congress cannot find time to pass the appropriations bills, a responsibility prescribed in the Constitution, do they have any business passing resolutions just so they can get their constituent’s name in the Congressional Record?
As for me and my hopes for 2011, I would like Congress to stop adopting meaningless resolutions and get on with the business of governing this nation.
Whatever your resolution is this year, I am sure it is well intended and honorable, but the odds are overwhelming that by the second week of January your resolution will have devolved to disillusion. It happens every year to millions of Americans. In fact, there is a cottage industry dedicated to helping you set your sights lower and providing advice on how to do better at sticking to your resolutions.
My advice is to resolve to make no resolutions. Don’t make promises you can’t or won’t keep. Jesus cautioned us to not swear by any oaths, but rather, “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’.” Good advice.
Many people are optimistic for 2011, because they believe the 112th Congress with a new Republican majority in the House and the Senate will resolve to balance the budget, end earmarks, shift the U.S. economic policy back toward free enterprise, and restore integrity to a Federal government. My advice at the national level is the same as my personal advice—don’t expect a whole lot of change. It is not that I don’t think change is necessary; it’s just that change is difficult. If it is hard for us to keep our personal resolutions after two weeks, how can we realistically expect dramatic change in an institution that, despite having a new Republican majority, is about 85% unchanged?
More to the point, our Constitution has built in dampers on radical change through a system of checks and balances. Gridlock is alive and well and the current Democrat in the White House has the same policy agenda even if Congress wants to go in a different direction. And then you have the steady hand on the tiller—a Supreme Court that rarely experiences any significant shift in ideology.
George Washington, at the Constitutional Convention, argued for a stronger Executive Branch and more power for the President, but the rest of the Founding Fathers, still feeling the sting of a dominant King George and the English monarchy, opted to vest more power in the Congress. Their belief was that the Legislative Branch, especially the House of Representatives with two-year terms of office, would be closer to the populace and better represent the will of the people.
Even if they believed the Legislative Branch would better represent the people, the Founding Fathers were not naïve about the trappings of powers and how the potential for greed and corruption was always a potential stumbling stone for our democracy. Not wanting any branch of government to dominate, they built in enough flexibility in the Constitution and some Presidents have exerted greater powers of the Executive Branch.
Historically, we have seen shifts between Congress and the President in the balance of power in the United States. Abraham Lincoln used Executive privilege to enact many of his anti-slavery policies and to prosecute the Civil War. So much so, that after his assassination, Congress reacted by putting a stranglehold on Andrew Johnson’s Presidency. That Congress even went so far as to impeach Johnson for charges that basically amounted to nothing more than daring to disagree with Congress. Fortunately, for the republic, the Senate failed to convict Johnson and we continue to have vigorous and healthy disagreements between Presidents and Congress.
Theodore Roosevelt used the bully pulpit to ram his policies through Congress and sometimes by Executive Order. Woodrow Wilson engaged the United States in World War I largely by Executive Power, a move that cost him dearly when he tried to get Congress to approve his life-long dream of establishing the League of Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt took a note from his cousin’s playbook to implement some of the most sweeping legislative policies in history. Kennedy, and later Johnson, used the Executive Power as Commander in Chief to engage the U.S. in an undeclared war in Viet Nam. This led Congress to enact the War Powers Act and severely limit the President’s power to wage war.
Currently, we live in a time of unheard of Congressional power. There is virtually no matter that Congress does not deem itself fit to investigate or regulate. While budget deficits grow, Congress has annually failed to enact appropriation bills for the Federal government for nearly four years in a row. Instead they punt by passing Continuing Resolutions. Yet, Congress somehow finds the time to hold hearings on issues such as steroid use in baseball, or to castigate industry leaders for their policies because they don’t run their business the way Congress thinks they should.
In recent years, Congress has developed legislative gimmickry such as earmarks, or continuing resolutions, or pieces of legislation so large that only the dedicated few ever read them before they are passed. The current state of legislating in the United States is such that it is nearly impossible to hold a Member of Congress accountable for their vote and this is by design. Acts of Congress are like ornament-laden Christmas trees; there are so many babbles and bells that you are bound to like some of them. If you listen to campaign rhetoric, it is difficult to tell who is good and who is bad. There is always some vote that can be used to portray a candidate in a certain light, either good and bad.
And, what about Congressional Resolutions? Congress annually passes hundreds of resolutions, most of them non-binding. Many of these resolutions are of less consequence than you resolving to exercise more and lose weight in 2011. Congress recognizes things such 50th wedding anniversaries, community leaders, local heroes, and a variety of people groups—all good stuff and no doubt these people have done something special. But, if Congress cannot find time to pass the appropriations bills, a responsibility prescribed in the Constitution, do they have any business passing resolutions just so they can get their constituent’s name in the Congressional Record?
As for me and my hopes for 2011, I would like Congress to stop adopting meaningless resolutions and get on with the business of governing this nation.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The Disinformation Age
The Information Age—we are told that we live during a time when information is power and that our access to information is unfettered thanks largely to spectacularly advances in technology.
There is no doubt in my mind that the breadth and depth of our access to information is not only virtually immeasurable today, it continues to grow at an exponential rate. Computers are certainly at the center of this information boom, but smart phone technology now puts all this information at our fingertips 24/7 nearly any place on the planet.
