Interesting Alliances

We know the Republicans are condemning President Obama’s energy proposals, mainly his stance on the Keystone Pipeline from Canada. The Canadians are going ahead with its southern portion. Of course, this is all the more volatile with fast rising gas prices. [I believe I heard last Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, that if we developed all our available oil supplies it would have little effect on the market.]

 

Now for the interesting part, the Tea party is on board with the environmentalists on against the pipeline. This from Bill Moyers blog:

Environmentalists, including Bill McKibben, who have organized several protest against the pipeline, expressed dismay: “Even though this doesn’t bring new oil in from the tar sands,” Mr. McKibben said, “we stand with our allies across the region who are fighting to keep giant multinational corporations from condemning their lands. This fight is uniting people, from environmentalists to Tea Partiers, in all kinds of ways.”

Wait a minute, environmentalists and Tea Partiers? It’s true. Talking Points Memo reports:

“on the portion of the pipeline that would link Nebraska to Texas, TransCanada has threatened to use disputed eminent domain powers to condemn privately held land, over the owners’ objections. And that’s creating unusual allies — Occupiers, Tea Partiers, environmentalists, individualists — united to stop TransCanada from threatening water supplies, ancient artifacts, and people’s basic property rights.”

Don’t you just love it?

Ah, How Things Don’t Change

Once upon a time (meaning 35 years ago) a knight in Hollywood armor rode into the public arnea promising the people he could reduce the size of government, make the people pay less taxes, increase spending (for various vested interests) and lower the national debt. He would accomplish this magical feat by what is called supply side economic, meaning give great wealth to the wealthy and the wealth would trickle down through the economy and everybody would be better off.

Hurray! Yelled the people let it be so and they elected him President. And so he spent, and lower taxes for wealthy folk, so far so good. But then he increased spending for the things he liked and raised the national debt a whopping amount. Why, because you cannot do what he said he could do, even if you are an affable magician, it is still sleight of hand and not reality. However, for reason inexplicable to this writer, the same promises kept being made and the people kept accepting them. And now we are a great debtor nation, we spend humongous amounts on military stuff, which eventually goes boom and there is nothing left. But the rich folk made out like bandits.

Eventually the people when they realized there were less jobs for folk, the national and personal debt was really, I mean really big, middle class folk were working harder and harder but making less, and the poor folk were just screwed as they often are. Some folk then said, “Hey, this is bad, this is unfair, we don’t like it. And so the story goes.

Those of the party that created this ridiculous mess, vowed, “we will fix it. The Committee for a Responsible Budget has released a report showing how this is going to work according to the various proponents, at least the 4 remaining ones. All this assumes the Bush cuts will remain intact. Oops, it doesn’t work even if all of them promise to reduce spending. Romney has now promised to reduce taxes by 20%;  repeal the AMT, and repeal the estate tax. Santorum would reduce taxes by 6 trillion over the next decade. Gingrich would cut by 7 trillion. Only Paul would limit it by a mere 5 trillion.

Now they are all making these promises to appease the right, the Tea Party, the group which is against debt.

The Republicans are also the ones who claim they love balanced budgets. The only problem with that is that they keep increasing the budget.

So, let’s fix it with tax reforms they cry again. And again the tax cuts are for the rich.

Gee, doesn’t all of this sound familiar?

The Emperor still isn’t wearing any clothes but the people are still standing and cheering his wardrobe.

Politics and Democracy ~ Movies and Elections

We’re all agog now about the Academy Awards. Movies about life in which answers are solved and heroes abound. And of course the political debates go on. The question I have is, is there much difference?

Actors play roles. Politicians play roles. Some play heroic roles where truth wins over evil and the guy in the white hat rides off into the sunset with the beautiful girl. Promises and made and kept or broken and forgotten, battles are won lost. It is just like politics.

The difference is that after the movie you go home and life returns to normal. But in politics someone wins and the other loses, or in our case one wins the election and the other loses their credibility as they cannot fulfill the promises they are forced to make during a campaign. Only in movies to presidents move on to success and approval. Only in movies to presidents remain heroes.

