Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.


Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.





Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations

Jerry Sproul, CPA

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

Sali Named Taxpayer Hero by Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

August 29th, 2008 by Halli

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bill Sali today was named a Taxpayer Hero by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. The group announced its decision based on its examination of votes in which Sali voted against wasteful government programs and spending. The group designates Taxpayer Heroes as those members who scored between 80 and 99 percent on 100 votes cast in 2007. Sali scored 93 percent.

“I am thrilled to have received this award, but it really belongs to the people of Idaho. Their values of frugality and fiscal commonsense are what I bring to my work every day in Washington,” said Sali.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a group that works to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

This is the latest in a series of awards and recognitions for Sali. This Congress, Sali also received the Defender of Economic Freedom Award from the Club for Growth, Taxpayers’ Friend Award from the National Taxpayers Union, Spirit of Enterprise Award from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the True Blue Award from Focus on the Family, Hero of the Taxpayer from Americans for Tax Reform, Guardian of Seniors’ Rights award and the “Benjamin Franklin Award from the 60 Plus Association, Friend of the Shareholder” award from the American Shareholders Association, Guardian of Worker Freedom award from the Alliance for Worker Freedom and named among the “Best and Brightest” in Congress by the American Conservative Union.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Congressman Bill Sali, Taxes | No Comments »

Guest Post: The Economic Basics of Abortion

August 28th, 2008 by Halli

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

An interesting article appeared on WorldNetDaily yesterday. Written by Dr. Arthur Robinson, it was entitled, “The One and Only Solution to America’s Energy Problem”. The article is a very interesting primer on the fundamentals of energy as an economic commodity and worth reading to prepare for the coming “fairy dust storm” on alternative energy sources – a religious principle with Liberals going back to the first Earth Day. (And, despite many Democrat opportunities, a policy with virtually no concrete advancement for that entire period; the reasons for which will become clear after reading Robinson’s article).

Obviously the debate over alternative energy is largely unrelated to abortion.

But a point made by Robinson deep in his commentary refutes one of the darkest arguments used to advance abortion in a selfish culture: Too many people cause economic hardship and deprivation for those of us already here.

Quoting from Julian Simon, a renowned economist in his book “The Ultimate Resource 2”, Robison asserts:

“Simon describes and verifies a fundamental economic law. Each human being who is born, on average, produces more resources than he consumes –IF he possesses the freedom to do so.”

Thus it is the individual human being who is key to general economic security and prosperity.

The greatest natural resource in the world will not be found in an oil field, a gold mine or even a farmer’s field; rather, our economic hope will be found in a mother’s womb.

If this is so – then one can only wonder how much treasure and blessing has been destroyed during America’s long experiment with a freedom that grants certain persons license to kill certain other persons. It is an experiment for which we are all paying a huge, if yet untallied, price.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

Guest Post: Merit Pay Based on “Value-added Evaluation”

August 26th, 2008 by Halli

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Merit pay for teachers based on student academic performance is long overdue. If we want excellent teachers in the classroom, we must commit ourselves to offering financial rewards to those teachers who can prove, through standardized testing, their superior ability to deliver content.

Ohio is experimenting with a way to assess teacher performance based on a “value-added” approach. That is, researchers have found a way to determine what value a teacher adds to each individual student in his classroom over the course of the year.

Thus teachers can be rewarded not just for overall classroom performance, but for contributing substantially to a student’s academic growth over the year, regardless of that student’s level of proficiency when the school year began.

Student performance can be measured in achievement – the absolute levels attained by students in end-of-year tests, or in growth – that is, in the progress made in test scores by students over the school year, or both.

The value-added method enables schools – and parents – to identify which individual teachers are effective and which are not. Some school districts are already using this approach as the foundation for a performance pay system for teachers.

Entire schools can be graded on the same basis, enabling parents to identify those schools with are actually teaching children something and which schools are coasting.

One observer said this method of evaluating is a bit like using pencil marks on a bedroom wall to plot a child’s growth. Said a University of Tennessee researcher, “It is, at this point in time, the most robust methodology that has been developed. It’s fair to hold adults accountable for the progress rate of children.”