I am a self-admitted technology junky. I was dubbed the Alpha Geek when I ran the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce. It was the same year “Alpha Geek” came in second place to “Soccer Mom” for the best new term of the year. When I went on to be a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of the Interior in Washington, DC, I soon found I was inducted as the Chair of the newly formed E-Government Team. I was one of the first to ditch my Franklin Day Planner for a Palm Pilot. And when the Blackberry came out, I was the living embodiment of a CrackBerry head.
There is a certain sense of exhilaration when you can settle the argument over who wrote a song while zooming around the Capital Beltway at 70 mph. Together with the adrenaline rush of circumnavigating Washington, DC, in a car, the combined events can pump more endorphins than running the Boston Marathon.
But, just like the Capital Beltway, the Information Super Highway is subject to traffic jams; accidents; poor signage; unskilled, aggressive, and passive-aggressive drivers; vandalism; law breakers; hoodlums; and thieves. Yes, at times, the Information Super Highway seems to carry as much junk and disinformation as it does valuable goods and services. At the risk of being politically incorrect, dare I say that taking the wrong off ramp on the information highway can be almost as dangerous as making a wrong turn in Southeast Washington, DC.
You see, the problem with the internet is the same thing that makes it so wonderful—it is cheap, unbridled, uninhibited, uncensored, accessible, unaccountable, and run by highly opinionated people. In short, for every true fact found on the internet, there seems to be at least as many distortions or down right untruths presented. And the opinions expressed, oh my. I have heard it said that opinions are like posteriors, everyone has one; but, on the internet two or three seems to be more the norm. I am reminded of what Dick Cheney once said, “You have the right to free speech, but that does not make you right.” Or, as Al Simpson often said, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.” If ever there was a time for people to exercise discernment and even skepticism in what they read, it is now.
I cannot count the times that someone has forwarded an email to me that was so glaring in its distortions that I felt compelled to correct the Sender even at the risk of offending them. The problem is that it is so easy to Forward an email to your group of friends that we do it without ever thinking that what we are Forwarding may be wrong.
I know there are fact checking websites out there such as FactCheck.org and Snopes.com, but it seems even those sites have their own agenda and are not always as objective as they lead you to believe.
The problem seems to have its origins in an age old phenomena—if you see it in print, it must be true. I don’t know when or why this became part of the information-processing norm, but I can tell you that if people read it they believe it is true and that is scary. What makes it worse is a new journalistic ploy of making an outlandish and unsubstantiated statement in an opinion piece for the editorial page. Opinion pieces are not held to the same journalistic standard as regular news stories. The danger is that often times op-eds are quoted in subsequent news stories where the reader assumes the reporter has done their due diligence and fact checked their story.
I have personally been the victim of this new kind of character-assassination journalism when the New York Times published a lead editorial impugning my work and character based on mistruths and distortions put out by an environmental group. In the end, these lies were reprinted nearly 300 times in newspaper stories across the country. Google Paul Hoffman and the Department of the Interior and you will find many disparaging stories about me. They are not true, but they are “in print” nonetheless. And it is amazing how many people who do not know you or your work will believe the worst about you because they read it in print or on the internet.
Unfortunately, these kinds of disinformation stories gain traction in the eyes of the reading public because reporters do not take the time to verify their information or contact the victim of the story to hear their side. There is an old saying that says, “Bad news travels at the speed of light; good news is lucky to get up to the speed of sound.” Unsubstantiated and misinformed emails can go around the world in seconds. And if seeing it in print makes it true, then seeing three or four times in your Inbox must mean it is accurate. As unfortunate as that is, it is real and that is why in the Information Age it is more important than ever that you be appropriately skeptical and take the time yourself to learn the rest of the story. Before you hit the Forward button on your email program, ask yourself, “Do I know this to be true?” If you can’t answer that in the affirmative, then the Biblical advice will serve you well, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”
There is no doubt in my mind that the breadth and depth of our access to information is not only virtually immeasurable today, it continues to grow at an exponential rate. Computers are certainly at the center of this information boom, but smart phone technology now puts all this information at our fingertips 24/7 nearly any place on the planet.
I am a self-admitted technology junky. I was dubbed the Alpha Geek when I ran the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce. It was the same year “Alpha Geek” came in second place to “Soccer Mom” for the best new term of the year. When I went on to be a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of the Interior in Washington, DC, I soon found I was inducted as the Chair of the newly formed E-Government Team. I was one of the first to ditch my Franklin Day Planner for a Palm Pilot. And when the Blackberry came out, I was the living embodiment of a CrackBerry head.
There is a certain sense of exhilaration when you can settle the argument over who wrote a song while zooming around the Capital Beltway at 70 mph. Together with the adrenaline rush of circumnavigating Washington, DC, in a car, the combined events can pump more endorphins than running the Boston Marathon.
But, just like the Capital Beltway, the Information Super Highway is subject to traffic jams; accidents; poor signage; unskilled, aggressive, and passive-aggressive drivers; vandalism; law breakers; hoodlums; and thieves. Yes, at times, the Information Super Highway seems to carry as much junk and disinformation as it does valuable goods and services. At the risk of being politically incorrect, dare I say that taking the wrong off ramp on the information highway can be almost as dangerous as making a wrong turn in Southeast Washington, DC.
You see, the problem with the internet is the same thing that makes it so wonderful—it is cheap, unbridled, uninhibited, uncensored, accessible, unaccountable, and run by highly opinionated people. In short, for every true fact found on the internet, there seems to be at least as many distortions or down right untruths presented. And the opinions expressed, oh my. I have heard it said that opinions are like posteriors, everyone has one; but, on the internet two or three seems to be more the norm. I am reminded of what Dick Cheney once said, “You have the right to free speech, but that does not make you right.” Or, as Al Simpson often said, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.” If ever there was a time for people to exercise discernment and even skepticism in what they read, it is now.
