Five percent— in 1862 any American making more than 10,000 dollars a year handed only five percent of their income over to the government. Well, times have changed…a lot.
The question, then, is not whether we should help "the least of these," it's how. When Republicans object to programs touted as beneficial to the poor, they must do a better job of explaining why. Too often, the Progressive approach to social justice fails to solve the problem, and in many cases only makes matters worse.
One thing nearly everybody agrees upon is that the "sequester" is a silly sideshow to the real challenge facing America: unsustainable spending on entitlements. Ironies abound.
We should not accept the statist premise that most government spending helps people. Government spending is not just wasteful or inefficient, but all too often serves to crush the private economy and individual freedom.
Before this column is done I’m going to make a point on federal spending that really should open your eyes. Actually, you will think that it’s so basic and simple that it’s a wonder nobody has presented it to you in this manner before!
If you thought President Obama's first term was one long, uninterrupted political brawl, the next four years will make that period look tame by comparison.
Oh, how far-removed we are from what now seems like the "innocent" Bill Clinton days when all we had to worry about was the various definitions of the word "is". And now, after watching President Obama's second term inaugural address, it is clear we have a president who calls into question the meaning of the word "liberty."
Sometimes, looking at the political discourse in this country, I wonder if we really understand the ratchet effect of increasing government programs and power over time: unlike in business, unlike in nature, unlike in, well, real life, failure is not punished, but at best ignored, at worst rewarded. Once a program is in place, it is almost never repealed, even when Republicans obtain political power because voters become dependent on it.
It's often good fun and sometimes revealing to divide American history into distinct periods of uniform length.
Who wants a fantastic job? Unemployment is high, so there ought to be many candidates. The job is leader of the Republican Party.
America is now in a time that in some ways resembles the 1850s, when freedom-loving people, attentive to political and cultural trends, saw a great crisis coming.
Listening to progressive media pundits, I'd think the most evil man in the universe is Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. His crime? He heads a movement that asks political candidates to pledge not to raise taxes.
Democrats in Washington declare that they will absolutely, positively allow no changes whatever in the nation's unsustainable entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare.
While the U.S. unemployment rate "dropped" to 7.7 percent last month -- a figure even The Washington Post acknowledged was due "...in large part because the labor force fell by 350,000..." -- here in this modern and prosperous city-state of slightly more than 5 million people, unemployment is practically nonexistent.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Republican candidates pointed to the number of food stamp recipients -- increasing from 33 million people in 2009 to 43 million in 2012 -- as a sign that poverty had skyrocketed under President Obama. But a new study suggests that the reason there has been such an increase in food stamp recipients during the last four years is even more pernicious.
The fiscal cliff negotiations seem to be foundering on Barack Obama's insistence on higher tax rates on high earners and House Republican leaders' insistence on opposing them. The president believes he has a mandate from voters for his position, and House Republicans believe they have a mandate from voters for theirs.
Since Republicans are pushing entitlement reform and Democrats like taking money from rich people, you might think they could agree on means-testing Medicare and Social Security as part of a deficit reduction deal.
In the original "Star Wars", Jedi Obi Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) have to smuggle two droids into the criminal-infested, Empire-guarded city of Mos Eisley. The Empire has been looking for the droids, which contain secret information. But Obi Wan has a solution: when our heroes are confronted by emissaries of the Empire, he simply waves his hand. "These aren't the droids you're looking for." The weak-minded Stormtrooper promptly waves the group through. Obi Wan was using an old Jedi mind trick. Welcome to America, 2012.
Deeply Disturbing: Clinton, Democrats Seek To Undue Religious Freedom For America's Business Owners | Austin Hill