When President Obama was elected it was heroic. The first black president, his book on The Audacity of Hope was filled with visionary ideas that those who read it could not help but admire. But he inherited the worst economy since the depression and had to deal with a congress that did not want to do anything except beat him in the next election. Even if he had a slight majority in his party in congress when elected, it was not enough to get anything done. He was doomed. He could not fix in 2 or 3 years what 35 years of poor government has done to the country. I’m amazed that he remains optimistic and wants to have another go at it.

The only thing worse in politics than being elected president is the opposition this time by the Republican Party. The whole party has moved so far to the right that the moderates have to cater so much to the lunacy they loose all integrity. Most of the candidates espouse just plain crazy ideas that appeal to folk who are just against government and only for their own vested interests. I want Romney to win the Republican nomination, not because I’m a great fan of his, but it is possible he could be president and he’s the only one that makes any sense. His problem is that he is unappealing for some reason and has to make bizarre concessions to the extreme right, to things he really doesn’t believe in and people sense this.

If you remember the movie The Candidate, Robert Redford plays a character like Robert Redford running for president. Bright, quick on his feet, popular and very electable. Even in debates he openly admits that in presidential debates they don’t deal with any real issues, the real problems that face the country. And then he gets elected and then turns to his campaign manager and say, “Now what?”

Like the movies we elect the most popular and the most glamorous of the candidates and then are disappointed when we all don’t gallop off into the sunset with our guy or gal and everybody lives happily ever after. We were lucky about electing Obama, the best statesman I’ve seen for some time, but we were totally unrealistic about what he could get done in a short period of time. He had great ideas for the country; visionary ideas as some of the past had that moved the country. But he inherited too much debt, too much deregulations, too much do nothing congresses to get what he wanted done, though he has done quite a lot, it gets lost in the basic issue which is, the shrinking wages of the middle class. Supply side economics created this mess, 35 years of it, and it cannot be turned around on a dime.

The worst of it seems to me is the loss of a congress and true conservatives that used to embrace Demand Side Economics and worked with their opponents to make the country better, not just win elections and defeat opponents, but did the work needed to benefit those they served.

The 19^th century the country was a mess because we lacked a strong enough government to place proper reins of runaway free market systems. The 20^th century put these programs into place and safety nets for the poor were put in place and the middle class grew and prospered as did the nation. And business made money. Now we have a bunch of people who want to run back to the 19^th century with all possible speed and we have the results, growing poor, a crumbling infrastructure, a middle class that is going backwards economically, and a populace that does not know basic civics or economics.

All this is accompanied by a world that has followed our example and now faces economic problems of huge proportions itself. And the world is looking for other models and leadership for the future, while we seem tied to the past.

Attend the Academy Awards, cheer the actors for portraying their roles with expertise. Take joy in happy endings. But also remember after that hoopla dies down and when it dies down after the election the line of the Robert Redford’s character in The Candidate, “Now what?”

At some point candidates and voters have to look a real issues and work together to solve real problems. You can’t just look at the color of the hat of the western hero anymore and tell whether they are good or bad. It is not even a real question. We are all good and bad. We also need to be reasonable and learn to listen, and solve problems.

We know the current political election process does not work. But it does us no good just to be cynics. We have to fix it. That means controlling the election monies and where they come from and make them more equitable. It means holding candidates accountable for telling true statements and punishing slander and libel the way we do with others. It means finding a process where we really can easily find where candidates stand on issues and seeing political spin for what it is. It means holding the media responsible for reporting news rather than making it. It means educating ourselves about what it means to be a responsible citizen in a republic.

It is all fixable. Do we have the will, and can we become smart enough and cooperative enough to find the way? Can we begin to work synergistically rather than competitively?

We can but will we?

Wisconsin Mortgage Settlement

If you are a lucky guy like me you get regular emails from our illustrious, thrill a moment, Wisconsin Governor Scot Walker. I’m enclosing the last one just in case you are not as lucky as me and can learn all what this wonderful Gov does for we ordinary folk.

You remember how some of our major financial institutions in this country shafted those who borrowed money from them to buy homes and the government bailed them out but worked a deal to reimburse those folk who had been given the shaft. Now the money is being handed out to states. Good deal huh? Well, it seems the shafting continues and I don’t think we’re drilling for much oil in this state.