I cannot count the times that someone has forwarded an email to me that was so glaring in its distortions that I felt compelled to correct the Sender even at the risk of offending them. The problem is that it is so easy to Forward an email to your group of friends that we do it without ever thinking that what we are Forwarding may be wrong.
I know there are fact checking websites out there such as FactCheck.org and Snopes.com, but it seems even those sites have their own agenda and are not always as objective as they lead you to believe.
The problem seems to have its origins in an age old phenomena—if you see it in print, it must be true. I don’t know when or why this became part of the information-processing norm, but I can tell you that if people read it they believe it is true and that is scary. What makes it worse is a new journalistic ploy of making an outlandish and unsubstantiated statement in an opinion piece for the editorial page. Opinion pieces are not held to the same journalistic standard as regular news stories. The danger is that often times op-eds are quoted in subsequent news stories where the reader assumes the reporter has done their due diligence and fact checked their story.
I have personally been the victim of this new kind of character-assassination journalism when the New York Times published a lead editorial impugning my work and character based on mistruths and distortions put out by an environmental group. In the end, these lies were reprinted nearly 300 times in newspaper stories across the country. Google Paul Hoffman and the Department of the Interior and you will find many disparaging stories about me. They are not true, but they are “in print” nonetheless. And it is amazing how many people who do not know you or your work will believe the worst about you because they read it in print or on the internet.
Unfortunately, these kinds of disinformation stories gain traction in the eyes of the reading public because reporters do not take the time to verify their information or contact the victim of the story to hear their side. There is an old saying that says, “Bad news travels at the speed of light; good news is lucky to get up to the speed of sound.” Unsubstantiated and misinformed emails can go around the world in seconds. And if seeing it in print makes it true, then seeing three or four times in your Inbox must mean it is accurate. As unfortunate as that is, it is real and that is why in the Information Age it is more important than ever that you be appropriately skeptical and take the time yourself to learn the rest of the story. Before you hit the Forward button on your email program, ask yourself, “Do I know this to be true?” If you can’t answer that in the affirmative, then the Biblical advice will serve you well, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Thanksgiving--the Forgotten Holiday
As I write this column, it is Thanksgiving Day 2010, but you would not know that if you drove through any downtown, listened to the radio, or watched television. Thanksgiving has become the forgotten holiday. The quintessential American holiday has become subservient to Halloween followed by an immediate transition to Christmas. In my view, this is a shame because despite the recession, regardless of your negative opinions about politics in America, and notwithstanding the unstable state of the world, we have much to be thankful for here in America.
The problem, it seems, is that the retail sector has not found a way to significantly market Thanksgiving. Store shelves can be stocked with Halloween decorations, costumes, and candy and those same shelves are quickly converted to Christmas merchandise. In an effort to maximize potential sales, the Christmas shopping season now begins before Thanksgiving. Even if the buying doesn’t start early, the advertising and buzz for Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, and Cyber Monday begin long before Thanksgiving.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of capitalism, free enterprise, and merchandizing. For decades, the United State’s economy has been largely consumer driven. Jobs and livelihoods are riding on a good Christmas season. I am all for it. I hope everyone makes a million bucks.
But, let us not forget to take time at least once a year on Thanksgiving to give thanks. To reflect on the bounty, blessings, liberties, and inalienable rights that God has bestowed upon us, the residents of the greatest nation on earth. Let us take the time to give thanks to all those soldiers, veterans, law enforcement personnel, and emergency workers, who put their lives on the line for our safety and to secure the blessings we enjoy.
Perhaps it would even behoove us to reflect back on the values expressed by Congress and the first President of the United States when Thanksgiving was established by proclamation back in 1789 as the original American holiday.
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and
Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness":
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we many then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have enabled do establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, AD 1789
- George Washington
I believe those words are more than enough to remind us why we should never forget to stop from time to time and give thanks. And not just thanks for all that we have or are, but thanks to the one true God—the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is within them. We should not relegate Thanksgiving to just another day off, or a football tradition, or a celebration of food, or the kickoff for the naked consumerism of Christmas. In fact, as we pause just once a year to give thanks, perhaps as a nation, we should consider taking God off the shelf, recognize and honor our Christian heritage, and give thanks to and bless the Almighty God whom our forefathers freely acknowledged and unabashedly credited for their blessings and rights.
As the Bob Dylan song goes, “But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed; You’re gonna have to serve somebody; Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord; But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.”
Even more to the point, consider what Joshua said to the Israelites as they entered the Promised Land, “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
The problem, it seems, is that the retail sector has not found a way to significantly market Thanksgiving. Store shelves can be stocked with Halloween decorations, costumes, and candy and those same shelves are quickly converted to Christmas merchandise. In an effort to maximize potential sales, the Christmas shopping season now begins before Thanksgiving. Even if the buying doesn’t start early, the advertising and buzz for Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, and Cyber Monday begin long before Thanksgiving.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of capitalism, free enterprise, and merchandizing. For decades, the United State’s economy has been largely consumer driven. Jobs and livelihoods are riding on a good Christmas season. I am all for it. I hope everyone makes a million bucks.