Right now just four states – Tennessee, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, in addition to Ohio – use the value-added measurement statewide. Perhaps it’s an idea whose time has come in Idaho.

Naturally, members of the education establishment criticize the value-added approach because it, like achievement measurement in general, is based on test scores. But how else can we know whether students are actually learning anything?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Education, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature | 1 Comment »

Guest Post: Catholic Congressmen Take Pelose to Task

August 26th, 2008 by Halli

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

Ten Catholic congressmen issued a public letter yesterday to Speaker of the House chastising her for “mangling” Church doctrine on abortion.

During an appearance this past Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Speaker Pelosi claimed that she was “an ardent, practicing Catholic”. She further asserted that the Church’s teaching against abortion was “something like 50 years old” and over the ages, abortion has been “an issue of controversy”.

The offended legislators, including Steve Chabot of Ohio, Peter King of New York and Devin Nunes of California, correctly chastised Pelosi for misstating the history of Christian doctrine on the sanctity of human life:

“From the Apostles of the first century to Pope John Paul, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,” wrote the congressmen, quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As of this writing, we are unaware of Pelosi’s response.

The controversy comes at a crucial – and predictable – time in the political cycle of the nation.

Catholic voters have formed a very important swing constituency during the past three or four presidential contests. One of the core issues in the fight for that vote is abortion. Pro-Life candidates for president have won a plurality of the Catholic vote in the past few elections.

Pelosi, as the nation’s highest-ranking Catholic elected official, is no doubt sensitive to that history and determined to change it. Her statements can be understood to be part of a concerted strategy by abortion advocates to hood-wink Catholics into “overlooking” Obama’s deep commitment to killing preborn children.

Another piece of that grand strategy came to light last Friday, when “Catholics for Choice” released a purported poll of Catholic voters. The group claimed that 69% of Catholics interviewed do not believe they are obligated to vote against candidates who support legalized abortion.

This “poll” is most likely an example of agenda-groups using the respectability of polling to help manipulate public opinion rather than reflect it. What is beyond dispute is the group’s blatant agenda to seduce non-wary.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Guest Post: It’s “Cool” to Be Patriotic

August 25th, 2008 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

As much as I enjoy sports and respect professional athletes for their athletic prowess, I’ve never been much of a fan of them off the court. For the most part, I find them totally egotistic, self-serving, and intellectually vapid, much like most Hollywood types.

There have been some notable exceptions to this generalization. I think of some greats like Bill Russell, John Stockton, Andre Agassi, Julius Erving, Jerry Rice, and Larry Bird. They were not only phenomenal athletes on the court, but they appeared genuine, sincere, and thoughtful off the court. They were more than just athletes, they were the type of people you wouldn’t mind having your children emulate and lionize.

One prominent athlete I’ve had little regard for has been Kobe Bryant, guard for the Los Angeles Lakers. He came onto the NBA scene with a splash in the post Michael Jordan era when the NBA was hungrily seeking a new “face” for the league. As a prodigious high school player in Philadelphia, Bryant opted to bypass college and go directly to the pros.

His play has become legendary, and his highlight reel is nearly as full of spectacular plays as Dr. J’s (Julius Erving) and Michael Jordan’s. But as a youngster in the NBA, it was all too evident that the accolades heaped upon him went to his head, and he became the epitome of self-centered, pampered professional athletes. His antics off the court have been a deterrent to holding him in higher regard.

But to many, especially youth, Bryant is an icon of “coolness.” His jersey, the Laker yellow #24, is the top selling NBA jersey, as is evidenced even on the streets of Pocatello.

In light of his “coolness,” it was extremely gratifying to hear his interview with Chris Collinsworth, a former wide receiver with the Cincinnati Bengals, on NBC this week. Collinsworth asked Bryant, “Tell the story when you first got your USA uniform.” To which Bryant responded, “Well, I had goosebumps and I actually just looked at it for awhile. I just held it there and I laid it across my bed and just stared at it for a few minutes; just because as a kid growing up this is the ultimate, ultimate in basketball.”