When a settlement is reached should not the settlement policy be followed? Scot’s record on integrity is not too good. We remember after getting in office he created a budget shortage by giving tax breaks to business, and then declared a deficit used that as an excuse to break teacher unions. This action with the mortgage settlement has a similar smell. Odiferous.

It seems to me that this is like taking out insurance a house you plan to rob, you get caught and in making restitution part of the money goes to paint your cousins front porch.

Well, below is his letter, read it and judge for yourself. I’m sure this will bring forth comments.

E-update from the Desk of Governor Scott Walker

One of the most important duties I have serving as your Governor is to provide you directly with updates related to the operation of our state government. In an effort to improve communication, periodically I will be sending out an e-update to provide you with more information about what is going on in state government. I also frequently provide updates on Facebook (Governor Scott Walker) and on Twitter (@govwalker). Please feel free to share this update with your family, friends, and others who may be interested in state government operations.  

[I’m not sure what Illinois has to do with us, it must be important. ed.]

Illinois Budget Introduced: Layoffs, Tax Hikes & Massive Cuts to Medicaid

This week Illinois Governor Pat Quinn introduced his budget proposal, which according to the Chicago Tribune and Associated Press:

·         Closed numerous prisons;

·         Closed mental health and social service offices;

·         Contained massive cuts to Medicaid;

·         Closed popular tourist attractions two days a week;

·         Contained a nine percent cut to most state agencies;

·         Made major reductions in the public employee workforce, including layoffs; and

·         Increased taxes on businesses.

The Chicago Tribune reported that even with these cuts Illinois still would carry over $8 billion in unpaid bills.  All of these cuts come after Illinois enacted massive tax increases on both businesses and individuals last year.

Also in his budget address Governor Quinn said, “This year’s General Revenue Fund payment for public pensions is $5.2 billion; triple what it cost in fiscal year 2008.”

We are turning Wisconsin around due to the budget reforms put in place last year.  Wisconsin is now on a path to prosperity, Illinois is not.  In Wisconsin:

·         Instead of passing off debt to the next generation, we eliminated a $3.6 billion budget deficit;

·         Instead of massive tax increases, we not only maintained current tax rates, but actually saw some of the best property tax bills in years—with the total school levy portion of the tax decreasing for the first time in six years;

·         Instead of ending the budget with $8 billion of unpaid bills, we paid back millions of dollars in unpaid bills ($60 million payment to Minnesota for tax reciprocity and $233 million repayment for the illegal raid of the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund);

·         Instead of engaging in massive layoffs of public employees, our reforms saved the jobs of thousands of hardworking, middle-class public employees; and

·         Instead of slashing funding for Medicaid, we invested $1.2 billion of additional state taxpayer funds to help those who are truly in need.

I proposed, advocated for, and enacted solutions to the fiscal challenges that have been avoided and ignored for years because I care more about next generation than the next election.  This has begun to turn our state around.

 [No doubt this gov likes business interests, adding the term small makes them seem more cuddly I guess. Ed.]

Boosting Small Businesses

Touring the state and talking to small business owners, one thing has become crystal clear to me: government regulations need to be science-based, predictable, and practical. 

All too often I hear about how government is standing in the way of those who want to grow jobs in our state.  This is why I just signed Executive Order 61, which will empower the Small Business Regulatory Review Board to determine the economic impact of rules on small business and increase the flexibility government must give employers.

Signing this Executive Order is another important step toward making our state an easier place to start up, expand, or relocate a small business.  Giving small business owners a seat at the table when discussing state regulations will help get buy-in from employers, assist state agencies promulgate rules that are realistic, and ultimately grow jobs in Wisconsin.

Specifically, the Executive Order I signed requires all state agencies to cooperate with the Small Business Regulatory Review Board in the rules review process.  All agencies will cooperate with the Board to identify and weed out rules that hinder job creation and small business growth.  And they will also work with the Board to recommend changes to the rules that will reduce the burden on job creators.

According to the National Federation of Independent Business, Wisconsin small businesses spend eighty percent more per worker than large employers to comply with government regulations.  Ninety-one percent of small businesses said it was impossible to know about, comply with, and understand all of government’s regulations.  Regulations are cited as one of the top three concerns for small business growth.

