[NOTE: The following article focuses on the difference fathers make in lifting children out of poverty and what the culture (and the Administration) have NOT done to promote fatherhood and strengthen marriages. Though the article was written 2 years ago, what it has to say is not less true now as it was then.-Stan]
"Fathers Who Are Husbands Spare Children from Poverty" - Ken McIntyre, June 18, 2010
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/18/morning-bell-fathers-who-are-husbands-spare-children-from-poverty/
A wedding ring on Dad’s finger is more than a symbol of his commitment to Mom. It also proves to be the ultimate anti-poverty weapon for their children. Now that’s something to celebrate and encourage this Father’s Day. It’s fitting on Sunday to honor all the fathers who strive to keep that commitment, even when they grow weary.
“The principal cause of child poverty in the U.S. is the absence of married fathers in the home,” Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, writes in a new paper. “Marriage is a powerful weapon in fighting poverty. Being married has the same effect in reducing poverty as adding five to six years to a parent’s education level.”
In the paper, accompanied by 12 new charts on marriage and poverty, Rector illustrates the severe social costs of record-high births outside marriage – and of homes without fathers. The escalating rate of births to unmarried women – four of every 10 babies overall, but more than half the Hispanic births and a staggering seven of every 10 births for blacks – is driving the collapse of marriage in America, especially in lower-income neighborhoods.
As Rector writes:"Marriage matters. But mentioning the bond between marriage and lower poverty violates the protocols of political correctness. Thus, the main cause of child poverty remains hidden from public view. Since the decline of marriage is the principal cause of child poverty and welfare dependence in the U.S., it would seem reasonable for government to take steps to strengthen marriage."
About two of every three poor children live in single-parent households. Yet if poor single moms married the fathers of their children, nearly two out of three would be lifted out of poverty. And contrary to the mainstream media line, teen pregnancy is a small part of the picture: In 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, babies born to girls under 18 accounted for 130,000, or 7.5 percent, of the total 1.72 million out-of-wedlock births.
It’s not as simple as young men “manning up” and becoming the lawfully wedded husbands of their girlfriends, live-in or otherwise. These unmarried mothers tend to be in their 20s, without much income or education. They come to depend on public assistance; many learn how to work the welfare system.
Research shows that a child raised in a home where Dad is married to Mom is much less likely to live in poverty, get arrested as a juvenile, be suspended or expelled from school, be treated for emotional or behavioral problems, or drop out before completing high school. Taxpayers foot the bill for more than $300 billion a year in means-tested government spending on low-income single moms – and, in relatively rare cases, single dads.
One budding national leader, himself a young husband and father, nailed the poverty portion of the tragedy of absent fathers when he cited similar statistics five years ago and wrote: "In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue." Those words come from husband, father and then-Senator Barack Obama’s 2006 best-seller “The Audacity of Hope.” He was correct then, and he should implement marriage-strengthening policies today.
To reinvigorate marriage in lower-income neighborhoods, Rector suggests, government could start by providing facts on the role of healthy marriages in reducing poverty and improving the well-being of children. Why not teach skills for selecting a wife or husband? Why not explain the importance of developing a stable marital relationship before bringing children into the world?
Nothing could be further from government practice. In social service agencies, welfare offices, schools and popular culture across America, what Rector calls “a deafening silence” reigns on the topic of marriage. The welfare system actively penalizes low-income couples who do get married. He adds: "For most on the Left, marriage is, at best, an antiquated institution, a red-state superstition. From this viewpoint, the real task is to expand government subsidies as a post-marriage society is built."
Rather than adopt policies to reverse the 50-year spike in births outside marriage, though, President Obama in his 2011 budget “would eliminate the one program dedicated to encouraging healthy marriage,” notes Jennifer A. Marshall, Heritage’s director of domestic policy studies. Marshall writes: "In its place would be a program promoting a notion of ‘fatherhood’ that doesn’t involve the father being married or in the home. The facts speak for themselves. It’s time more policymakers noticed what the facts are saying."
Something to think about, Mr. President. Happy Father’s Day.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
#241 (6/23) - PRAYER REMINDERS From the Past Week's News
[NOTE: The following 4 items for prayer come from the Presidential Prayer Team(NOT associated with the White House but an independent Christian prayer minsitry.) If you would like to sign up for a free subscription to their daily devotionals and prayer alerts, please go to: Info@PresidentialPrayerTeam .org I will try to present key items from their alerts each week and encourage you to take time when you read each item to pray for the prayer requests listed. YOUR COUNTRY THANKS YOU! - Stan]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nation Awaits Supreme Court Rulings, Thursday, June 21, 2012,(Sources: Los Angeles Times, California Public Radio, New York Times, Reuters)
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=410
"Another morning of Supreme Court opinions came and went Thursday with no ruling on the national health care law or Arizona’s SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law, pushing the court’s most anticipated decisions in years to [next]week...If the law is upheld in full, the decision will be hailed as a triumph for Obama and his leadership. If it is struck down entirely, Republicans will claim vindication in their unanimous opposition to what they see as a massive overreach of government. And if only part of the law survives, both sides will scramble to reposition. The Obama administration and its allies will do their best to protect what is left. Republicans have vowed to repeal it all as soon as they can, and eventually, to offer an alternative. However the court comes down, most Americans are not likely to be happy with the result."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For Americans to remain calm when the decisions are rendered, regardless of their outcomes.
•That the already scheduled protests will be orderly, without injury or arrest.
•For federal and state legislators as they are already promulgating bills that would reinforce their positions with respect to health care and immigration.
•About God’s plans for America, as we know that His ways are not our ways, and we must trust His heart even when we don’t see His hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandated defense cuts could lead to war, top US military official says June 14, 2012 (Source: Fox News)
"Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes. Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt 'global operations.' In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might."
"'We can’t yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation,' Dempsey told the senators. 'We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict.' Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad. Yet so far, Congress has not averted the planned cuts, which were set in place after lawmakers failed to reach a broader deficit-reduction deal."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For Congressional members dealing with budget cuts and where to make them.
•About the issue of the mandated cuts on the U.S. military budget.
•For the Pentagon chiefs and others who are working on budgetary trimming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Islamist Claims Victory in Egypt’s Presidential Vote, Military Expands its PowersJune 18, 2012, http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=401
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For democratic stability within Egypt following the elections.