But, let us not forget to take time at least once a year on Thanksgiving to give thanks. To reflect on the bounty, blessings, liberties, and inalienable rights that God has bestowed upon us, the residents of the greatest nation on earth. Let us take the time to give thanks to all those soldiers, veterans, law enforcement personnel, and emergency workers, who put their lives on the line for our safety and to secure the blessings we enjoy.
Perhaps it would even behoove us to reflect back on the values expressed by Congress and the first President of the United States when Thanksgiving was established by proclamation back in 1789 as the original American holiday.
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and
Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness":
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we many then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have enabled do establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, AD 1789
- George Washington
I believe those words are more than enough to remind us why we should never forget to stop from time to time and give thanks. And not just thanks for all that we have or are, but thanks to the one true God—the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is within them. We should not relegate Thanksgiving to just another day off, or a football tradition, or a celebration of food, or the kickoff for the naked consumerism of Christmas. In fact, as we pause just once a year to give thanks, perhaps as a nation, we should consider taking God off the shelf, recognize and honor our Christian heritage, and give thanks to and bless the Almighty God whom our forefathers freely acknowledged and unabashedly credited for their blessings and rights.
As the Bob Dylan song goes, “But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed; You’re gonna have to serve somebody; Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord; But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.”
Even more to the point, consider what Joshua said to the Israelites as they entered the Promised Land, “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
Friday, November 19, 2010
Change
Change! It’s everywhere. It’s rapid. It’s huge. It can be overwhelming. Some say the only constant in life is change. Resistance is futile. Build a bridge and get over it.
But, is all change good? A friend of mine, who also was my computer tech, often said, “Progress is not always progress.” It is legitimate to ask if computers have really saved us any time? Or, has the paperless society really resulted in less paper being consumed? In fact, it is appropriate for us to weigh the pros and cons of any change—to ask the tough questions.
And how do we cope with all this change and when does change become too much for people to handle? Everyone has their own capacity for change. When they reach that threshold, stress increases and we can see that manifest in anger or even violence. Certainly, stress resulting from too much change is the one reason many people have heart disease, hypertension, high blood pressure, ulcers, and headaches—even cold sores can be attributed to stress. Those are the physiological manifestations of stress caused by too much change, but what about the psychological impacts—psychotic breakdowns, frayed nerves, and people who take it out on their fellow workers or their family?
I took a course on Change Management when I attended the Institute for Organizational Management back in the early 90’s. Everyone in that class was under the same misconception that we would learn how to control all the change around us and thus reduce the stress. Wrong! What we learned is that change is all around us and most of it is virtually out of our control. But, what we can do is develop coping mechanisms to help us deal with change—to build that bridge and get over it. Most of our coping mechanisms take the form of habits; those things we do routinely that take our mind off of everything else and restore that sense of control we have lost. Obsessive compulsive behavior fills this need for many of us. The instructor told a story about a guy who was experiencing extraordinary change in his workplace. His coping mechanism was his sock drawer! He would go home every night and admire the way each pair of socks were matched, folded, and in their place—just the way he wanted them; the way they should be.
For me, this guy’s sock drawer was somewhat of an epiphany. You have to know my wife. She is an artist and a writer, a left-brain person. I am more anal compulsive and right brained. We are a match made in heaven because together we have the full compliment of left and right-brain thinking, but I digress. At our house, one can find the scissors have been put away in any one of five drawers. Historically, it drove me nuts because I always wondered why the scissors could not be put in one drawer where they belonged. The sock drawer story made me realize that the reason I was so obsessive about the scissors was that I was looking for stability at home to help me cope with all the change at work. What a brilliant flash of genius! When I got home I was eager to explain my new revelation about my behavior and foolishly thought my wife would fully understand. But, no, she blithely told me, “That’s nice, Honey, but don’t expect me to change.” Argh!
So what are we to do about all this change in our lives and in society. I recently read an essay by Philip Kennicott, staff writer for the Washington Post: The Civil War taught us to fight for the right to be wrong. Yes, the Civil War Sesquicentennial is in 2011 and Americans will once again go through the exercise of second guessing our history and the motives of those long gone. The essence of the essay is that the South seceded from the Union because they were resisting the inevitable change of the abolition of slavery. In hindsight, which of course is always 20/20 vision, I believe we all agree that slavery was wrong and abolishing it was the right thing to do. But, there were significant cultural and economic barriers to change in 1861. In some ways, the die of secession had already been cast and the Civil War occurred because people fixated on their differences and not on their common ground. It often happens that way.
Today in our nation, we have seen a lot of change in our governance. Many people believe that over the last seventy or so years, this country has enacted programs that have gradually moved our economy away from a free enterprise system and to a more socialist system. The enactment of health care reform this year has been for many a straw that is breaking the camel’s back. People have reacted by organizing and mobilizing. I have never heard more “revolutionary” rhetoric since the anti-Viet Nam War protests of the 60’s. But, it is for all of us to consider whether people are “fighting for the right to be wrong” or whether this particular kind of change is bad.
I would argue that the change we are experiencing in our government and economy is not good. Communism and its diminutive form, socialism, have failed elsewhere in the world and these systems do not work largely because they ignore the basic needs and motivations of humans. I believe, therefore, it is important to resist this kind of change through every peaceable means available to us. The free enterprise system works and is worthy of our defense. It generates the most wealth for the greatest number of people. As for me, I will not be bullied into accepting change just because some progressive tells me it is the natural course of things or that it is for the greater good.