One great way to make sure that state regulations are science-based, predictable, and practical is to give small businesses a seat at the table when discussing the impact of new as well as existing rules and regulations.  By partnering with Wisconsin’s small businesses, many of which are family owned, I am confident that we can continue to turn around Wisconsin’s economy and make it better for generations to come.

[Swiping our neighbor states jobs is real good, I particularly like the name. ed.] 

Precision Iceblast Corporation to Relocate to Peshtigo

I was excited this week to announce that Precision Iceblast Corporation will relocate its production and product training facility from Wallace, MI to Peshtigo, WI.  The relocation is expected to add 64 jobs.

We continue to work hard to attract businesses to Wisconsin and create a positive business environment that fosters job creation.

Precision Iceblast is an independent contracting operation that provides ice blasting services to many industries such as printing, food, paper, tape, automotive, marine, restoration, and manufacturing.  It uses CO₂ blasting as the modern alternative to chemical cleaning, sandblasting, water blasting, steam cleaning, manual scrubbing, scraping, and hand tooling.

 [Now for the really good part.]

Just Ask the Governor: Part VI

Each e-update I will answer a question submitted by a recipient of the previous e-update or from someone who contacts my office directly.

Question:  Can you please explain what is going on with the recently announced mortgage settlement?

Answer:  Nearly eighty-two percent of Wisconsin’s share of the settlement will go directly to consumers who were victims of the abusive practices of mortgage lenders.  Key components of the settlement are:

·         $60 million will be made available for loan modifications for eligible consumers, including principal reductions of up to $20,000 for eligible mortgage holders;

·         $31.3 million will be available for mortgage refinancing opportunities for eligible consumers;

·         $17.2 million will be used for direct payments of up to $2,000 to individuals who lost their homes due to foreclosure; and

·         $31.6 million is available to the state for discretionary use—of that amount, $25.6 million will be allocated to the state’s general fund to provide relief for all Wisconsin taxpayers who were affected by the economic downturn that resulted from the ills of the housing market. [italics and boldface mine ed.]

Additionally, two programs administered by the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority will specifically target the City of Milwaukee with up to $1.5 million in funding.  Another $1 million, including $500,000 in funding from the Department of Financial Institutions, will be used for a statewide program to address neighborhood blight.

The economic downtown was felt in every county, city and village across the state.  Property values declined and local economies suffered as a result.  So did the state’s economy and budget.

Using a small portion of the settlement proceeds for the general fund is an acknowledgement that the housing crisis impacted all Wisconsin citizens.  The $141 million settlement for Wisconsin will be good for consumers, our housing market and the state’s economy.

I would encourage you to read Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s op-ed piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , which is titled “Entire state should benefit from settlement money”  for a complete analysis.

---

It has been a pleasure communicating with you.  It is an honor to serve as your Governor and represent the residents of Wisconsin. 

Sincerely,

Governor Scott Walker

The Huffington Post posted the following:

Well, that was fast.

Two states have already announced that they won't be using all of their share of the $25 billion allocated in Thursday's historic foreclosure settlement to pay its intended recipients -- the homeowners and borrowers who saw the housing market collapse beneath their feet.

Instead, in some areas, a share of those dollars is likely to be diverted to state budgets, in a bid to offset some of the massive deficits that states have been struggling with since the economic downturn, according to reports.

In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen have announced plans to use $25.6 million of the settlement money -- about 18 percent of the $140 million Wisconsin will get in total -- to plug holes in the state's budget, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As the MJS notes, this is a reversal of Walker's previous opposition to using legal settlements to close budget gaps.

Giving

I believe you can tell a good deal about a person by the charity and giving habits. Generous hearts acts generously and vice versa. You can draw your own conclusions from the graph below.

Life and Death of Churches...

In a recent article I expressed my view that while government types may come and go, I belief the churches will continue onward because the rely upon and are protected by God whereas government rely upon human ingenuity and integrity.

I want to go a bit further on that subject. In my stated belief while I believe the church catholic/universal, the overall church will always survive, that is not true for individual churches.

A lot of research has been done on the life cycles of churches. The best of it I think comes from the Alban institute, a great think tank for modern Christianity, that I followed most of my career. Following is the normal life span of a church” gleaned from their material.

