Remembering 9/11 - The Day That Changed Us All

September 11, 2001 is a fateful day that is etched into the memories of all those who were witness to the day’s events. It's a day that has changed a nation and changed all of its citizens forever. Yet even as I write this, I am reminded of news reports that I have heard that mention schools that either refuse to or have failed to introduce lessons on 9/11 and its significance to our nation as part of their curriculum. While the event can be painfully difficult to recount, it is crucial to help our nation’s youth understand the events. Just as recounting Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust, the evils of communism and fascism, and other atrocities that have occurred in our nation’s and our world’s history is important, so is recounting the terrors of 9/11.

As I had stated in an earlier post regarding this tragic event:

The day we forget is the day we dishonor all the heroes who gave their lives to save so many on that fateful day. The moment we forget is the moment we dishonor all the men and women who have forsaken loved ones to toil in sweat and blood in a land they don't know to defend our liberties from a terrible foe. When we forget, we forget who we are. And we forget what monsters man can become.

We must remember it because it changed us, and in many ways redefined us.

The changes, adverse and positive, that our nation underwent over such a short period were dramatic. In come cases, they were short-lived. I have heard reports of there being no crimes reported in Manhattan for nearly 72 hrs after the event. Church attendance nationwide increased, but has since sunk back to pre-9/11 levels. Military recruitment saw a sharp, but temporary boost.

Other effects of the atrocities of that day 10 years ago still affect us and will continue to affect us for years to come. Our nation, to this day, is involved in several wars and military actions overseas in which we would not be involved if not for 9/11. Our nation’s airports, ports, military bases, government installations, and other locations have instituted and continue to practice security measures that would have been considered unnecessary before the attacks. An entire agency (DHS) was created in response to the attacks. Our nation’s citizens are more security conscious than ever, too. The “shoe-bomber” and the “times square bomber” were both stopped or reported by regular citizens as a result of a heightened sense of security.

These events have also scarred us. Not long ago, I heard a news reporter mention that he mistook thunder he heard while waiting for a flight at an airport as a bomb blast. Many people in DC initially believed the earthquake the area recently experienced to be some sort of a terrorist attack. As a result of my tour in Afghanistan, which would not have occurred but for 9/11, I still cringe at the sight of debris on the side of road while driving. Thousands of other servicemen who have fought in what are beginning to be known as “wars of injury” have other issues with which they must cope as an indirect result of these attacks.

While many of the effects of the terrorist attacks 10 years ago are negative, I still believe that the long-lasting effects are more positive than not. People seem to fly flags more often. Pride in our nations and its military is stronger than before. Even in dissent against military action, rarely is ill spoken of the troops that are involved in said engagements. While evil men thought they would destroy our spirits that day, the actually brought us closer together, made us stronger.

As a few excerpts from an Associated Press article written by Tamara Lush read:

“On a day when buildings fell, heroes rose." – George W. Bush

“On a grand scale, Sept. 11 provided us with a heroism of humanity. It showed that many people are capable of profound qualities of heroism and self-sacrifice. It is really the content of the human spirit.” – Al Mascherino, Roman Catholic Priest

While 9/11 may have showed us the horrific lows to which man may descend, it also showed us the strength of human character and the goodness and strength that is within all of us.
                               

We're all Terrorists Now

So the latest smear campaign against the tea party is to contort its effort to reign in government spending and get our deficit under control as economic terrorism. I'm so happy to see that now that Gabrielle Giffords can walk and is casting votes in Washington, we are all free to up the violent rhetoric ante. On a side note, since Gabby voted for the debt increase, does that make her one of the Economic Terrorists? I'm sure she'd appreciate that label.

Frankly, when Van Jones and the Communist Party USA call the tea party terrorists, anybody who stands behind genuine deficit reduction should wear it as a badge of honor. Call us what you want, but we know that you're just mad that we're raining on your spending parade.

Name-calling aside, let's review why the debate over this particular debt ceiling increase was so intense. First, this is the biggest debt ceiling increase in American history (taking the place of the previous biggest increase in history, which was also instituted under President Obama). Why so big? One reason: it gives President Obama a free ride beyond 2012, eliminating one more reason for his opponents to interrupt his campaign speeches to debate Washington's spending addiction. Additionally, and more importantly, several credit rating agencies had threatened to downgrade America's AAA bond rating if the debt deal wasn't done in a manner that addressed America's spending and deficit sufficiently over the long term. These are bond rating agencies, mind you, not Tea Party Terrorist Sleeper Cells. So, call the Tea Party what you want, but they were simply trying to be the grown ups in the room and do something that gave our country a realistic shot at preserving the AAA rating. The first bill that those homegrown terrorists produced was the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill. It actually met S&P's and Moody's criteria for preservation of the AAA rating because it reduced spending by more than the $4 trillion benchmark that was required while passing a debt limit increase.  In fact, it's the only bill that purported to do so.