And one of those forms of resistance, fortunately for us, was built into our Constitutional form of government. Our Founding Fathers built a system of check and balances, and intentionally or not, the end result has been bureaucracy. While normally considered to be a bad thing, I believe bureaucracy is the keel of the ship of state. Were it not for bureaucracy, each political change in administrations could conceivably change the course of the ship of state 180 degrees. As it is, each new administration can only get what can be characterized as a course correction of 5 or 10 degrees, to the left or to the right, and then they spend the rest of their time tying down the wheel and welding the rudder.
Change—it is inevitable, or is it? Change is always about progress, or is it? Should we all just find a way to cope with change and consider it to be just a fact of life—build a bridge and get over it. Or, should we consider the merits of change—the pros and cons of any particular change—and then work for it or against it based on what we believe to be best for our families, communities, and the country?
But, is all change good? A friend of mine, who also was my computer tech, often said, “Progress is not always progress.” It is legitimate to ask if computers have really saved us any time? Or, has the paperless society really resulted in less paper being consumed? In fact, it is appropriate for us to weigh the pros and cons of any change—to ask the tough questions.
And how do we cope with all this change and when does change become too much for people to handle? Everyone has their own capacity for change. When they reach that threshold, stress increases and we can see that manifest in anger or even violence. Certainly, stress resulting from too much change is the one reason many people have heart disease, hypertension, high blood pressure, ulcers, and headaches—even cold sores can be attributed to stress. Those are the physiological manifestations of stress caused by too much change, but what about the psychological impacts—psychotic breakdowns, frayed nerves, and people who take it out on their fellow workers or their family?
I took a course on Change Management when I attended the Institute for Organizational Management back in the early 90’s. Everyone in that class was under the same misconception that we would learn how to control all the change around us and thus reduce the stress. Wrong! What we learned is that change is all around us and most of it is virtually out of our control. But, what we can do is develop coping mechanisms to help us deal with change—to build that bridge and get over it. Most of our coping mechanisms take the form of habits; those things we do routinely that take our mind off of everything else and restore that sense of control we have lost. Obsessive compulsive behavior fills this need for many of us. The instructor told a story about a guy who was experiencing extraordinary change in his workplace. His coping mechanism was his sock drawer! He would go home every night and admire the way each pair of socks were matched, folded, and in their place—just the way he wanted them; the way they should be.
For me, this guy’s sock drawer was somewhat of an epiphany. You have to know my wife. She is an artist and a writer, a left-brain person. I am more anal compulsive and right brained. We are a match made in heaven because together we have the full compliment of left and right-brain thinking, but I digress. At our house, one can find the scissors have been put away in any one of five drawers. Historically, it drove me nuts because I always wondered why the scissors could not be put in one drawer where they belonged. The sock drawer story made me realize that the reason I was so obsessive about the scissors was that I was looking for stability at home to help me cope with all the change at work. What a brilliant flash of genius! When I got home I was eager to explain my new revelation about my behavior and foolishly thought my wife would fully understand. But, no, she blithely told me, “That’s nice, Honey, but don’t expect me to change.” Argh!
So what are we to do about all this change in our lives and in society. I recently read an essay by Philip Kennicott, staff writer for the Washington Post: The Civil War taught us to fight for the right to be wrong. Yes, the Civil War Sesquicentennial is in 2011 and Americans will once again go through the exercise of second guessing our history and the motives of those long gone. The essence of the essay is that the South seceded from the Union because they were resisting the inevitable change of the abolition of slavery. In hindsight, which of course is always 20/20 vision, I believe we all agree that slavery was wrong and abolishing it was the right thing to do. But, there were significant cultural and economic barriers to change in 1861. In some ways, the die of secession had already been cast and the Civil War occurred because people fixated on their differences and not on their common ground. It often happens that way.
Today in our nation, we have seen a lot of change in our governance. Many people believe that over the last seventy or so years, this country has enacted programs that have gradually moved our economy away from a free enterprise system and to a more socialist system. The enactment of health care reform this year has been for many a straw that is breaking the camel’s back. People have reacted by organizing and mobilizing. I have never heard more “revolutionary” rhetoric since the anti-Viet Nam War protests of the 60’s. But, it is for all of us to consider whether people are “fighting for the right to be wrong” or whether this particular kind of change is bad.
I would argue that the change we are experiencing in our government and economy is not good. Communism and its diminutive form, socialism, have failed elsewhere in the world and these systems do not work largely because they ignore the basic needs and motivations of humans. I believe, therefore, it is important to resist this kind of change through every peaceable means available to us. The free enterprise system works and is worthy of our defense. It generates the most wealth for the greatest number of people. As for me, I will not be bullied into accepting change just because some progressive tells me it is the natural course of things or that it is for the greater good.
And one of those forms of resistance, fortunately for us, was built into our Constitutional form of government. Our Founding Fathers built a system of check and balances, and intentionally or not, the end result has been bureaucracy. While normally considered to be a bad thing, I believe bureaucracy is the keel of the ship of state. Were it not for bureaucracy, each political change in administrations could conceivably change the course of the ship of state 180 degrees. As it is, each new administration can only get what can be characterized as a course correction of 5 or 10 degrees, to the left or to the right, and then they spend the rest of their time tying down the wheel and welding the rudder.
Change—it is inevitable, or is it? Change is always about progress, or is it? Should we all just find a way to cope with change and consider it to be just a fact of life—build a bridge and get over it. Or, should we consider the merits of change—the pros and cons of any particular change—and then work for it or against it based on what we believe to be best for our families, communities, and the country?
