news-record.com

OPINION

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Both parties take turns at bloating government

Friday, November 27, 2009

(Updated 3:00 am)

Regarding a letter calling Republicans enemies of this country:

I would submit that both parties have been acting against the Constitution for a long time by slowly eroding our liberties and padding their own pockets.

Lifetime politicians from both parties take turns growing the government, taking our rights away and spending our children and grandchildren into massive debt. This is politics as usual, and I would urge voters to make very clear to their representatives to stop spending and support the bill submitted by Sen. Jim DeMint that will impose term limits on all congressional members.

Countless Americans have given their lives to protect our freedom and liberty, and we have been allowing the government to slowly erode our greatest asset: freedom from oppressive and controlling government.

On an unrelated note, shame on the churches, preachers and churchgoers for not opening all churches, temples and mosques every day for the less fortunate. How selfish and un-Christian to have these expensive, lavish, huge buildings sit empty 90 percent of the time when families and children have no place to go.

Scott Seymour
Greensboro

What do you think?

22 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments on letters to the editor are only accepted for 24 hours.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

J D R

November 27, 2009 - 4:05 am EST

"... we have been allowing .. " AGREED.

BUT "... we have been allowing .. " is a double edged sword. Is government intervention in early pregnacy oppression from a controlling government ?

xeno10

November 27, 2009 - 5:40 am EST

Mr. Seymore, your LTTE tells us that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) -- Jesse Helms for the 21st Century -- has submitted a bill that will impose term limits on all Congressional members. And, right now, DeMint is gearing-up his own RE-ELECTION campaign! And, Mr. Seymore, you should've mentioned in your LTTE that nutty DeMint has also recently described Social Security, Medicare, and the existence of a public school system as "threats to a functioning democracy." Republican DeMint is a real nutjob!! (And, btw, did your preacher kick you out-of-church for talking nonsense?) Seriously.

miktay

November 27, 2009 - 8:41 am EST

Scott,

It seems you have several issues all tangled together. I agree with you on two points but for different reasons than you cite. There should be term limits on all public officials. Lifelong politicians, even when they are not out and out bought and paid for by special interests, tend to become comfortable and complacent with the status quo. They lose touch with ordinary people and their problems. So, limit them to two terms in any particular office. Then send them home.

However, the problem is not big government so much as it is corrupt government. Government has to be sized to the size and complexity of our problems. If we are going to have big corporations (or big anything else!), we have to have a government big enough and strong enough to be an effective counterweight. It goes back to that old checks and balances thing our Founding Fathers were so fond of.

In terms of debt, I agree that balanced budgets are a good idea most of the time. Any person, family, group, corporation or government that continually spends more than they take in is eventually going to have to face the consequences. However, there are times when everyone needs to spend more than they take in on a temporary basis in order to make necessary investments in the future. A good example is the family that borrows money for a few years in order to send Junior to college. They are spending more than they have but they are making a wise investment in Junior's future (assuming Junior is not a total idiot!).

The government has to do the same thing. Our economy is in the tank right now and government needs to make investments in updating our infrastructure in order to create jobs and insure the long term health of our nation's economy. It certainly does not help that the previous Administration spent eight years on the equivalent of a drunken gambling binge and we have nothing to show for it. We still need to send Junior to college.

There are two ways to balance a budget. One is to cut expenses. The other is to increase income. Historically, the Republicans have focused solely on cutting expenses and the Democrats have mostly focused on increasing income. We are now at the point where the unavoidable fact is that both will have to be done. The sooner the two parties wake up to that and start working together to accomplish both in a way that secures our nation's future and is fair to everybody, the better off we all will be. If you truly care about our grandchildren's future, I hope you will not be among those who arise in kneejerk opposition to every tax increase that is proposed.

The second thing I agree with you on is our religous institutions although I would not make it a blanket condemnation of all of them. Some of them are doing quite good work working to improve the conditions of the less fortunate. Ironically, perhaps, some of the ones that do the most are the ones with the fewest resources. Nevertheless, the vast majority of our religous institutions (mine included) are doing far less than they could or should.

danagain

November 27, 2009 - 9:05 am EST

'A good example is the family that borrows money for a few years in order to send Junior to college."

Before Junior went to college, the Federal govt. fed him with WIC, free school lunches and food stamps. It helped pay for his housing and other needs thru welfare and Section 8. It paid for his health care thru SCHIP. Now it will likely pay for his college or at least subsidize it.

I'll wait for the sequel about govt. cutting expenses Miktay. That should be a good one.