Now that the revised Boehner plan passed, Moody's was gracious enough to confirm our AAA rating, but still assigned a negative outlook on America's fiscal future. Fitch's and S&P have yet to confirm our rating, but instead say that they are uncertain if we've done enough to address the problem. Translation: We've averted the immediate crisis and successfully kicked the can down the road.

Many in the tea party are upset with this bill, and understandably so. They want drastic reductions in spending, budget cuts, deficit reduction, a flat tax, energy independence, a return of the gold standard, and a complete change in the way Washington works, and they want it NOW! Unfortunately (or fortunately) that's not how Washington works. They have to realize that we're turning a boat, nay, a corporate-owned, jet-carrying yacht around here. Progress will be slow.

However, according to Krauthammer, one of the great conservative thinkers, the Tea Party should chalk this up as a victory. Why? Because he is thinking in terms of battles over the course of a war (pardon the violent rhetoric, I wouldn't want to be confused for a christian militant) instead of winning the war outright in one great, epic battle in which Gandalf the Gray comes to save the Hobbits from certain doom (or is it Aslan?). If conservatives play their cards right, they will continue to win small battle after battle until perhaps we've won a sizable victory.
                     

Anders Behring Breivik - Christian Jihadist?

A bomb goes off in Oslo, then a madman in a police uniform shoots up a youth camp. Shortly after the attack, a Jihadist organization that may or may not exist claimed responsibility for the act of terror. Then, a 180 degree turn occurs: Breivik, the "jihadist", isn't a Muslim, but a Christian! The news spreads like wildfire.

So, is Breivik a Christian? Clinton said it best, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Breivik claims he's a Christian. His Facebook page said he is (before it was taken down). So I guess we could call him a self-described Christian. But does calling oneself something make it so? I could call myself a millionaire, but I don't think it would make my bank account any fatter. But Christianity isn't really objective, like dollars in a bank account. It's subjective, it's a belief, interpreted differently by every person who claims to be a Christian.

Do Christians think Breivik is Christian? The answer seems to be a somewhat wobbly "not really". Time after time after time opinion writers, scholars, and talking heads and denounce the act and define it as un-Christian, but many of the attempts to define Breivik himself as not a Christian seem almost petty. Why?

What he did in Norway last week was anything but Christian, and it certainly wasn't "Christ-like", and in the end, Breivik's level of Christianity is something that will be settled between himself and Christ.

While there are days when my Christianity is not as manifest as others, and times when I don't act very Christian at all, that doesn't make me "not" a Christian. Judas Iscariot was a Christian, too. Christianity is a belief structure, a theology, a religious inclination, not a guarantee of Christ-like action.

So I'll say what so many seem to be hesitant to say:

Breivik is a nut, a loon, a maniac, a killer, a despicable person, scum of the earth, disturbed, hateful, and....a Christian.
                    

50% Surtax on Former Government Employees Say What!?

The other day I came across a suggestion that was posted on Pajamas Media's Instapundit blog by a Glenn Reynolds.

The author jokingly suggested that perhaps a good way for Obama to raise revenue would be to place a 50% surtax on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay $12,500 in excise tax (half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years.  While I must reaffirm that the author said this jokingly, I assume that his suggestion was posted with the intent that it would "scare" people out of going to work for the government.

While it is obvious that there is quite a bit of fat that can be trimmed from the government's payroll, I take strong issue with that suggestion. This guy seems to imply in his post that working for the federal government should be penalized.  If you read between the lines, it seems like he thinks it is a bad thing or that it is offensive for somebody to work for the federal government.

I'm not exactly a lobbyist for federal workers.  For example, in a recent post I said:

While I actually have a hard time believing that government employees deserve a better retirement than everybody else, I can understand the argument.  Firemen rescue, policemen protect, sanitation workers sanitize..., etc. I understand that our lives would not to be the same if public employees didn't show up to work.  Then again, our lives might change just as drastically if all the nation's Walmart employees decided to stay home for a week or two.

But arguing that public employees are not any more crucial to society than private ones is not the same thing as degrading them by implying that their existence should somehow be penalized.