Friday, November 5, 2010
You Picked a Fine Time to Lead Us, Barack
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Those are the words Admiral Yamamoto supposedly uttered shortly after receiving the first reports about the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in the early hours of December 7, 1941. More prophetic words could not have been spoken because, as a result of the sneak attack by Japan, the United States of America was jarred out of its complacent, isolationist position that the war in Europe and the Pacific were somebody else’s war. By the end of World War II, victory of the good and righteous was secured in both theatres of that conflict by an American military machine and soldiers that mobilized and fought with conviction and courage from the islands of the South Pacific to the shores of Normandy.
As Abraham Lincoln said in his 2nd Inaugural Address, “With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work…” That is what Americans do when stirred into action for a just and noble cause.
If you have been reading my column for the past few years, you will know that I am no fan of Barack Obama’s policies. From economics to tax policy, from climate change to cap and trade, from real health care reform to Obamacare, from uniter to divider, I am convinced that Barack Obama may go down in recent history as one of the worst Presdients of modern times. Now, of course, history will be the final judge of that, but as far as my humble opinion goes, well, I probably need say no more.
At the time of this writing, the 2010 Mid-Term Elections are barely over. Although perhaps overly projected by some pundants to be Republican sweep of seismic proportions—even exceeding the Republican Revolution of 1994—the final outcome is nonetheless a popular rejection of many of Barack Obama’s major policy initiatives.
Barack Obama has awaken the sleeping giant of the conservative movement in this country. He has unleashed an ultra liberal agenda that exposed many Members of Congress who had been hiding behind a more conservative façade The ensuing uproar has become the newest “…shot heard around the world.”
The Tea Party Patriots owe their very existence and huge popularity to Barack Obama. But for the $867 billion failed stimulus bill, the job killing cap and trade bill, and the final death knell of Obamacare, the Tea Party Patriots would have gained little traction. Now, they will hold the new Republican leaders accountable.
America has been dismayed by the shock and awe of some of the extreme anti-buisness rhetoric and the government control of key sectors of the private sector by Congress and this Administration. Many citizens even dare to say our nation is dangerously close to becoming a socialist state.
The arrogance of Barack Obama’s words, “I won!” at his first meeting with the Republican Minority in Congress. The audacity of Congress passing legislation that few had read and no one fully understood just so, “We can find out what is says,” according to Nancy Pelosi. The idea that Americans should be happy with the notion that “…electric rates would necessarily skyrocket…,” according to Obama, so that we can address what may, or may not, happen to the climate in 100 years whether we do anything or not. The creation of dozens of Czars in the United States Government who are given unpresedented authority to carry out their missions, arguably without the benefit of our Constiututional checks and balances. Yes, the past 20 months have been a never ending series of arrogant elected officials talking down to a population who is not buying one bit of it. It is a sham.
Here in Prince Edward County, Virginia, I have witnessed first hand a resurgence of conservative activism. One night last winter in Farmville, 10 volunteers signed up to be members of the local Republican Committee. Since then, we have seen an unprecedented surge in party activism. These people are fired up for the election like never before. Thank you, Barack Obama.
Across the 5th District here in Central and Southside Virginia, I have heard about World War II Veterans saying, “This is the most important election of my lifetime.” They are truly scared for the future of this country and for their grand children who will be saddled with unprecendented and record-setting deficit spending. Terms like “income redistribution” and higher taxes for the “rich”—whatever rich is in today’s world—scare the heck out of the Greatest Generation.
Pre-election accounts of voter fraud were running rampant and stories about the Service Employees International Union running the ballot machines in key states smacks of conflict of interest. And now we have the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals talking about giving illegal aliens the right to vote in 2012! I am reminded of the movie, Bridge of River Kwai, when, after the British Colonel falls dead on the detonator blowing up the bridge the British prisoners had ill-advisedly built so well, Major Clipton stands on the hill exclaiming, “Madness! Madness!”
Yes, I have certainly had my share of exascerbating moments with Barack Obama’s policies. He certainly picked a fine time to lead us, perhaps even down the path of socialism, but as I savor the 2010 Mid-Term Election results, I must admit I owe Barack Obama a debt of gratitude. For indeed, it must be said that President Obama has awakened “…a sleeping giant.”
Those are the words Admiral Yamamoto supposedly uttered shortly after receiving the first reports about the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in the early hours of December 7, 1941. More prophetic words could not have been spoken because, as a result of the sneak attack by Japan, the United States of America was jarred out of its complacent, isolationist position that the war in Europe and the Pacific were somebody else’s war. By the end of World War II, victory of the good and righteous was secured in both theatres of that conflict by an American military machine and soldiers that mobilized and fought with conviction and courage from the islands of the South Pacific to the shores of Normandy.
As Abraham Lincoln said in his 2nd Inaugural Address, “With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work…” That is what Americans do when stirred into action for a just and noble cause.
If you have been reading my column for the past few years, you will know that I am no fan of Barack Obama’s policies. From economics to tax policy, from climate change to cap and trade, from real health care reform to Obamacare, from uniter to divider, I am convinced that Barack Obama may go down in recent history as one of the worst Presdients of modern times. Now, of course, history will be the final judge of that, but as far as my humble opinion goes, well, I probably need say no more.