Yvonne

November 27, 2009 - 1:28 pm EST

As usual, Dan, you are doing a lot of ASSuming about Junior. But you could use miktay's analogy for most high dollar expenses in your own life. Did you pay cash for your home, your plane, your automobiles, your boat/trailer and will you pay cash for your own childrens' education? If the answer is no, you, too, are buying now and paying later. If your answer is yes, I will say you are not the average American. While both my mortgages are almost paid, at present, I am still buying now and paying later. Since I do not buy boats (except paddle boats), planes or high priced autos, I do not have debt there. Nonetheless, most of us, at some time, will buy now and pay later, just like the government.

danagain

November 27, 2009 - 2:15 pm EST

"....will buy now and pay later, just like the government."

Hey Yvonne, I hope you had a good Thanksgiving day. Everyone in life borrows money for things but a few key differences. 1) The key is not to borrow more than you can afford to pay back and; 2) Where does govt. money come from?

The things I own are mostly paid for (just the mortgage and one car payment) and I chose not to buy things I cannot afford. That might 'splain why I don't own a 60 ft. yacht nor a brand new version of the airplane I have, which would cost around $200K. What a concept.

As for govt. paying back it's debt, again who gets to pay for that? Does it not concern you at all? Just wait, you will see with this debt, sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost. Special thanks to Rev. Wright for borrowing his phrase.

swerdna

November 27, 2009 - 2:54 pm EST

I, too, have never bought more than I can afford. We own our house, our cars, and paid for college educations without taking out loans. How? We planned, scrimped, saved, and did without in order to buy what we wanted. We use credit cards but pay the balance off each month. Of course we don't live in a huge house, don't own a boat or a plane, and drive fuel-efficient cars. In exchange, we have no debt and barely make ends meet each month (thank God), and we somehow have enough left over each month to help those less fortunate than we are (which is maybe why we are able to make ends meet each month).

"Just wait, you will see with this debt, sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost"

Wait until we start seeing people who traded in "paid for" cars to take advantage of Cash for Clunkers start defaulting on their loans!

danagain

November 27, 2009 - 8:44 pm EST

"I, too, have never bought more than I can afford."

What a concept.

Yvonne likes to bring up the fact that I own an airplane. Maybe it's a class envy thing, I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that most of the non-flying public incorrectly thinks that anyone who owns an airplane is rich. While that is true with the folks buzzing around in private jets, it doesn't represent most of us in general aviation with the small two or four seater prop planes. My first plane cost $20K, less than many new cars.

Most of the guys at my airport are everyday folks including myself who have a passion for flying. I grew up with it as a child and have always loved the freedom of leaving the ground all by yourself and going wherever you want even if it's only 20 miles away. In fact I started flying lessons before driving lessons with money earned raking yards and cutting grass.

Go out to the Siler City airport on a nice Sat. afternoon Yvonne and see who you meet. You will be surprised.

danagain

November 27, 2009 - 8:47 pm EST

And yes, great point about Cash for Clunkers. Wait till the same thing happens with the $8K govt. credit for first time home buyers. Existing home sales went up last month because people thought this program was about to expire. Govt. can artificially boost sales of cars, houses, etc. but it's just that, artificial and it costs all of us money and cannot be sustained.

swerdna

November 28, 2009 - 12:00 pm EST

Exactly. It will just add to the examples of how obama and friends don't THINK about all the aspects of their programs. They don't "sweat the details."

mawmaw

November 27, 2009 - 8:44 am EST

I have to agree that no politician seems to have any concern for the American people. They are controlled by the banks and big business...screw the average folks. They are good at turning the people against one another with issues like abortion and gay marriages, which they have no plans to change, all talk. The Republicans are good at playing the Christian card, suckering in people who believe everything they say. And talk show hosts are laughing all the way to the bank, not believing much of what they say. They stay in business by stirring up anger and hate. Voting for a candidate on what he or she says is bunk. Many who mean well soon learn that they must play the game and most do after election. Until we stop fighting one another, nothing will change, and maybe not even then.

mawmaw

November 27, 2009 - 8:47 am EST

On churches, there are many who help. Open Door Ministries and Leslies House in High Point are supported mainly by churches and individuals. However, when I look at the buildings and programs of many churches, I see nothing about helping God's people, just impressing others with material possessions.

swerdna

November 27, 2009 - 3:05 pm EST

"However, when I look at the buildings and programs of many churches, I see nothing about helping God's people, just impressing others with material possessions."

I belong to a very large church that has had its share of criticism for the building size. We are large because we have so many people coming there. We had to expand because we'd outgrown our facility and our 4 services each Sunday were causing traffic problems. We outgrew the facilities for child care and Sunday school.

There are a huge number of groups in our church (and others) who do things to help people in our community. We help the homeless, we repair substandard housing, we do yard work, cleaning, painting, etc. for the elderly and the poor, we participate in Agents of Grace each summer where over 1000 volunteers from various churches go out across the city to help with everything from school landscaping to dog-washing at the animal shelter. Sure, you may not know about what we do because we don't want publicity. Why? Because we don't do it for YOUR recognition but because we are called to help our fellow human beings.