•About the increasing tensions on Egypt’s border with Israel.
•About the new leadership’s intentions to nullify Egypt’s treaty with Israel.
As the Lord leads, please pray:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Invokes Executive Privilege over Fast and Furious Documents, June 20, 2012 [article with more detail to be posted NEXT WEEK]
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=408
"Just as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was about to vote Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena for documents in the flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking case, President Obama asserted executive privilege and backed up the attorney general’s position in refusing to turn over the material.
As the Lord leads, please pray: \
•For Attorney General Eric Holder and his legal advisers.
•About Constitutional issues being potentially raised by President Obama’s invoking executive privilege if Attorney General Holder’s prior testimony of no involvement by the president is true.
•For the members of the committee charged with oversight of the Executive Branch, as they seek to determine the remaining unknown facts about Fast and Furious.
•For the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, still seeking answers on their son’s death.
•About the costs of maintaining national security.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nation Awaits Supreme Court Rulings, Thursday, June 21, 2012,(Sources: Los Angeles Times, California Public Radio, New York Times, Reuters)
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=410
"Another morning of Supreme Court opinions came and went Thursday with no ruling on the national health care law or Arizona’s SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law, pushing the court’s most anticipated decisions in years to [next]week...If the law is upheld in full, the decision will be hailed as a triumph for Obama and his leadership. If it is struck down entirely, Republicans will claim vindication in their unanimous opposition to what they see as a massive overreach of government. And if only part of the law survives, both sides will scramble to reposition. The Obama administration and its allies will do their best to protect what is left. Republicans have vowed to repeal it all as soon as they can, and eventually, to offer an alternative. However the court comes down, most Americans are not likely to be happy with the result."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For Americans to remain calm when the decisions are rendered, regardless of their outcomes.
•That the already scheduled protests will be orderly, without injury or arrest.
•For federal and state legislators as they are already promulgating bills that would reinforce their positions with respect to health care and immigration.
•About God’s plans for America, as we know that His ways are not our ways, and we must trust His heart even when we don’t see His hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandated defense cuts could lead to war, top US military official says June 14, 2012 (Source: Fox News)
"Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes. Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt 'global operations.' In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might."
"'We can’t yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation,' Dempsey told the senators. 'We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict.' Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad. Yet so far, Congress has not averted the planned cuts, which were set in place after lawmakers failed to reach a broader deficit-reduction deal."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For Congressional members dealing with budget cuts and where to make them.
•About the issue of the mandated cuts on the U.S. military budget.
•For the Pentagon chiefs and others who are working on budgetary trimming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Islamist Claims Victory in Egypt’s Presidential Vote, Military Expands its PowersJune 18, 2012, http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=401
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For democratic stability within Egypt following the elections.
•About the increasing tensions on Egypt’s border with Israel.
•About the new leadership’s intentions to nullify Egypt’s treaty with Israel.
As the Lord leads, please pray:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Invokes Executive Privilege over Fast and Furious Documents, June 20, 2012 [article with more detail to be posted NEXT WEEK]
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=408
"Just as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was about to vote Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena for documents in the flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking case, President Obama asserted executive privilege and backed up the attorney general’s position in refusing to turn over the material.
As the Lord leads, please pray: \
•For Attorney General Eric Holder and his legal advisers.
•About Constitutional issues being potentially raised by President Obama’s invoking executive privilege if Attorney General Holder’s prior testimony of no involvement by the president is true.
•For the members of the committee charged with oversight of the Executive Branch, as they seek to determine the remaining unknown facts about Fast and Furious.
•For the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, still seeking answers on their son’s death.
•About the costs of maintaining national security.
#233 (6/15) - "Auto Bailout Was Really Just a UAW Bailout"
[NOTE: The following is just another example of what the President often says and how that differs from the TRUTH OF THE MATTER. - Stan]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Amy Payne, June 13, 2012
President Obama told the United Auto Workers (UAW) in February not to listen to critics of the auto bailout who said union members “made out like bandits—that saving the auto industry was just about paying back the unions.” “Really?” Obama said. “I mean, even by the standards of this town [Washington], that’s a load of you-know-what [1].” New research [2] from Heritage labor economist James Sherk proves that it was, in fact, a load of truth.
The Treasury Department estimates that taxpayers will lose $23 billion on the auto bailout. Sherk and co-author Todd Zywicki find that none of these losses came from saving jobs, but instead went to prop up the compensation of some of the most highly paid workers in America. They write [2]:
"We estimate that the Administration redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings. Taxpayers lost between $20 billion and $23 billion on the auto programs. Thus, the entire loss to the taxpayers from the auto bailout comes from the funds diverted to the UAW.
The Obama campaign is touting the bailout in Michigan [3] this week, crowing about saved-or-created jobs. What the bailout actually saved was the UAW’s heavily padded compensation packages; what it created was a massive taxpayer loss.The UAW was a significant factor in the automakers’ decline: It had raised Detroit’s labor costs 50 percent to 80 percent above other automakers, such as Toyota and Nissan. In 2006, General Motors paid its unionized workers [4] $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour. Added to mistakes by management, these labor costs were a major reason the automakers went bankrupt. However, through the bailout, the Obama Administration insulated the UAW from most of the sacrifices unions usually make in a bankruptcy—at taxpayer expense.
GM and Chrysler owed billions to a trust fund they had created to provide UAW members with gold-plated retiree health benefits. In bankruptcy, these funds should have been paid proportional to other unsecured creditors. Instead, while the Administration paid other creditors only a fraction of what they were owed, it gave the UAW trust fund assets worth tens of billions—including partial ownership of both companies. The U.S. Treasury should have received these assets.
Bankruptcy law also enables reorganizing companies to improve their post-bankruptcy situation by renegotiating union contracts to competitive rates. If the UAW had been treated normally under bankruptcy law, he automakers’ average labor costs would have fallen to the same levels as the foreign-based carmakers, approximately $47 an hour. While this is still 40 percent higher compensation than the average manufacturing worker, it would have reduced UAW members’ standard of living. And the Administration wouldn’t allow that. So while the UAW accepted huge pay cuts for new hires, the Administration kept the pay structure of existing UAW members at GM intact.
Even Stephen Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar,” has admitted that “We should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay [5].” As a result, even after the reorganization, GM still has higher labor costs ($56 an hour) than any of its foreign-based competitors.