At the time of this writing, the 2010 Mid-Term Elections are barely over. Although perhaps overly projected by some pundants to be Republican sweep of seismic proportions—even exceeding the Republican Revolution of 1994—the final outcome is nonetheless a popular rejection of many of Barack Obama’s major policy initiatives.
Barack Obama has awaken the sleeping giant of the conservative movement in this country. He has unleashed an ultra liberal agenda that exposed many Members of Congress who had been hiding behind a more conservative façade The ensuing uproar has become the newest “…shot heard around the world.”
The Tea Party Patriots owe their very existence and huge popularity to Barack Obama. But for the $867 billion failed stimulus bill, the job killing cap and trade bill, and the final death knell of Obamacare, the Tea Party Patriots would have gained little traction. Now, they will hold the new Republican leaders accountable.
America has been dismayed by the shock and awe of some of the extreme anti-buisness rhetoric and the government control of key sectors of the private sector by Congress and this Administration. Many citizens even dare to say our nation is dangerously close to becoming a socialist state.
The arrogance of Barack Obama’s words, “I won!” at his first meeting with the Republican Minority in Congress. The audacity of Congress passing legislation that few had read and no one fully understood just so, “We can find out what is says,” according to Nancy Pelosi. The idea that Americans should be happy with the notion that “…electric rates would necessarily skyrocket…,” according to Obama, so that we can address what may, or may not, happen to the climate in 100 years whether we do anything or not. The creation of dozens of Czars in the United States Government who are given unpresedented authority to carry out their missions, arguably without the benefit of our Constiututional checks and balances. Yes, the past 20 months have been a never ending series of arrogant elected officials talking down to a population who is not buying one bit of it. It is a sham.
Here in Prince Edward County, Virginia, I have witnessed first hand a resurgence of conservative activism. One night last winter in Farmville, 10 volunteers signed up to be members of the local Republican Committee. Since then, we have seen an unprecedented surge in party activism. These people are fired up for the election like never before. Thank you, Barack Obama.
Across the 5th District here in Central and Southside Virginia, I have heard about World War II Veterans saying, “This is the most important election of my lifetime.” They are truly scared for the future of this country and for their grand children who will be saddled with unprecendented and record-setting deficit spending. Terms like “income redistribution” and higher taxes for the “rich”—whatever rich is in today’s world—scare the heck out of the Greatest Generation.
Pre-election accounts of voter fraud were running rampant and stories about the Service Employees International Union running the ballot machines in key states smacks of conflict of interest. And now we have the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals talking about giving illegal aliens the right to vote in 2012! I am reminded of the movie, Bridge of River Kwai, when, after the British Colonel falls dead on the detonator blowing up the bridge the British prisoners had ill-advisedly built so well, Major Clipton stands on the hill exclaiming, “Madness! Madness!”
Yes, I have certainly had my share of exascerbating moments with Barack Obama’s policies. He certainly picked a fine time to lead us, perhaps even down the path of socialism, but as I savor the 2010 Mid-Term Election results, I must admit I owe Barack Obama a debt of gratitude. For indeed, it must be said that President Obama has awakened “…a sleeping giant.”
Friday, October 22, 2010
Do Not Muzzle the Ox
There are two hot button topics that receive a lot of attention these days— Congressional retirement and Congressional pay. Unfortunately most of what you hear about Congressional retirement is just plain false and I believe much of the ballyhoo about Congressional salaries is not justified.
The often repeated rumor is that a Representative or a Senator receives their full salary for the rest of their lives even if they have only served one term. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but that rumor is pure poppycock. Representatives and Senators participate in the same retirement plans that are available to federal employees with one notable exception; they are fully vested in their retirement after five full years of service whereas federal employees are partially vested after 10 years and fully vested only after 20 years of service.
All Members of Congress elected in 1984 or later, like all federal employees hired after that date, participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). They pay into the Social Security system at the rate of 6.2% of the first $97,500 of their salary and they pay into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund at the rate of 1.3% of their full salary. The federal government matches their contributions to those funds just like your private sector employer matches the 7.5% you pay into the Social Security fund. Representatives and Senators elected prior to 1984, like federal employees hired before that date, are participants in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). After 1984, they were all given the opportunity to stay in the CSRS or convert to FERS.
Representatives and Senators are fully vested in the FERS after five full years of service, but they may not draw upon that retirement until age 62 with the following exceptions. If they have 20 years of service they may start drawing retirement at age 50 after they leave Congress, and if they have 25 years of service, they may start drawing retirement at any age after they leave Congress.
The amount of their retirement pension is based on the number of years served and the average of their highest three years of salary, but by law, their pension may never exceed 80% of their final salary.
According to the Congressional Research Service, “As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.” (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf)
Now that the retirement myth is busted, let’s turn to the issue of Congressional pay. Many people believe we ought to have more of a citizen Congress that requires Members of Congress to earn their money in the real world and to not be paid by the federal government. Indeed, the Founding Fathers had this same debate during the Constitutional Convention with Benjamin Franklin arguing for no pay. However, he did not prevail and the first Members of Congress were paid a per diem of $6.00 a day when in session. Members of Congress began receiving an annual salary in 1855 and the rest is history. Current Members of Congress are paid $174,000 per year except the Speaker of the House who gets $223,500 per year and the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders who each receive $193,400 per year. The salary levels are calculated by the Office of Personnel Management and these salaries become the basis for Judges’ salaries as well as the salaries of senior federal executives.