Collinsworth continued, “Where does the patriotism come from inside of you? Historically, what is it?” Bryant answered, “Well, you know it’s just our country, it’s… we believe this is the greatest country in the world. It has given us so many great opportunities, and it’s just a sense of pride that you have; that you say ‘You know what? Our country is the best!’”

Collinsworth took it a step further, “Is that a ‘cool’ thing to say, in this day and age? That you love your country, and that you’re fighting for the red, white and blue? It seems sort of like a day gone by.” Bryant replied, “No, it’s a cool thing for me to say. I feel great about it, and I’m not ashamed to say it. I mean, this is a tremendous honor.”

Bryant climbed several notches in my esteem with those comments. Here is the icon of “cool” for youth, not just in our country, but as we see in Beijing, around the world, and he’s saying it’s cool to love America, and recognize American exceptionalism for what it is.

The founding principles of this nation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our uniquely determined dependence on deity for our very existence as a country, have made us the envy of the world. Of equal significance is our adherence to principles of freedom and liberty even in our economic system. Why else would China, a nation with nearly 4 times our population, and an economy of roughly 1/5th the size of the U.S. go into the Beijing Olympics declaring openly that their primary goal was to achieve parity with the U.S.? I for one would be much more impressed by a move to achieve civil rights parity with the U.S.

For some reason, many Americans who enjoy the fruits of freedom here don’t seem to appreciate enough the tree from which those fruits grew. They lament a purported fall from grace and somehow think it’s “cool” to belittle and disparage our country. They point incessantly at the great moral evil of slavery, while failing to concede the monumental moral victory of our nation in eradicating it. In my estimation, not only is it possible to love America and all she stands for while being critical of politicians and policy, but I think that is what’s meant by dissent being the ultimate form of patriotism: a devotion to America and a commitment to her perpetuity so great that we speak out in opposition to those policies that we’re convinced challenge the role of America as an ensign of freedom to the world.

I’m grateful for Kobe Bryant’s expressed love of country, and am equally grateful that he never went to the Obama’s church or we might never have heard them.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Politics in General | No Comments »

Guest Post: Secretary Leavitt Stands Tall Against Abortion Lobby

August 22nd, 2008 by Halli

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, former governor of Utah, issued new rules yesterday protecting physicians – despite immense pressure from the Abortion Lobby.

Over the past several months, Planned Parenthood and have been jamming the HHS website with “petitions” from folks purportedly concerned about the new regulations. According to one web report, Leavitt received some 325,000 names on Wednesday – a number questioned by some because of the way Planned Parenthood has misrepresented the issue at stake.

In his own web action yesterday, Secretary Leavitt made it clear that he would nevertheless act to protect physicians from being forced into performing abortions: “Federal law is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable.”

Leavitt’s action was necessary because of politically-motivated actions by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Under the fierce influence of abortionists within their ranks, ACOG has made moves to force all OBGyns into performing abortions as a condition for certification by the organization. As Secretary Leavitt notes, “physician certification is a powerful instrument; without it, a doctor cannot practice the specialty.”

Before issuing the new rule, Leavitt asked the governing board of ACOG to make it clear that abortion practice would not be made mandatory: Such a standard would not only violate federal law, “it violates decency and the core value of personal liberty.”

The abortion hacks running ACOG refused – hence Leavitt’s action.

His proposed rule makes it clear that the protections for provider conscience apply to institutional health care providers as well as individual employees of institutions (including medical schools) receiving federal funds.

Leavitt is to be highly commended for standing against intense pressure by the Abortion Lobby.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | 1 Comment »

Guest Post: The Strange Matter of John McCain

August 19th, 2008 by Halli

By David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

John McCain is a difficult case for the pro-Life movement. Many have already concluded that we ought to rally behind him because he is not Barack Obama. Fair enough: Obama has stubbornly continued to defend abortion even to the point of supporting outright infanticide. (As evidence, see his repeated votes against protecting babies who survive abortion attempts).

Some have observed that his passion for killing preborn children exceeds even that of NARAL – comprised of folks who actually get paid for the killing.

But the problem for many of us is the overwhelming evidence that John McCain is simply not committed to ending abortion. His largely pro-Life voting record is seriously compromised by contradictory statements and actions over a long career. McCain continues to add to our ambivalence every day he pounds the campaign.