The average American worker—whose taxes paid for the bailout—earns $30.15 an hour in wages and benefits. Few Americans have the ability, as UAW workers do, to retire in their mid-50s before they can collect Social Security. Fewer still receive retirement health benefits in addition to Medicare, as UAW workers do. Yet their tax dollars went to subsidize UAW pay and benefits.
Had the government treated the UAW in the manner required by bankruptcy law, taxpayers would have broken even. The program would have amounted to bankruptcy financing instead of an outright bailout. The Administration could have kept the automakers running without losing a dime. Instead, more than $26 billion went out the door and into the UAW’s pockets. Let’s put that in perspective: The amount of the subsidy given directly to the UAW was bigger than the budget of the entire State Department. It was bigger than all U.S. foreign aid spending. It was 50percent more than NASA’s budget.
None of that money kept factories running. Instead, it sustained the above-average compensation of members of an influential union, sparing them from most of the sacrifices typically made in bankruptcy—a bankruptcy they contributed to. President Obama engaged in special interest spending at its worst.The Administration did not bail out GM and Chrysler. It bailed out the United Auto Workers.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/13/morning-bell-auto-bailout-was-really-just-a-uaw-bailout/
URLs in this post:
[1] a load of you-know-what: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/remarks-president-uaw-conference
[2] New research: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/auto-bailout-or-uaw-bailout-taxpayer-losses-came-from-subsidizing-union-compensation
[3] touting the bailout in Michigan: http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/obama_campaign_highlights_how.html
[4] paid its unionized workers: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/12/uaw-workers-actually-cost-the-big-three-automakers-70-an-hour
[5] We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay: http://wot.motortrend.com/rattner-says-uaw-wages-should-have-been-cut-during-bailouts-147425.html#ixzz1saq52d2e
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Amy Payne, June 13, 2012
President Obama told the United Auto Workers (UAW) in February not to listen to critics of the auto bailout who said union members “made out like bandits—that saving the auto industry was just about paying back the unions.” “Really?” Obama said. “I mean, even by the standards of this town [Washington], that’s a load of you-know-what [1].” New research [2] from Heritage labor economist James Sherk proves that it was, in fact, a load of truth.
The Treasury Department estimates that taxpayers will lose $23 billion on the auto bailout. Sherk and co-author Todd Zywicki find that none of these losses came from saving jobs, but instead went to prop up the compensation of some of the most highly paid workers in America. They write [2]:
"We estimate that the Administration redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings. Taxpayers lost between $20 billion and $23 billion on the auto programs. Thus, the entire loss to the taxpayers from the auto bailout comes from the funds diverted to the UAW.
The Obama campaign is touting the bailout in Michigan [3] this week, crowing about saved-or-created jobs. What the bailout actually saved was the UAW’s heavily padded compensation packages; what it created was a massive taxpayer loss.The UAW was a significant factor in the automakers’ decline: It had raised Detroit’s labor costs 50 percent to 80 percent above other automakers, such as Toyota and Nissan. In 2006, General Motors paid its unionized workers [4] $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour. Added to mistakes by management, these labor costs were a major reason the automakers went bankrupt. However, through the bailout, the Obama Administration insulated the UAW from most of the sacrifices unions usually make in a bankruptcy—at taxpayer expense.
GM and Chrysler owed billions to a trust fund they had created to provide UAW members with gold-plated retiree health benefits. In bankruptcy, these funds should have been paid proportional to other unsecured creditors. Instead, while the Administration paid other creditors only a fraction of what they were owed, it gave the UAW trust fund assets worth tens of billions—including partial ownership of both companies. The U.S. Treasury should have received these assets.
Bankruptcy law also enables reorganizing companies to improve their post-bankruptcy situation by renegotiating union contracts to competitive rates. If the UAW had been treated normally under bankruptcy law, he automakers’ average labor costs would have fallen to the same levels as the foreign-based carmakers, approximately $47 an hour. While this is still 40 percent higher compensation than the average manufacturing worker, it would have reduced UAW members’ standard of living. And the Administration wouldn’t allow that. So while the UAW accepted huge pay cuts for new hires, the Administration kept the pay structure of existing UAW members at GM intact.
Even Stephen Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar,” has admitted that “We should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay [5].” As a result, even after the reorganization, GM still has higher labor costs ($56 an hour) than any of its foreign-based competitors.
The average American worker—whose taxes paid for the bailout—earns $30.15 an hour in wages and benefits. Few Americans have the ability, as UAW workers do, to retire in their mid-50s before they can collect Social Security. Fewer still receive retirement health benefits in addition to Medicare, as UAW workers do. Yet their tax dollars went to subsidize UAW pay and benefits.
Had the government treated the UAW in the manner required by bankruptcy law, taxpayers would have broken even. The program would have amounted to bankruptcy financing instead of an outright bailout. The Administration could have kept the automakers running without losing a dime. Instead, more than $26 billion went out the door and into the UAW’s pockets. Let’s put that in perspective: The amount of the subsidy given directly to the UAW was bigger than the budget of the entire State Department. It was bigger than all U.S. foreign aid spending. It was 50percent more than NASA’s budget.
None of that money kept factories running. Instead, it sustained the above-average compensation of members of an influential union, sparing them from most of the sacrifices typically made in bankruptcy—a bankruptcy they contributed to. President Obama engaged in special interest spending at its worst.The Administration did not bail out GM and Chrysler. It bailed out the United Auto Workers.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/13/morning-bell-auto-bailout-was-really-just-a-uaw-bailout/
URLs in this post:
[1] a load of you-know-what: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/remarks-president-uaw-conference
[2] New research: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/auto-bailout-or-uaw-bailout-taxpayer-losses-came-from-subsidizing-union-compensation
[3] touting the bailout in Michigan: http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/obama_campaign_highlights_how.html
[4] paid its unionized workers: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/12/uaw-workers-actually-cost-the-big-three-automakers-70-an-hour
[5] We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay: http://wot.motortrend.com/rattner-says-uaw-wages-should-have-been-cut-during-bailouts-147425.html#ixzz1saq52d2e
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
#232 (6/14) - Even Government Workers Admit They Got It Better
[NOTE: Yesterday's posting described how the President actually has a low view of the PRIVATE worker economy and wants us to focus on increasing the numbers of PUBLIC (ie, GOVERNMENT)workers. (Notice that he tends to talks mainly about teachers, firemen, police - ie, people belonging to government unions, who just happen to be his biggest financial supporters. Coincidence?) Below, read about how even government workers know they have much better (and secure) pay packages than many comparable workers in the private sector. To use one of the President's favorite words, is that "fair?" - Stan]
"Do Government Workers Think They’re Better Off?"
- Mike Brownfield, April 10, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/10/do-government-workers-think-theyre-better-off/
It’s hard to deny the benefits of working for Uncle Sam — outstanding benefits, good pay, and great job security. Though some government workers might throw up their arms in protest when confronted with the facts, a new poll shows that nearly half of government workers now say private sector employees work harder than them. Government Executive reports:
"Sixty-six percent of 1,000 adults polled recently by Rasmussen Reports said they believed private sector employees work harder than government employees, and 56 percent believed government workers earn more annually.
Nearly half of government workers in the survey — 46 percent — agreed they don’t work as hard as their private sector counterparts; 32 percent said they work harder, and 22 percent were not sure. The government workers also saw eye to eye with their private sector counterparts about job security: 62 percent of government employees said they have more security and 67 percent of overall respondents held that view.
Where government workers are wrong is in their belief that the average private sector worker earns more money than them. (According to the poll, only 35 percent believe they make more.) In fact, the opposite is true, as Heritage analysis shows."
In July 2010, Heritage’s James Sherk explained that on average salaries and benefits for identical jobs are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector. And in June 2011, Heritage’s Jason Richwine authored a study showing that workers who change jobs receive a substantially larger raise when they switch into federal employment rather than into another private job. In February, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report confirming those findings.
These are averages—some government employees do get paid less than they would in the private sector. Here are some solutions: Congress should implement a pay-for-performance system, expand the contracting of federal work to private companies, raise the federal retirement age from 56[
!]to 65, reduce the generosity of federal benefits, and end the near-absolute job security for underperforming federal workers
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Teachers Union Demands 30 Percent Pay Raise - Lindsey Burke, June 12, 2012, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/12/chicago-teachers-union-demands-30-percent-pay-raise/
"It takes a lot of nerve to ask for a 30 percent pay raise. You’d better be sure you had a banner year. Yet in Chicago, where just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading (and just 56 percent of students graduate), the teachers union is set to strike if the district does not... "
"... As Heritage’s Jason Richwine notes, public school teachers should be compensated no better or worse than their similarly skilled private-sector counterparts. '..the teaching profession is not actually underpaid, nor is it an unpopular career choice among college graduates. In fact, total compensation for the average public school teacher is considerably higher than what his or her skills would merit in the private sector. Creating a teacher compensation system that rewards the best teachers in a fiscally responsible manner is a broadly shared goal. To that end, policymakers should avoid across-the-board pay increases, focusing instead on performance pay by easing restrictions on entering the teaching profession, and basing tenure decisions on performance in the classroom."
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
"Do Government Workers Think They’re Better Off?"
- Mike Brownfield, April 10, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/10/do-government-workers-think-theyre-better-off/
It’s hard to deny the benefits of working for Uncle Sam — outstanding benefits, good pay, and great job security. Though some government workers might throw up their arms in protest when confronted with the facts, a new poll shows that nearly half of government workers now say private sector employees work harder than them. Government Executive reports:
"Sixty-six percent of 1,000 adults polled recently by Rasmussen Reports said they believed private sector employees work harder than government employees, and 56 percent believed government workers earn more annually.
Nearly half of government workers in the survey — 46 percent — agreed they don’t work as hard as their private sector counterparts; 32 percent said they work harder, and 22 percent were not sure. The government workers also saw eye to eye with their private sector counterparts about job security: 62 percent of government employees said they have more security and 67 percent of overall respondents held that view.
Where government workers are wrong is in their belief that the average private sector worker earns more money than them. (According to the poll, only 35 percent believe they make more.) In fact, the opposite is true, as Heritage analysis shows."
In July 2010, Heritage’s James Sherk explained that on average salaries and benefits for identical jobs are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector. And in June 2011, Heritage’s Jason Richwine authored a study showing that workers who change jobs receive a substantially larger raise when they switch into federal employment rather than into another private job. In February, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report confirming those findings.
These are averages—some government employees do get paid less than they would in the private sector. Here are some solutions: Congress should implement a pay-for-performance system, expand the contracting of federal work to private companies, raise the federal retirement age from 56[
!]to 65, reduce the generosity of federal benefits, and end the near-absolute job security for underperforming federal workers
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Teachers Union Demands 30 Percent Pay Raise - Lindsey Burke, June 12, 2012, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/12/chicago-teachers-union-demands-30-percent-pay-raise/
"It takes a lot of nerve to ask for a 30 percent pay raise. You’d better be sure you had a banner year. Yet in Chicago, where just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading (and just 56 percent of students graduate), the teachers union is set to strike if the district does not... "
"... As Heritage’s Jason Richwine notes, public school teachers should be compensated no better or worse than their similarly skilled private-sector counterparts. '..the teaching profession is not actually underpaid, nor is it an unpopular career choice among college graduates. In fact, total compensation for the average public school teacher is considerably higher than what his or her skills would merit in the private sector. Creating a teacher compensation system that rewards the best teachers in a fiscally responsible manner is a broadly shared goal. To that end, policymakers should avoid across-the-board pay increases, focusing instead on performance pay by easing restrictions on entering the teaching profession, and basing tenure decisions on performance in the classroom."
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
#231 (6/13) - President's "Verbal Gaffe" Reveals His Destructive Worldview
[NOTE: Many dismiss the President's comment last week about the private sector in America being "fine" as a "verbal gaffe." But when you read what he also says about the need for more PUBLIC sector jobs (despite the need to instead trim those back as well as not being so generous in funding their benefits) as well as his comments in his own autobiography about revealing his disdain for the PRIVATE (REAL job-producing)sector of the economy, you realize it wasn't really a "verbal gaffe" but just a statement consistent with his economically unsound worldview.-Stan]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Private Sector is Not “Doing Fine”- Amy Payne, June 11, 2012
In now-infamous comments on Friday, President Barack Obama informed America that “the private sector is doing fine. [1]” This, of course, was news to the 12.7 million people who are out of work and the millions more who are struggling with the part-time jobs they can find, or have simply given up looking.