1.    Birth. This is a short period of time but the most important. It is the time when a church defines itself and its mission. The key person at this time is the founding pastor, but the founding members are exceeding important and it is their combined ideas, values and sense of mission the set the identity of the church. During this time the church can grow rapidly, doubling, tripling, quadrupling, and even growing to ten times it original starting membership.

2.   Vitality. The church continues to grow, the building is renovated and expanded. In essence this the foundation lying time of the church, with second generation members joining the originating members. It is like  Cheers the old TV show where everybody knows your name and you are accepted happily into the new group. But even at this point some founding members will look at the birth time as “the good old days.”

3.   Equilibrium. The church levels out and growth slows. There is less innovation and energy turns to maintaining the status quo. Traditions are set and life in the church become predictable. Ministers come and go as long as they don’t rock the boat too much. It is also a high risk time for the church where the church can become dull and lethargic. If you read the book of Acts you will see this taking place in the early churches.

4.   Decline. Now begins church membership loss, decreased giving or giving does not keep pace to the needs of the church. Budget strength and survival become a primary concern of the church rather than mission and purpose. Pastor’s salaries are cut and there is a lack of new leadership in the church or they may develop conflict between the “old guard”, older members and the “new guard” new members trying to take leadership of the church. A lot of blaming begins and ties with the denomination can become stained for not “saving them.” Anger, blaming, scapegoating all become typical behavior. However, these churches hang on for all their worth whitling away at their resources and limiting the ministries just in order to exist. The church is my church (or my families church) rather than God’s church. Though the church may claim otherwise, they can often actively chase away new members they see as competition to the old ways.

5.   Death. Eventually a church can just die despite the desire to survive. It is an unhappy time and a time for grieving and great sense of law. Solace can be taken in remembering the history of the church, celebrating it and moving on to new churches.

Now church death is not inevitable. A church can revitalize itself by recapturing those same feelings they had when they became. They can celebrate the traditions and history to find their strengths and use these to build a new identity and purpose and mission for the church. It is often hard work but many church go through this process and become stronger as a result of learning how to work through issues and dream again, and accept new leadership and new directions as they adapt to Christ’s calling to discipleship for a new time and generation.

An excellent time for rekindling churches is during pastoral changes. If a well trained interim pastor in brought in, it can help the congregation through necessary steps to celebrate the history and strength and prepare them to be ready for new pastoral leadership and new visions for the church.

If you find yourself in a church facing these issues I recommend looking for the material put out by the Alban Institute who have done great work in revitalizing churches.

click of the above diagram for to a larger picture.

Rekindling the Mainline: New Life through New Churches

www.alban.org/bookdetails.aspx?id=1010

Power and Freedom II and a half

Just thought I'd put this chart in to add to the discussion. Wikipedia has some interesting pieces on this discussion and there are quizzes you can find on the internet to see where you are. I found myself pretty much in the center a little left and a little up.

The Difference between Churches and Politics

A lot of folk when they think about churches and politics is that they are just the two things you are not supposed to talk about, but that there are big differences between. The stereotype being the politics is down and dirty playing and churches are to be filled with truth and light and good feeling. In truth, at least truth in my opinion after years in the church is, there just isn’t much difference.

One of the things my new wife of the time, Doreen, noticed after we got married and she became more aware of the inner workings of the church was just how political it can be (not in a favorable sense) and how mean folk can act towards each other. It was a sad but accurate realization. I’ve also known pastors who entered the ministry feeling that the church would be rather like their mother who would constantly give them pats on the back and tell them what good little pastors they were. The reality was such a shock for many they left the ministry and perhaps the church. Ah, such is life and I am sure it is true for many other occupations as well.

So, where is the hope that keeps folk involved in each of these institutions? For some, perhaps most, hope for politicians acting truly as public service in our country is a lost vision. It is also likely true for every type of government. The best government is has been said to be a beneficent dictator. A dictator can work much more quickly than any other form of government and of the dictator really wants the best for their people who they seek to serve, they can do it well. This is followed up with the old saying, “Power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely.”*

Churches while they may appear happy joyous praisers of God, can show their true colors if someone sits in “their pew” or if the preacher picks a hymn they don’t like. Preachers in churches are generally loved their first year in a pastorate, the honeymoon period, embraced for the next two and then become regarded as personal chaplains of members of the congregation who eat roast preacher as their usual Sunday faire as well as other days. The big fights in the church are generally over the color of new carpet, who sings a solo and when or where, or whether the pastor’s spouse dresses and acts appropriately in the eyes of the beholder; they will always be found lacking someway. Church often don’t give a rip over really important issues such as how to be the best disciples of Jesus they can be and how they can witness the good news the best to their neighbors.

What politicians and preachers usually share in common is a big ego. They wouldn’t go for the job otherwise. And big egos often cause problems.

But this is the major difference I see between churches and governments. In government the highest authority and the greatest source of hope is the greatness of the human spirit to do the right thing. Thus the delusions that totally free markets will produce the best products and the best prices for all, which never works. It is as delusional and Marx who saw socialism as a mean for the human spirit dominating after of period so that the “state would wither away” and there would be in essence no government called communism just totally altruistic people doing the best thing for the common good (not unlike the views of some first century churches.) I believe such thinking is delusional, that at base, human nature is self-centered and so competitive that individuals and groups are always trying to get more of the pie and take parts of the pie away from others. I may have humanistic tendencies, but I am pessimistic about human nature. In religion we call that a belief in human depravity, total depravity.

Now I see church operating in the same way as other human institutions that are subject to that same human selfishness and the effort to get our own way at the expense of others, even at the expense of the total church. Church people are no better or no worse than any other people. But I am hopeful about the church not because of the people but because of God. This God I see as witnessed to in scripture and history as one who is madly and passionately in love with people and guides and directs them so they will never be able to completely do away with themselves. Thus this egocentric retired pastor is optimistic because he believes in a beneficent God who loves us and will not let us come to total harm. Governments may come and go but the covenants (promises) of God remain and can be relied upon.

I am a patriotic American who hopes for the best for our country but I do not believe God loves us any better than any other country or will protect us at the expense of others. But the church will endure in any governmental system no matter how that government sees the church.

That may be delusional. It also may be the truth. Believe as you are led.

*John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

Power and Freedom II: 'Authoritarianism'

Dmarks correctly noted the fact that there are different brands of authoritarianism depending on which ‘side’ (right/left) you’re looking at. Let’s do a quick run-down of a handful of issues at the most superficial/generalized level:

Issue	Right	Left
Gun rights	Libertarian	Authoritarian
Marriage rights	Authoritarian	Libertarian
Sex/Reproduction/Contraception rights	Authoritarian	Libertarian
Safety/Environmental Regs	Libertarian	Authoritarian
Govt Spending – Military	Authoritarian	Libertarian
Govt Spending – Social Programs	Libertarian	Authoritarian

So each side has its priorities and its ‘authoritarian’ moments, depending on the issue.

With the exception of gun rights, the political Right seems to be authoritarian with respect to individual liberties, and libertarian with respect to corporate liberties. The reverse is true of the political Left.

Of course, the nature of safety/environmental regs, for example, are to protect rights of individuals against authoritarian power that could be exerted by corporations – rights to things like clean air/water, for example – more fundamental than even constitutional rights, these we would regard as ‘birthrights’ that should be available under any system of government, like the right to choose a mate. Rights that should be available even to simple animals. So such regs are either authoritarian, or libertarian, depending on your point of view.

See, the reality is that part of maintaining freedom is limiting the power than could be exerted by certain individuals over the rest of the group. If you had Absolute Freedom (i.e. no laws at all) then everything would be very wild and woolly, until a certain individual or group could gain enough power to take over, and would then have the capacity to limit or eliminate everyone else’s freedoms.

Where the Right exerts authoritarian tendencies the results are more mixed. The purest form of authoritarianism is the rash of gay-marriage ban amendments. These are purely authoritarian in the sense that they protect no one’s rights, and carry no benefits for anyone, but are simply an effort to control the lives of others, presumably for the power rush that it gives to those who enjoy being in a position to judge the private lives of others. This is a fairly recent development, I suspect a busybody element in our mass psychology that’s an outgrowth of ‘reality TV’ entertainment.