Take his recent statements at the ballyhooed forum orchestrated this weekend by Rick Warren, celebrity evangelist. During the discussion, McCain was asked “at what point does a baby gain human rights?” His answer was strong and fundamentally sound:

“A baby’s human rights begin at the moment of conception.”

Then – we are all left wondering – how can John McCain defend the practice of slaughtering human embryos in order to harvest their stem cells? Even worse – how can he advocate that American taxpayers actually pay for the heinous barbarity of treating human beings as a mere cash crop?

John McCain’s support for harvesting stem cells from defenseless babies goes beyond his votes: He was one of 58 senators who signed a letter to President Bush in June of 2004 demanding that Bush renege on his promise to America and open the federal purse to private sector companies built on the dead remains of America’s innocents. (Personally, I’ve always suspected that McCain was playing crude life politics to win the backing of Nancy Reagan and demonstrate his ‘ornery independence’ among moderate business groups).

And just last week, McCain screeched out of his way to throw a grenade at social conservatives by suggesting that he was considering Tom Ridge as his Vice-President pick, despite Ridge’s pro-abortion views.

In explaining his impressions of Ridge, McCain is quoted by the AP as saying, “… the pro-Life position is one of the important aspects … of the Republican Party…[but] …Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and happens to be pro-choice.”

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of John McCain is his record on the judiciary.

At the Warren forum, McCain sang the old standard about picking justices for the nation’s high court who were committed to strictly applying the Constitution – and not ‘legislating from the bench’. Republicans have been winning federal seats for years on just that practiced melody.

But when the opportunity arose, when the Senate struggled to deal with President Bush’s nominations to the federal bench, comprised of just such persons, McCain was the principal betrayer of the faith. He was a central character in the “Gang of Fourteen” drama scripted by Ted Kennedy to block the majority of Bush’s appointees.

So … where are we left? In a bad situation, largely of our own making.

At the moment (if ‘moment’ can be used to describe a months-long dalliance) when America needed leadership – most of the pro-Life movement sat around sipping tea waiting for a strong leader to emerge. McCain outwitted us through his back-door deals with Fred Thompson in the primaries.

Now we are left to console ourselves with the lame hope that McCain will prove himself worth electing.

[Editors note: The Board of ICL has yet to make an endorsement in the presidential race, and will likely take the matter up at the September Board Meeting].

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Guest Post: Democrats Embrace Abortion as Core Article of Faith

August 16th, 2008 by Halli

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

As presidential hopeful Barack Obama prepares for his Denver gala, the finishing touches are being put to his national “change” platform.

During the primary election process Obama made mechanical reference to his vision of “change” – without being particularly specific as to the particulars. He has now decided to flesh out that vision a bit, and a good deal of homage is being paid to his party’s feminist wing.

Obama and his people want even more offensive language affirming their devotion to abortion:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

This language means abortion has become an essential article of faith for all Democrats. It also means that the party is committed to trampling the conscience of pro-Life Americans by setting a course to establish a national “right” to tax-funding of all abortions.

In a recent story run on LifeNews.Com, editor Steven Ertelt affirms that Democrat operatives added language to the abortion plank promoting increased funding of Planned Parenthood in the hopes of mitigating the impact of their radical agenda for the nation. That strategy seems unlikely to be effective, since most of us realize that Planned Parenthood seeks to sexualize and exploit children at the earliest possible age in order to expand its customer base.

Candidates running under the Democrat label may well find this platform language difficult to explain – especially in places like Idaho. But Obama is clearly more concerned about placating the feminist wing which formed the core of Hillary’s vote in recent primaries.

Perhaps even more challenging for local Democrats will be Obama’s commitment to leading the charge on behalf of the “Freedom of Choice Act” – Planned Parenthood’s strategy for federalizing the abortion issue. According to LifeNews, the basic thrust of this proposed federal law would be to override any and all state restrictions on abortion. That would mean Idaho’s ban on tax funded abortions or our Parental Consent Law would be voided by Congressional fiat.