While the President’s comment is astoundingly out of touch with the public—and economic reality—perhaps even more distressing is that this wasn’t a passing verbal gaffe. This is actually a consistent talking point of the President and Democratic leadership that goes largely unchallenged by the media.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) made the same case [2] last fall when he was pushing a $35 billion bailout for state and local governments. “It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine,” Reid argued [3]. “It’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about.”
This is the President’s and the Majority Leader’s solution to the jobs crisis: more so-called stimulus and more government employees. As Heritage’s James Sherk has explained [2],this thinking is completely backwards:“If the recession has barely touched one sector of the economy, it is government.”If anyone is “doing fine,” it’s government employees. This goes beyond the far more generous pension and health benefits they enjoy. While the private sector lost 4.6 million jobs (a 3.9 percent drop) since the recession began, government payrolls have only fallen by 240,000 jobs (a 1.1 percent drop). Federal employment has actually grown nearly 12 percent since the end of 2007, and while the country suffers from 8.2 percent unemployment, the unemployment rate for government employees is just 4.2 percent [4].[5]
In any case, the federal government borrowing more money to transfer to state and local governments is not a job-creation policy, and it is outside the scope of the federal government. It’s merely a ploy to please union bosses, who are always eager to draw more federal dollars.
This government-boosting strategy also ignores the fact that it has been tried before and found wanting. President Obama’s first trillion-dollar stimulus plan was a failure (and a waste). And Europe is in the shape it is because of years of government largesse. Ironically President Obama sought to focus the media’s attention on Europe on Friday in an attempt to divert it from his own economic mismanagement.
We cannot avoid a European-style fiscal crisis by emulating Europe’s philosophy of government-centered economies and overspending.
But the President doesn’t understand the function of the private sector—creating and producing—so he is compelled to separate it from the rest of his reality. The private sector is indeed a bit of an alien place to this president , according to his accounting. He wrote in his autobiography Dreams from My Father about finding “conventional work” to pay the bills until he could land his dream job of community organizer. He was determined to remain in the private sector only briefly: “Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal.”
Following a flurry of outrage over his Friday comment, the President backtracked [6], saying what he meant was that “we’ve actually seen some good momentum in the private sector. That has not been the biggest drag on the economy.” Moving from 8.1 percent unemployment to 8.2 percent can only be considered “good momentum” in this White House. However, he’s correct about one thing: The biggest drag on the economy isn’t the private sector, but Washington.
Job creators in the private sector are paralyzed, suffering from overregulation and waiting for Taxmageddon to hit in January. The longer Congress waits to prevent Taxmageddon, the more uncertainty there will be for businesses.
Of course, if the President’s goal is to add more government employees, then he wouldn’t be as worried about the impact of these taxes and regulations on the private sector, which is “doing fine.”
In Dreams from My Father, Obama excused his temporary need to make money from a private-sector job while seeking his destiny as a community organizer: “I would need the money later, I told myself. Organizers didn’t make any money; their poverty was proof of their integrity.” If poverty is proof of integrity, then the President seems determined to make saints of us all.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry:Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/morning-bell-the-private-sector-is-not-doing-fine/
URLs in this post:
[1] the private sector is doing fine.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qevbhsmKFOQ
[2] made the same case: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/19/forget-the-facts-reid-says-private-sector-employment-is-just-fine/
[3] Reid argued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kk6D1-ECnQ
[4] 4.2 percent: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm
[5] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/special-private-sector-not-fine.jpg
[6] backtracked: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/president-obama-clarifies-private-sector-is-doing-fine-remarks-2/
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Private Sector is Not “Doing Fine”- Amy Payne, June 11, 2012
In now-infamous comments on Friday, President Barack Obama informed America that “the private sector is doing fine. [1]” This, of course, was news to the 12.7 million people who are out of work and the millions more who are struggling with the part-time jobs they can find, or have simply given up looking.
While the President’s comment is astoundingly out of touch with the public—and economic reality—perhaps even more distressing is that this wasn’t a passing verbal gaffe. This is actually a consistent talking point of the President and Democratic leadership that goes largely unchallenged by the media.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) made the same case [2] last fall when he was pushing a $35 billion bailout for state and local governments. “It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine,” Reid argued [3]. “It’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about.”
This is the President’s and the Majority Leader’s solution to the jobs crisis: more so-called stimulus and more government employees. As Heritage’s James Sherk has explained [2],this thinking is completely backwards:“If the recession has barely touched one sector of the economy, it is government.”If anyone is “doing fine,” it’s government employees. This goes beyond the far more generous pension and health benefits they enjoy. While the private sector lost 4.6 million jobs (a 3.9 percent drop) since the recession began, government payrolls have only fallen by 240,000 jobs (a 1.1 percent drop). Federal employment has actually grown nearly 12 percent since the end of 2007, and while the country suffers from 8.2 percent unemployment, the unemployment rate for government employees is just 4.2 percent [4].[5]
In any case, the federal government borrowing more money to transfer to state and local governments is not a job-creation policy, and it is outside the scope of the federal government. It’s merely a ploy to please union bosses, who are always eager to draw more federal dollars.
This government-boosting strategy also ignores the fact that it has been tried before and found wanting. President Obama’s first trillion-dollar stimulus plan was a failure (and a waste). And Europe is in the shape it is because of years of government largesse. Ironically President Obama sought to focus the media’s attention on Europe on Friday in an attempt to divert it from his own economic mismanagement.
We cannot avoid a European-style fiscal crisis by emulating Europe’s philosophy of government-centered economies and overspending.
But the President doesn’t understand the function of the private sector—creating and producing—so he is compelled to separate it from the rest of his reality. The private sector is indeed a bit of an alien place to this president , according to his accounting. He wrote in his autobiography Dreams from My Father about finding “conventional work” to pay the bills until he could land his dream job of community organizer. He was determined to remain in the private sector only briefly: “Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal.”
Following a flurry of outrage over his Friday comment, the President backtracked [6], saying what he meant was that “we’ve actually seen some good momentum in the private sector. That has not been the biggest drag on the economy.” Moving from 8.1 percent unemployment to 8.2 percent can only be considered “good momentum” in this White House. However, he’s correct about one thing: The biggest drag on the economy isn’t the private sector, but Washington.
Job creators in the private sector are paralyzed, suffering from overregulation and waiting for Taxmageddon to hit in January. The longer Congress waits to prevent Taxmageddon, the more uncertainty there will be for businesses.
Of course, if the President’s goal is to add more government employees, then he wouldn’t be as worried about the impact of these taxes and regulations on the private sector, which is “doing fine.”
In Dreams from My Father, Obama excused his temporary need to make money from a private-sector job while seeking his destiny as a community organizer: “I would need the money later, I told myself. Organizers didn’t make any money; their poverty was proof of their integrity.” If poverty is proof of integrity, then the President seems determined to make saints of us all.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry:Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/morning-bell-the-private-sector-is-not-doing-fine/
URLs in this post:
[1] the private sector is doing fine.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qevbhsmKFOQ
[2] made the same case: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/19/forget-the-facts-reid-says-private-sector-employment-is-just-fine/
[3] Reid argued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kk6D1-ECnQ
[4] 4.2 percent: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm
[5] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/special-private-sector-not-fine.jpg
[6] backtracked: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/president-obama-clarifies-private-sector-is-doing-fine-remarks-2/
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
#230 (6/12) - Can you say "Outrageous!"?
{NOTE: The following are several stories that I've not heard in the mainstream media but which should give pause to each of us. Are not Christians losing their religious liberties? Do our leaders really care whose money it is theyre spending? When will the mainstream media finally admit to their liberal bias? Just a few stories that should greatly concern us as much as outrage us.- Stan]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bars Prayer From Vermont Town MeetingCBNNews.com Monday, June 04, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/Judge-Bars-Prayer-From-Vermont-Town-Meeting/
"A superior court judge has barred the town of Franklin, Vt., from holding a prayer at the start of its annual town meeting. Judge Martin Maley sided with a local woman who sued to block the prayer. Marilyn Hackett said that over the years she has repeatedly objected to the practice. She said the Christian prayer violates Vermont's constitution, which protects against forced [really?!!] participation in religious worship.The court will hold a hearing to determine the damages to be awarded to Hackett, who is seeking legal fees..."
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court: Christian Photog Can’t Refuse Gay Ceremonies
CBNNews.com, June 06, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/Court-Photography-Studio-Cant-Refuse-Gay-Ceremonies/
"A Christian photography studio is guilty of discrimination because it refused to take pictures of a gay commitment ceremony, according to a New Mexico's Court of Appeals ruling. That decision against Elane Photography upholds a lower court ruling that said the photo studio is considered a public accommodation, similar to a restaurant or store.The case dates back to 2008 when New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled the studio violated the state's Human Rights Act and discriminated against Vanessa Willock because of her sexual orientation."
"Elane Photography Studio argued that the decision is simply a reflection of the owners' religious and moral beliefs. "Christians in the marketplace should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs anymore than anyone else should," Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said in a statement after the original ruling by the commission."
'The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,' he said.'Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.'The Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the studio, plans to appeal the latest court ruling."
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Spends $1 Million Annually for Weekend Trips
- By Ronald Kessler, June 4 2012
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Biden-weekend-travel-Air-Force-Two/2012/06/04/id/441168?s=al&promo_code=F195-1
"Last June, President Obama appointed Vice President Joe Biden to root out wasteful government spending. But behind the scenes, it’s a different matter."
"Every Friday, Biden takes a helicopter designated as Marine Two from the vice president’s residence to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland and then hops on Air Force Two to fly back to his home in Delaware. At the end of the weekend, he returns on Air Force Two, usually a Boeing C-32."
"During warm weather, Biden regularly returns to Andrews on the airplane on Saturdays to play golf at the Air Force base with President Obama. After the golf game, he flies back to Delaware and returns to Washington on the plane on Sunday evening — all at taxpayer expense."
"The cost of flying Air Force Two is $22,000 an hour, so each half-hour trip to or from Delaware costs about $10,000. Each golf game costs taxpayers $20,000. At that rate, the annual cost to taxpayers of Biden’s weekend trips is well over $1 million. In addition, the Secret Service rents more than 20 condominiums in the Wilmington, Del. area for agents who must accompany Biden when he returns to his home state."
[bold and italics emphasis are mine]
[NOTE:Knowing the expense of these tax-payer funded PRIVATE trips, the next time you see a news report of the President taking such a trip, consider the incredible frequency of such trips and just think of what it is costing us to foot the bill! - Stan]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brinkley Book: Cronkite Had 'Liberal Bias'June 4, 2012 By Todd Beamon and John Bachman
http://www.newsmax.com/US/brinkley-cronkite-liberal/2012/06/04/id/441177?s=al&promo_code=F195-1
"Walter Cronkite, 'The Most Trusted Man in America,' had a liberal bias that tainted his news judgment most of his career, his biographer told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview. 'Cronkite tried to stay objective and was throughout the ’50s and early ’60s, but Vietnam turned it for him,” Rice University historian and “Cronkite” author Douglas Brinkley told Newsmax.TV.' That means he became a liberal more overtly – say, post Watergate.
'But he was a covert liberal in the ’60s, in the sense that: Here’s your half-a-hour news broadcast, he’d do straight headline news, but he would run the assignments – and many of the assignments were tilted in favor of what would have been the progressive agenda of the ’60s: civil rights, environment, women’s rights – and, eventually, gay rights, which Cronkite was a big promoter of.'
'So a lot of that ’60s energy that we deal with in social upheaval, Cronkite was dealing with in a very astute way,” Brinkley continued. “He wasn’t doing stories about the John Birch Society or the burgeoning conservative movement in quite the same way, so one could argue there was a liberal bias in Cronkite throughout the ’60s, but it becomes noticeable post-Watergate, or around the time of Watergate...'”
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bars Prayer From Vermont Town MeetingCBNNews.com Monday, June 04, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/Judge-Bars-Prayer-From-Vermont-Town-Meeting/
"A superior court judge has barred the town of Franklin, Vt., from holding a prayer at the start of its annual town meeting. Judge Martin Maley sided with a local woman who sued to block the prayer. Marilyn Hackett said that over the years she has repeatedly objected to the practice. She said the Christian prayer violates Vermont's constitution, which protects against forced [really?!!] participation in religious worship.The court will hold a hearing to determine the damages to be awarded to Hackett, who is seeking legal fees..."
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court: Christian Photog Can’t Refuse Gay Ceremonies
CBNNews.com, June 06, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/Court-Photography-Studio-Cant-Refuse-Gay-Ceremonies/
"A Christian photography studio is guilty of discrimination because it refused to take pictures of a gay commitment ceremony, according to a New Mexico's Court of Appeals ruling. That decision against Elane Photography upholds a lower court ruling that said the photo studio is considered a public accommodation, similar to a restaurant or store.The case dates back to 2008 when New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled the studio violated the state's Human Rights Act and discriminated against Vanessa Willock because of her sexual orientation."
"Elane Photography Studio argued that the decision is simply a reflection of the owners' religious and moral beliefs. "Christians in the marketplace should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs anymore than anyone else should," Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said in a statement after the original ruling by the commission."
'The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,' he said.'Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.'The Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the studio, plans to appeal the latest court ruling."
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Spends $1 Million Annually for Weekend Trips
- By Ronald Kessler, June 4 2012
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Biden-weekend-travel-Air-Force-Two/2012/06/04/id/441168?s=al&promo_code=F195-1
"Last June, President Obama appointed Vice President Joe Biden to root out wasteful government spending. But behind the scenes, it’s a different matter."
"Every Friday, Biden takes a helicopter designated as Marine Two from the vice president’s residence to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland and then hops on Air Force Two to fly back to his home in Delaware. At the end of the weekend, he returns on Air Force Two, usually a Boeing C-32."
"During warm weather, Biden regularly returns to Andrews on the airplane on Saturdays to play golf at the Air Force base with President Obama. After the golf game, he flies back to Delaware and returns to Washington on the plane on Sunday evening — all at taxpayer expense."
"The cost of flying Air Force Two is $22,000 an hour, so each half-hour trip to or from Delaware costs about $10,000. Each golf game costs taxpayers $20,000. At that rate, the annual cost to taxpayers of Biden’s weekend trips is well over $1 million. In addition, the Secret Service rents more than 20 condominiums in the Wilmington, Del. area for agents who must accompany Biden when he returns to his home state."
[bold and italics emphasis are mine]
[NOTE:Knowing the expense of these tax-payer funded PRIVATE trips, the next time you see a news report of the President taking such a trip, consider the incredible frequency of such trips and just think of what it is costing us to foot the bill! - Stan]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brinkley Book: Cronkite Had 'Liberal Bias'June 4, 2012 By Todd Beamon and John Bachman
http://www.newsmax.com/US/brinkley-cronkite-liberal/2012/06/04/id/441177?s=al&promo_code=F195-1
"Walter Cronkite, 'The Most Trusted Man in America,' had a liberal bias that tainted his news judgment most of his career, his biographer told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview. 'Cronkite tried to stay objective and was throughout the ’50s and early ’60s, but Vietnam turned it for him,” Rice University historian and “Cronkite” author Douglas Brinkley told Newsmax.TV.' That means he became a liberal more overtly – say, post Watergate.
'But he was a covert liberal in the ’60s, in the sense that: Here’s your half-a-hour news broadcast, he’d do straight headline news, but he would run the assignments – and many of the assignments were tilted in favor of what would have been the progressive agenda of the ’60s: civil rights, environment, women’s rights – and, eventually, gay rights, which Cronkite was a big promoter of.'
'So a lot of that ’60s energy that we deal with in social upheaval, Cronkite was dealing with in a very astute way,” Brinkley continued. “He wasn’t doing stories about the John Birch Society or the burgeoning conservative movement in quite the same way, so one could argue there was a liberal bias in Cronkite throughout the ’60s, but it becomes noticeable post-Watergate, or around the time of Watergate...'”
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Monday, June 11, 2012
#229 (6/11) - Before We Get Involved in Syria ...
[NOTE: In all of the media focus on the civil war in Syria, I've not heard anything about what impact the recent changes in the Middle East have already had on the Christian minorities in each country who face increased persecution. Should America really be helping opposition parties which will be sure persecute believers as never before? The tragic story of America's lack of foresight in this regard when we got involved in Iraq should be a cautionary tale for any future involvements.- Stan]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Caught in the Middle: The U.S. and Syrian Christians"
- by Eric Metaxas, Breakpoint.org, June 02, 2012
This past Memorial Day weekend, while Americans were travelling to cookouts, UN officials were travelling to Houla, a cluster of villages north of Homs, the epicenter of the Syrian uprising. The massacre of 108 civilians was only the most recent atrocity in a fifteen-month-old conflict that has killed between thirteen and nineteen thousand people, most of them civilians.
In an epic understatement, The New York Times declared that the massacre “raised questions about the viability” of a peace plan being promoted by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. It’s tempting to mock the credulousness of those who, despite ample historical evidence to the contrary, still think that outsiders can impose their vision of a more just society on Syria. But that would be wrong if for no other reason than the “international community” seems intent on doing just that.
Instead, it’s the time for asking hard questions of those who are arguing for a greater American involvement in Syria. I say “American” because the simple truth is that, in matters like these, if the U.S. avoids getting involved, the rest of the world is neither willing nor able to intervene effectively: They’ll have to settle for harsh language.
One of the hardest questions is this: What will become of Syria’s substantial Christian population? The U.S. never asked this question about Iraq’s Christian population before it invaded that country, and the result was catastrophic for people whose ancestors, in the words of an earlier broadcast, “worshipped Jesus Christ back when most of ours worshipped trees and practiced the occasional human sacrifice.”
Syrian Christians, who comprise 10 percent of the population and who can trace their roots back to the first people to be called “Christians,”(see Acts 15)know that story all too well. Their concerns and misgivings were the subject of a recent article in the New York Review of Books. An Orthodox Christian in Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, called the Assad regime “very bad,” an opinion for which he was arrested.
At the same time, he pointed out that Syrian Christians are free to express their beliefs and practices under the current regime, a freedom he doubts the opposition would grant. As one woman put it, no one has called her a kafir — unbeliever — in more than thirty years. She’s convinced that this would change if the opposition came to power.
Even if this weren’t the case, the fact is that Christians, like their Iraqi brethren, would be caught in the middle if an all-out civil war broke out. And while Iraqi Christians could flee to Syria, where would Syrian Christians flee?
It’s easy for westerners to insist on some ideal arrangement. We don’t face a possible choice between leaving our ancestral homes or covering ourselves when we go to the market.
What’s happening in Syria is tragic and outrageous. But we’ve already made life worse for the ancient Christian community in Iraq. Another one, the Copts in Egypt, is feeling increasingly vulnerable after the fall of Hosni Mubarak.
While what happened in Egypt was beyond our control, we do control whether or how we will intervene in Syria. And our leaders may determine that intervening to save innocent lives is the right thing to do. But this time, we cannot and must not forget to count Christians among the innocent lives worth saving.
Folks, we’ve got to care about our persecuted brothers and sisters around the world. What are we in the church doing to help them? As Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” (For more on this, please visit breakpoint.org.)
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim Brotherhood: Egypt’s Christians Must "Convert, Pay Tribute, or Leave"
By Matthew Clark, Jun. 5, 2012, http://aclj.org/middle-east-turmoil/muslim-brotherhood-egypt-christians-convert-pay-tribute-leave
"According to a popular Egyptian website, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Egyptian presidential candidate, Mohammed Morsi, has stated that Christians will be forced to 'convert, pay tribute, or leave.' When asked about Coptic Christians in Egypt, Morsi reportedly told a journalist, 'They have to know that the conquest is coming and Egypt will be Muslim and they have to pay tribute or migrate as one who left.'
He reportedly stated that it was his goal as a presidential candidate to 'achieve the Islamic conquest of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya(Islamic tax).'”
"While some are unsure whether he made these particular comments, these statements are consistent with the rhetoric of his campaign. Just last month, Morsi looked on approvingly at a campaign rally as radical Cleric Safwat Higazi told a cheering crowd of thousands that Morsi would restore 'the United States of the Arabs' and that 'the capital of the United States of the Arabs will be Jerusalem, Allah willing.' As Morsi looked on, the Cleric led the crowd in the chant, 'Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem.'"
"If Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Egypt it could create an incredibly dangerous situation for Christians in Egypt, Israel, and the stability of the entire region.Morsi faces former Mubarak regime prime minister Ahmed Shafiq next month in a runoff election in Egypt."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Caught in the Middle: The U.S. and Syrian Christians"
- by Eric Metaxas, Breakpoint.org, June 02, 2012
This past Memorial Day weekend, while Americans were travelling to cookouts, UN officials were travelling to Houla, a cluster of villages north of Homs, the epicenter of the Syrian uprising. The massacre of 108 civilians was only the most recent atrocity in a fifteen-month-old conflict that has killed between thirteen and nineteen thousand people, most of them civilians.
In an epic understatement, The New York Times declared that the massacre “raised questions about the viability” of a peace plan being promoted by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. It’s tempting to mock the credulousness of those who, despite ample historical evidence to the contrary, still think that outsiders can impose their vision of a more just society on Syria. But that would be wrong if for no other reason than the “international community” seems intent on doing just that.
Instead, it’s the time for asking hard questions of those who are arguing for a greater American involvement in Syria. I say “American” because the simple truth is that, in matters like these, if the U.S. avoids getting involved, the rest of the world is neither willing nor able to intervene effectively: They’ll have to settle for harsh language.
One of the hardest questions is this: What will become of Syria’s substantial Christian population? The U.S. never asked this question about Iraq’s Christian population before it invaded that country, and the result was catastrophic for people whose ancestors, in the words of an earlier broadcast, “worshipped Jesus Christ back when most of ours worshipped trees and practiced the occasional human sacrifice.”
Syrian Christians, who comprise 10 percent of the population and who can trace their roots back to the first people to be called “Christians,”(see Acts 15)know that story all too well. Their concerns and misgivings were the subject of a recent article in the New York Review of Books. An Orthodox Christian in Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, called the Assad regime “very bad,” an opinion for which he was arrested.
At the same time, he pointed out that Syrian Christians are free to express their beliefs and practices under the current regime, a freedom he doubts the opposition would grant. As one woman put it, no one has called her a kafir — unbeliever — in more than thirty years. She’s convinced that this would change if the opposition came to power.
Even if this weren’t the case, the fact is that Christians, like their Iraqi brethren, would be caught in the middle if an all-out civil war broke out. And while Iraqi Christians could flee to Syria, where would Syrian Christians flee?
It’s easy for westerners to insist on some ideal arrangement. We don’t face a possible choice between leaving our ancestral homes or covering ourselves when we go to the market.
What’s happening in Syria is tragic and outrageous. But we’ve already made life worse for the ancient Christian community in Iraq. Another one, the Copts in Egypt, is feeling increasingly vulnerable after the fall of Hosni Mubarak.
While what happened in Egypt was beyond our control, we do control whether or how we will intervene in Syria. And our leaders may determine that intervening to save innocent lives is the right thing to do. But this time, we cannot and must not forget to count Christians among the innocent lives worth saving.
Folks, we’ve got to care about our persecuted brothers and sisters around the world. What are we in the church doing to help them? As Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” (For more on this, please visit breakpoint.org.)
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim Brotherhood: Egypt’s Christians Must "Convert, Pay Tribute, or Leave"
By Matthew Clark, Jun. 5, 2012, http://aclj.org/middle-east-turmoil/muslim-brotherhood-egypt-christians-convert-pay-tribute-leave
"According to a popular Egyptian website, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Egyptian presidential candidate, Mohammed Morsi, has stated that Christians will be forced to 'convert, pay tribute, or leave.' When asked about Coptic Christians in Egypt, Morsi reportedly told a journalist, 'They have to know that the conquest is coming and Egypt will be Muslim and they have to pay tribute or migrate as one who left.'
He reportedly stated that it was his goal as a presidential candidate to 'achieve the Islamic conquest of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya(Islamic tax).'”
"While some are unsure whether he made these particular comments, these statements are consistent with the rhetoric of his campaign. Just last month, Morsi looked on approvingly at a campaign rally as radical Cleric Safwat Higazi told a cheering crowd of thousands that Morsi would restore 'the United States of the Arabs' and that 'the capital of the United States of the Arabs will be Jerusalem, Allah willing.' As Morsi looked on, the Cleric led the crowd in the chant, 'Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem.'"
"If Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Egypt it could create an incredibly dangerous situation for Christians in Egypt, Israel, and the stability of the entire region.Morsi faces former Mubarak regime prime minister Ahmed Shafiq next month in a runoff election in Egypt."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