Ben Stein, one of my favorite commentators, stated once:

There is a basic assumption among many of us conservatives that bothers me. Basically, the assumption is that if a person is a government employee, then he or she is lazy and shiftless, a parasite just eating up tax dollars without doing anything...To put it mildly, this is unfair and not even in the ballpark of what's true...I am sure there are many government employees who waste money but so are there wasteful private sector people. Let's take our conservative noses out of the air and stop sneering at the people who serve us in the civil service. We would be awfully sad if they were gone, even the ones in the Department of Motor Vehicles.

While we were arguing from different directions. Our point is the same, I believe. Employees in both private and public sectors serve vital roles in our society. Without them, our lives would undoubtedly be more difficult and both groups should be treated well.

I do still believe, however, that since the private sector basically funds the public one. Everybody's best interest is served in increasing effiiciency and lowering costs within the public sector - as long as effectiveness is not lost.

So in rebuttal to the condescending suggestion of Reynolds, I suggest the following:

A 50% deduction on the taxable income on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. This deduction would be applicable to up to 50% of that employee's actual salary in his former government position.  For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay income tax on $62,500 of his income ($12,500 less, or half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years, but is not eligible for a tax deduction of more than $25,000 (half of his original $50,000 paycheck).  Of course, in order to qualify, they would have to be hired before today's date and leave their position in the government after today's date.

I contend that this solution would have a more positive impact on our economic situation. We all know that it is tax revenue that pays for the government worker's salary, so incentivising a departure from the public to private sector would in the end save the taxpayers money and in fact increase revenue to the government. There is also no stigma against public employees created by this kind of a policy. It's in effect a way of saying, "Thanks for your service to your country, now let me give you a head start on your venture into the private sector."

What say you?
 

How Sacred is Your Cow?

The other day I caught a snippet of Frank Luntz' focus group on the Fox News program Hannity. Luntz's workshops are of great interest to me. It's a chance to escape the noise of the media and focus on what concerns real live Americans. In this focus group, Rand Paul was invited as a guest. He spoke regarding deficits, spending, the military, among other things.

While watching the video, you probably noticed that Rand Paul's 2010 advertisement polled extremely well, and he continued to poll well in the focus group.

I had to ask myself, "Why does this guy poll so well?"

He's not exactly a centrist.  He opposes same sex marriage, opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, wants to eliminate the federal reserve, wants to get rid of the Department of Education, and opposes all forms of gun control.  He's about as right wing as they come.

I understand why he would poll well among strong conservatives, but why among people who are more centrist or left-leaning? I know the focus group was on Faux News, as some call it, but Frank Luntz's focus group's are designed to have a good spread of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. How could the democrats find him as appealing as the republicans do?

Now, I had to remember that the guy wasn't speaking about gay marriage or gun control, but about the economy and our military, and he polled especially well when speaking on the economy.  So I decided to analyze that particular point (I'll open the can of worms that is the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lybia later). Apparently, Rand Paul's position regarding the budget appeals to a lot of Americans - Democrat and Republican.

So what is it that is so appealing about Rand Paul's economic view?  I believe it is the fact that he appears to be without Sacred Cows.  Rand rejects the proposition that there is any government program that is so great or so important that there is no way on earth that we can possibly afford to cut, modify, or eliminate it.  He strikes the note that we all know in our guts - If we're to take serious steps toward deficit reduction and a balanced budget, then ALL spending must be put on the table.

While a conservative politician might think that a strong national defense is more important to our nation than food stamps, if he is to sound credible to the American people who are dead serious about deficit reduction and a balanced budget, he must be willing to put even his "pet programs" on the chopping block.  Until he is willing to do that, he won't be seen as genuinely determined to get spending under control.

Today conservative radio host Mark Levin linked to an article in the Washington Post entitled: GOP Compromise on Debt: Cut Military Spending?  When posting the link, Levin says: GOP debt reduction plan. Unilateral disarmament?

I have no problem with Levin saying that. He's a commentator. But if a politician had equated cutting wasteful military spending (it does exist, just ask anybody who has spent some time in the military) to unilateral disarmament, he might score points with some conservatives, but he would also succeed in alienating himself from the millions of Americans who know that wasteful spending can be found even in the defense budget.

As most warm-blooded creatures with a pulse know, we are entering campaign season.  The politicians who are vying at the chance to become the leader of the free world can take a cue from little old Rand Paul.  They might want to look at their fiscal policy and ask themselves, "Just how sacred are my cows?" If they find that they are unwilling to even have a conversation regarding cuts in spending in a specific program, whether it's social security, medicare, or defense spending, then they may have just uncovered a serious stumbling block to their campaign.