It seems more than reasonable that local pro-Life activists closely question Democrat candidates running this fall on their allegiance to the national party platform and its presidential candidate.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | 1 Comment »

Idaho Falls Newspaper Reaches New Pinnacles of Inanity

August 13th, 2008 by Halli

I’ve been resisting the urge to point out the nonsensical, though laughable, material printed in the Idaho Falls newspaper. However, this week the headlines and other articles have overwhelmed my self-restraint.

Take a headline in today’s edition, which I have cut and pasted directly from the online version:

Idaho county approves feedlot near interment camp

Following a cursory read, one might conclude that a cattle feeding operation had been given the green light near a – what IS an interment camp? Is it possible that we have a new Idaho colloquialism for cemetery? Idahoans are pretty informal, and they do love the great outdoors. They have girls’ camps, Scout camps, National Forest camps, fire camps, and state camps. But calling a cemetery an interment camp is a little much even for the locals.

I should read the article, you say?

Jerome County Commissioners in south-central Idaho have approved a massive animal feedlot a mile west of a national historic site where Japanese-Americans were confined during World War II.

Ah – now I understand. The newspaper really meant internment camp. Pity. “Interment camp” held far more interesting possibilities.

And Monday’s edition provided us with this insight to the craft of the chronicler:

Historian draws from life

I suppose this is news because most historians just make things up. I have long suspected as much, but thanks are due the Idaho Falls newspaper for clarifying that point. Now we know there’s at least one historian in the world who records events that actually happened – in “life”. And, he’s from Twin Falls, Idaho. At last!

Perhaps the most humorous Idaho Falls newspaper piece I’ve read lately came from the opinion page, and was authored by none other than Roger Plothow, editor and publisher, entitled,

If it’s not journalism, it’s not news

Mr. Plothow first illuminates what journalism is not. Apparently it’s not blogging which “makes no pretense of fairness, balance, accuracy or integrity”. It’s not television pundits such as Bill O’Reilly. It’s not news fresh from the police scanner. And it certainly isn’t anything called or texted in by the average citizen.

After denigrating (look that one up, Mr. Newspaper Guy) any and every one not on his own crack staff, Mr. Plothow tells us what real journalists do. He cites the “code” of the Society of Professional Journalists”:

A true journalist is “… seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

The argument can persuasively be made that the Idaho Falls newspaper frequently stumbles when seeking truth. However, the average reader is usually unaware of the extent of that failing, since even the mistakes and missteps that are corrected are found in small paragraphs hidden among massive ads on inner pages.

And the “fair” part? “Fair” is one adjective that is rarely used to describe the Idaho Falls newspaper. Take, for example, the hit job performed on the Boy Scouts with the never-ending parade of articles blaming the BSA for one man’s actions over a decade ago. Yes, that man should be brought to justice. Does it rate nearly daily reporting on the situation for 3-4 years? Probably not.

And yet Roger Plothow and his fellow newspaper people were thrilled to excess with the “journalistic” prizes they won with the original series. These “honors” were further illustration of just how far Plothow’s sense of excellence and fairness diverges from his readers’.

In fact, the circulation of the Idaho Falls newspaper appears to continue in decline, due, at least in part, to the aforementioned series. Many locals who threatened for years to cancel their subscriptions were finally pushed to follow through. Despite claims that online and print versions have never been more widely read, I believe the newspaper is in trouble. Be sure to read a previous post on this subject. And for your information, the Idaho Falls newspaper continues to fail to report their circulation to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, unlike the Boise Statesman and the Twin Falls Times-News. This begs the question: How DOES the Idaho Falls paper document circulation to their advertisers?

Now there is talk of eliminating completely the Monday print edition of the paper, while making it available online. That is not a proposal that comes from a thriving newspaper, especially one which has just invested substantially in new printing equipment. It is also rather strange for a newspaper which, as shown by a recent survey, is read mostly by those over 55 years of age, those least likely to have access to the internet. And, in my humble opinion, their website is in every way inferior to those of the 3 local television stations with whom they appear to be in direct competition.