J D R

November 27, 2009 - 6:04 pm EST

you dun good, swerda .. I mean that

swerdna

November 28, 2009 - 12:01 pm EST

Thank you.

danagain

November 27, 2009 - 9:23 am EST

As for churches, a church is much more than a building. Their members oft donate their time, financial and other resources to the less fortunate. Churches are open to the less fortunate but most not as a place of living as you seem to suggest. They can help their members and others in the community find places to live, ours has done that.

ghost from white oak

November 27, 2009 - 10:28 am EST

" Lifetime politicians from both parties take turns growing the government, taking our rights away and spending our children and grandchildren into massive debt."

You hit the nail on the head there!

I believe in term limits, limit them to two terms, one in office and one in jail.
Seriously. I believe they should be part time citizen-legislators, not lifetime-fulltime politicans.

J D R

November 27, 2009 - 10:56 am EST

Actually I'm OK with lifetime-fulltime politicans .. remember the Founding Fathers were "steeped in Greek" as some-one here said .. and Greek Democracy had everyone participating - lots and lots of "part time citizen-legislators taking turns at being Politicians - and it proved unworkable at best. I believe the Founding Fathers took that into account.

So what's the alternative? Certainly "Lifetime Politicians" need to follow the same rules we all do .. that'd be a big help .. and this goes from no special Health Care Plan to No Fat Pension Plan. IMHO there should be some limits and equitable distribution in election funds because incumbents have an unhealthy advantage, and they also be required to return to the State or District, as appropriate, all un-used campaign funds.

ghost from white oak

November 27, 2009 - 2:41 pm EST

" Actually I'm OK with lifetime-fulltime politicans .. " there is were we differ.
I can't picture our founding fathers stopping to imagine a Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy as a role model for our future Legislators.

J D R

November 27, 2009 - 5:56 pm EST

We're not inconsistent, Ghost.

"From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.

... $6 in 1800 would be $75.02 in 2008.
... $1500 in 1816 would be $18,778.06 in 2008
... $3000 in 1855 would be $68507.29 in 2008

Still reasonable, IMO.

So where did it go "bad"?

$5000 in 1865 would be $66997.07 in 2007
$7500 in 1871 would be $128387.05 in 2007 -- OUCH who was that .. US Grant?
$5000 in 1874 would be $90668.82 in 2007 - somebody must have noticed!
$7500 in 1907 would be $164902.86 in 2007 - Look like a line has been crossed - Theodore Roosevelt ..
$10000 in 1925 would be $117385.15 in 2007 -
$9000 in 1932 would be $135442.89 in 2007 - So much for the Depression
$12500 in 1947 would be $114884.13 in 2007 - Perhaps a little WWII cheese was eaten
$22500 in 1955 would be $172424.48 in 2007 - Not that far off from where they are now.
$30000 in 1965 would be $195255.71 in 2007 - Good Ol' LBJ .. finally something for Neo to chew

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf
Here's a fun link http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

BTW - Today:
Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

J D R

November 27, 2009 - 6:03 pm EST

So the Founding Fathers really did sacrifice, but it seems after the Guided Age things REALLY went to hell .. although I would argue the only reason they (at least Senators) didn't give themselves more earlier is because being appointed by the State - the State's being run by Industrial Giants - they were making a bundle on the side - giving away the Natural Resources of America to a few pigs like my Great Grand Uncle John.

Regardless .. the point of all that was it was properly set up to begin with, sacrifice for God & Country & all that. If you want to change what the Founding Fathers clearly intended (actions speaking loud and all that too), then you need to Amend the Constitution .. 'cause they left it out .. but if you choose to amend the Constitution, then you are dealin with a Living Constitution .. and ... well I'm sure you disagree with that.

Ain't nothing easy is there?

Panacea

November 27, 2009 - 8:16 pm EST

ghost, that was precious. That one should be a bumper sticker :D

To JDR: Many of the Founding Fathers were against the idea of lifetime politicians. They believed public office was a duty all prosperous men (ie landowners) should do at some point in his life as a contribution to the community, but not that it should be a full time job. That changed after the Revolution; we needed experienced people who could work for our economic and foreign policy interests. Some of the best early diplomats we had were men from wealthy families who went to Europe during the Revolution to negotiate with France and other powers on our behalf.

The potential downside of terms limits is you have politicians who will bounce from job to job lining their pockets while they can, and not thinking about the long term interests of their constituents.

I have no problem with professional politicians as long as they are doing their job by acting in the best interest of the people who elected them. I understand there is give and take in politics, that's fine. It's the egregious bribery I object to.