Now, one can certainly debate the merits of these salaries and what level of salary is appropriate for the job, but the Founding Fathers clearly understood the Biblical principle that you should not muzzle the ox—in other words it is only fair that if the ox helps you harvest the grain and turns the mill stone to make the flour then you should not prevent the ox from eating while it works. We have certain expectations of our Congressmen and Senators and we should pay a fair wage for the work they do on our behalf. And, when re-election time comes around, we should hold them accountable for the job they have done.
More to the point, we want smart, energetic, and principled leaders to run our country, therefore we ought to expect to pay them a salary commensurate with their skills. The reality is that most Members of Congress have extraordinary skills that would probably enable them to earn more money in the private sector than they get paid in Congress. Many Members of Congress have left much higher paying jobs to enter public service in order to help make this country a better and safer place to live.
Certainly, in most communities across the United States and compared to the average American salary, $174,000 a year is a very comfortable income. But, let us consider that Members of Congress must maintain two households, one in their home district and one in the Washington metropolitan area. Moreover, unless you are willing to commute over one hour each way on top of your 10-12 hour day at work, sometimes seven days a week, then you will probably be paying somewhere between $800,000 to $1 million for a modest town home within 30 minutes of the Capitol.
The Bible also says in Proverbs 30:9, “For if I grow rich, I may deny you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ And if I am too poor, I may steal and thus insult God’s holy name.” There are countless stories in recent times about Congressional corruption, or at minimum, questionable business dealings by several Members of Congress. Certainly, an appropriate salary should help reduce the need and temptation to seek outside income, and at the same time, a salary that is not too high will help our representatives remember from whence they came. But, whatever the salary is for Members of Congress, let us remember we pay them because we expect a lot from them and we do not muzzle the ox.
The often repeated rumor is that a Representative or a Senator receives their full salary for the rest of their lives even if they have only served one term. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but that rumor is pure poppycock. Representatives and Senators participate in the same retirement plans that are available to federal employees with one notable exception; they are fully vested in their retirement after five full years of service whereas federal employees are partially vested after 10 years and fully vested only after 20 years of service.
All Members of Congress elected in 1984 or later, like all federal employees hired after that date, participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). They pay into the Social Security system at the rate of 6.2% of the first $97,500 of their salary and they pay into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund at the rate of 1.3% of their full salary. The federal government matches their contributions to those funds just like your private sector employer matches the 7.5% you pay into the Social Security fund. Representatives and Senators elected prior to 1984, like federal employees hired before that date, are participants in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). After 1984, they were all given the opportunity to stay in the CSRS or convert to FERS.
Representatives and Senators are fully vested in the FERS after five full years of service, but they may not draw upon that retirement until age 62 with the following exceptions. If they have 20 years of service they may start drawing retirement at age 50 after they leave Congress, and if they have 25 years of service, they may start drawing retirement at any age after they leave Congress.
The amount of their retirement pension is based on the number of years served and the average of their highest three years of salary, but by law, their pension may never exceed 80% of their final salary.
According to the Congressional Research Service, “As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.” (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf)
Now that the retirement myth is busted, let’s turn to the issue of Congressional pay. Many people believe we ought to have more of a citizen Congress that requires Members of Congress to earn their money in the real world and to not be paid by the federal government. Indeed, the Founding Fathers had this same debate during the Constitutional Convention with Benjamin Franklin arguing for no pay. However, he did not prevail and the first Members of Congress were paid a per diem of $6.00 a day when in session. Members of Congress began receiving an annual salary in 1855 and the rest is history. Current Members of Congress are paid $174,000 per year except the Speaker of the House who gets $223,500 per year and the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders who each receive $193,400 per year. The salary levels are calculated by the Office of Personnel Management and these salaries become the basis for Judges’ salaries as well as the salaries of senior federal executives.
Now, one can certainly debate the merits of these salaries and what level of salary is appropriate for the job, but the Founding Fathers clearly understood the Biblical principle that you should not muzzle the ox—in other words it is only fair that if the ox helps you harvest the grain and turns the mill stone to make the flour then you should not prevent the ox from eating while it works. We have certain expectations of our Congressmen and Senators and we should pay a fair wage for the work they do on our behalf. And, when re-election time comes around, we should hold them accountable for the job they have done.
More to the point, we want smart, energetic, and principled leaders to run our country, therefore we ought to expect to pay them a salary commensurate with their skills. The reality is that most Members of Congress have extraordinary skills that would probably enable them to earn more money in the private sector than they get paid in Congress. Many Members of Congress have left much higher paying jobs to enter public service in order to help make this country a better and safer place to live.
Certainly, in most communities across the United States and compared to the average American salary, $174,000 a year is a very comfortable income. But, let us consider that Members of Congress must maintain two households, one in their home district and one in the Washington metropolitan area. Moreover, unless you are willing to commute over one hour each way on top of your 10-12 hour day at work, sometimes seven days a week, then you will probably be paying somewhere between $800,000 to $1 million for a modest town home within 30 minutes of the Capitol.
The Bible also says in Proverbs 30:9, “For if I grow rich, I may deny you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ And if I am too poor, I may steal and thus insult God’s holy name.” There are countless stories in recent times about Congressional corruption, or at minimum, questionable business dealings by several Members of Congress. Certainly, an appropriate salary should help reduce the need and temptation to seek outside income, and at the same time, a salary that is not too high will help our representatives remember from whence they came. But, whatever the salary is for Members of Congress, let us remember we pay them because we expect a lot from them and we do not muzzle the ox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