But let us return to Mr. Plothow’s arrogant and “self-important” musings. Says he:

Good journalism needn’t be humorless or colorless…

By all indications, humor is still found on the pages of the Idaho Falls newspaper. And I don’t mean the comics.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Idaho Falls Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

Guest Post: Andrus Wrong on History of Social Security

August 11th, 2008 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

Last week’s column by Cecil Andrus regarding John McCain and Social Security was long on subjective, unsubstantiated opinion, and extremely short on fact. While attempting to paint with a pejorative and broad brush all conservative approaches to shoring up Social Security, the former Governor betrayed a bias that was ill-informed and oblivious to the facts.

In his first paragraph, Andrus displayed an ignorance of the history of Social Security that could only have been tainted by his political bias for it resembled nothing historical. He stated, “…one thing seems to be constant: the Democratic (Presidential) candidate wants to strengthen and sustain Social Security, and the Republican candidate wants to do harm to [Social Security].”

When the political rose-colored glasses are on, such a statement might be tenable. When they’re off, we realize that for all presidential candidates, Social Security is a sacred cow, the veritable “Third Rail of American Politics” that candidates can only issue supportive platitudinous statements about. You touch it as a presidential candidate, and it can spell political doom. Addressing the future challenges of Social Security, George W. Bush in the 2004 election was harangued and harassed mercilessly for suggesting the possibility of allowing 2% of a workers’ FICA contribution to go to a personal account where they could direct the composition of the investments even though it could ultimately make Social Security more beneficial and more secure.

Also, when the political rose-colored glasses are off, we recognize that there is one party that has been most destructive to Social Security, and it’s not the one Andrus targeted. While Presidential candidates can’t seem to touch the issue for fear of political reprisal, the party in control of Congress for fifty of the past sixty years has done tremendous damage to Social Security.

It was Andrus’ party which moved social Security from an independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it. It was his party that during the Johnson administration put a tax on Social Security benefits. It’s his party that has increased that tax on Social Security two times since, with Al Gore casting the deciding vote the last time around. It is his party that has moved aggressively to expand benefits to illegal aliens who haven’t contributed a dime to the solvency of the program. It is his party that has expanded benefits 12 times since the program’s inception, which is politically popular with those new beneficiaries, but spells trouble for the continued solvency of the program. It is his party that has increased FICA withholding taxes 20 times since the program’s inception in order to attempt to pay for those expanded benefits.

Factually, Andrus’ premise rings hollow and is nothing more than political bias. Presidential candidates can do little to ameliorate the solvency issue because it’s Congress that controls the purse strings, and by a vote can contribute to future instability and insolvency by continuing to expand benefits according to their political desires. And it is Andrus’ own party that has done more to undermine the future stability and security with the program than any other.

What we do know is that the program has problems. According to the Social Security Administration, “Social Security has been changed over time to meet the needs of the American people. It will need to change again to meet future challenges… In 2017 benefits owed will be more than taxes collected, and Social Security will need to begin tapping the trust funds to pay benefits. The trust funds will be exhausted in 2041. At that time, Social Security will not be able to meet all of its benefit obligations if no changes are made.” In light of that, it’s much easier to correct course early on by making minor adjustments than to wait until the last minute to make drastic adjustments to save the program.

Andrus posited as fact that “John McCain would dismantle and destroy [Social Security].” Since he didn’t bother to quote what the Senator has actually said about the program, why don’t I. McCain’s official position is, “Everything’s on the table,” in order to address future funding issues. And frankly, shouldn’t that be the properly objective approach to solving the problem? It certainly seems more viable than simply increasing the tax to pay for the problem (as Obama suggests) and certainly more viable than what our Congress wants to do by making Social Security benefits available to 12 million illegal aliens. Sorry, Cecil, I think I’ll take McCain’s realistic and more objective approach. And to put that in perspective, I’m far from a McCain apologist. I’m the one with the bumper sticker that says “McCain ’08: Better half right than all left.”

Social Security should be an issue in the Presidential sweepstakes. But keep in mind, that in the end it’s Congress that makes the changes, regardless of what the President proposes. And I have about as much confidence in our Congress to do the right thing in this regard as is warranted by their latest dismal 8% approval rating.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

« Previous Entries

Copyright © 2oo6 by Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting