Debt Ceilings, Politics, and Stuff

I'm a little irked at what is going on in Washington D.C. right now. I'm irked because the truth about the economy, jobs, and American debt is being hidden behind a rhetoric meant to make us afraid. It seems, dear American, that the current strategy of the Republican party might be to scare us into voting Republican next round.

I find this disconcerting. First of all, I'm probably going to vote Republican anyway. If not that, then I'll vote independent. My reason being that I am a financial conservative and an ethical conservative, and at least the Republicans pretend like that matters to them.

My purpose in writing here is not to go off on a rant, it is to muse about the facts as they are being presented in order to see if a rant is justified. Lately, the Congress has been battling the President over the 'debt-ceiling'. That is, they are fighting on whether or not they can raise it to borrow more money. The simple fact of the matter is that we are spending more money than we are raising in taxes. Our choices, then, seem simple: raise taxes or cut spending or hope for a miraculous economic boom.

Raising taxes is not an option, according to Republicans. I like that because this is what Republicans are for: cut taxes. You will never hear me complain about a tax cut. Ever. The rule of thumb is not to raise taxes in a recession, and it seems that we are in one right now. Plus, any tax raise that is significant to the bottom line must come out of the pocket of the "wealthy". The logic here is that the wealthy are the ones doing the hiring, so if you take away their money, less people get hired. So don't take job-producers money and give it to the government. Argue about that if you like, but at least it makes sense in theory.

So let's move to the sticky issue of the debt-ceiling. This is what really cooks my grits when I think about those pesky facts. Here's one: during the Bush administration, the Congress raised the debt limit...count'em...six times. Did we have all of this grousing back then? Was their the thundercloud of a coming apocalypse hanging over us at that time? I don't remember it if there was. The guy going nuts about this debt ceiling hike this time, Representative Cantor, voted for the increase in the debt ceiling back in the Bush era. Why is it the end of the world now?

Perhaps the politics have changed. I like that, too. Maybe we really do have some fiscal conservatives in Congress now who will do a good job of trimming the budget. (And all of us will feel this, trust me on that. We are all far more dependent than we pretend.) But here's what I don't like: don't act like you are taking the moral high ground on this if you have been part of the problem. (I'm looking at you, Congressman.) Admit that you used to be an economic free-wheeler back in the day, but now enough is enough. Don't operate on a politics of fear, but in truth.

Is that asking too much?

The Words Conservative and Liberal aren't Helping

In the last post, I pointed to an article that pointed out the fact that the overwhelming majority of psychologists are liberal. This revelation probably provoked a cry of "No duh!" to everyone but the psychologists, but there you have it nevertheless.

But when you think about it, what does it even mean to be a "liberal"? What does it mean to be a conservative? I suppose that most people think conservative means that you are for conserving traditional values. A liberal might say that a conservative is someone who is more comfortable with the devil that you know than you are with the devil that you don't. That may be fair, actually. Or, it could be that a conservative is someone who is simply frightened of change.

So what, then, is a liberal? According to wikipedia a liberalism "is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion." Is that really what it means to be liberal? Because if it is, then I am confused. I am for, to a degree, every one of the ideals that liberals love.

I write all of this to say that I hear these words thrown out by either "side" like they are slang words for "boogeyman." When Rush Limbaugh, who I do not listen to, says that President Obama is a liberal, what does he mean by that? Does he mean that President Obama loves fair and equal elections? That he loves freedom of religion? Why would anyone get mad about that? And why, while I am asking, is it easier for me to listen to "Fresh Air" than it is for me to listen to Limbaugh? I'm beginning to think that if I am a conservative, then I must be the lousiest one around.

Honestly, I do not think of myself as a conservative or a liberal, and I do not think much of any commentary that banties those words around to score political points. I am a Christian, and as such, I am called to be discerning. I care for people's liberty. In fact, the letters I write to my representatives are almost exlusively about "liberal" issues. I write to them about people who are imprisoned because of their religious beliefs, and I write to them in order to speak for the unborn. I do not like bad stewardship, but it has not yet provoked me to write letters.

I hope that someday, Americans will realize that we can do better than listen to people who lob around words like musket balls. That is, they fire them off all over the place even though they might be wildly inaccurate. Seriously, do you want to know what a candidate thinks? Write him or her a letter. Tell them your concerns. Every time I have written a representative, I have received a cordial response.

Here's the bottom line on all this. When you throw out the word "liberal" with disdain, you haven't accomplished a thing. Whoever self-identifies as a liberal is not insulted, and people who agree with you already do not need to have their mind changed. So drop the label, and focus on the issues that matter to you. Write the person a letter. Attempt a dialogue. If we did this, I can guarantee you that there would still be strong disagreement, but it would change the political climate for the better.

Big Government Healthcare

I've been hanging out a bit over at Dan Phillip's Biblical Christianity, and the other day he posted this somewhat amusing I Guess I'm a Racist video. I thought it was somewhat amusing because, besides Jimmy Carter, nobody is saying that, right?

Well, I guess it isn't limited to Jimmy Carter. I saw this gem today by Senator Harry Reid. Basically, if you oppose big government healthcare you are a backwards Neanderthal on par with the goons who were pro-slavery. Yeah. I feel yucky now.

Before You Vote....

Go and read this at Justin Taylor's excellent blog. Please.

What if Barak Obama Wins?

I make no secret as to my 'one issue' voter status in elections. That is, if someone is pro-abortion, they do not get my vote. Period. So I will not be voting for Barak Obama this November. I will say that if he changed his position on that issue, then I would consider him a viable candidate.

I do not think that it will bring absolute disaster for Sen. Obama to be elected. I see many positives in his candidacy. He would be the first African American president. That is good news for our country, and hopefully his election would serve to break down barriers of racial distrust. To put it bluntly, Barak Obama cannot get elected unless white folks vote for him. They will vote for him, and I think that he might win.

So what will happen if Barak Obama is elected? One, our taxes will go up. There is no way that Sen. Obama can fund his healthcare proposals without raising taxes. I am semi-okay with that. My healthcare is going up $100 a month this year for lesser coverage. I simply cannot afford that sort of hike each year, and I am hoping that if Sen. Obama is elected that his plan will help. Some are concerned that electing a democrat means more 'big governement.' Well...can he do worse than what we've seen in the last eight years? Seriously? Government spending is absolutely out of control.

Secondly, our President will not be pro-life. This saddens me beyond belief. I will pray that God will show Sen. Obama the horror of mangling children in their mother's womb. But I will say that we have seen eight years of a pro-life president who has done little, it seems, except appoint a couple of 'conservative' justices. How many appointees have Presidents Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 had? Why is it that Roe hasn't been overturned already? I'm inclined to believe that a truly pro-life President could do more than wait for Supreme Court Justices to retire. If you really believe that abortion is murder, then we are in a holocaust. That should not be a back-burner issue if you really believe that.

Other than that, I have no idea what will happen. Does anyone actually believe or feel sorry for oil companies profit margins lately or CEO's who have basically beaten the American public out of nearly $2 trillion?? I hope that something will be done about that. I hope that God will bless our next President, and I hope that he will have an easier time than President Bush has had. He was President during a very trying time.

Maybe I am too optimistic. Perhaps the comments will correct my cheery disposition at the prospect of an Obama presidency.

Politics and the Government Bailout

Is it just me, or do things seem to be absolutely falling apart in Washington D.C.? President Bush's speech on national television assures the public that if we do not get a government bailout for mortgage companies, then a terrible catastrophe is certainly at hand. And we are supposed to do what, exactly? Call our representatives and say, "Hey! President Bush said that the bailout is necessary, vote for it!"

I'm afraid, and I really mean this, that President Bush is starting to sound like the boy who cried wolf. If we do not invade Iraq, then nukes will go off in New York City. Sadam Hussein is sitting on piles of nerve gas and just waiting to sell them off. Now, economic doomsday can only be averted by a $700 billion dollar loan to creditors who got themselves in a mess through slobbering greed. Where was the bailout for the Americans who lost their homes to the guys who are now getting the bailout? How about $700 billion dollars to the citizens who are going into foreclosure? How would you sell that to the American people?

Instead of going on television and telling us how badly we need this bailout, perhaps President Bush should have called some Republicans in the House. Only 30% of his own party voted for the bailout. 40% of the democrats also said, "No thanks." Why? Why didn't they vote for the only hope to avert certain doom? What was their problem with this bill? Perhaps they have the same problems with it that I listed above. Perhaps they should get some no voter on television to say why they did this.

I'm also stupified that the Republican leaders could get on national television and claim that some republicans voted against the bill because of Rep. Pelosi's harsh rhetoric. Are you kidding me? The "greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression" is looming on the horizon and they change their vote because Rep. Pelosi offended them?? Never, and I mean this, never in my life have I wanted so badly to play Donald Trump and call Senators and Representatives into the board room and fire people. This is the most ridiculously immature thing I have ever seen in my short life. If politics had any dignity left, the last couple of days have succeeded in squashing that flat.

I want to be clear in one thing: I am no financial expert. My limited budgeting experience somes with formulating church budgets (maybe $250,000) and personal family budgets. We seek to spend less than we get. It's pretty simple. So I do not know if a bailout is the best thing to do. I can tell you why it angers me that we are in this predicament. I can tell you that fiscal irresponsibility and greed got us here. I can also tell you that innocent investors will suffer if there is no bailout. But I know that this bailout will protect the very folks who started this disaster, and that they will walk away with millions scott-free, and that there is no guarantee that this will even work and that it will sink our country into even more debt by the billions.

This is why I hired a guy with the expertise to make this decision. I hired him/her with my vote to be a level-headed expert to make decisions for the good of my family and my country. I should be able to trust this person to act professionally, and if they do vote in a way that I may not agree with, they should be able to demonstrate reasonably why they disagree with me. They should be able to make their point of view clear, and even if I disagree, I should be able to see clearly that their position is thought out and reasonable. I should not have to think that their opinion is dictated only by the latest opinion poll or that a Representative from California offended them so they changed their vote!! America deserves better. In November, let's meet them in the board room.

The Positives of Gov. Palin

In my discussion with Ron in the comments below, I realized that I may not have done quite what I set out to do in my last post. My last post was supposed to have been a critique of what I see as complementarian double-talk over the candidacy of Gov. Palin for VP. As a complementarian myself, I champion what I believe to be the God-designed roles for men and women, and how that crosses over into this situation is the role of male-headship. I simply find it inconsistent to claim that a men should be heads of the home, the leaders of the church, and yet act as if it doesn't matter if they aren't the leaders of the country.

So I want to say that, for the record, that I like Gov. Palin very much. Her living example as a pro-life Governor and VP candidate is like a breath of fresh air. I find the attacks that have been made against her for that position appalling. Some even stooped to say that it was her daughter's child and she pretended like it was hers to avoid scandal. How ridiculous! To add to my ire over how she has been treated, some have ridiculed her for even having five children. This doesn't simply indicate some people's disdain for Gov. Palin, it indicates their disdain of the traditional family and their lack of understanding of the beauty of human life.

Here is a summary of some of her positions according to Wikipedia:

Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," because of its "respect for equality and respect for life and an acknowledgment that it is individual Americans and American families who can make better decisions for ourselves than government can ever make for us," adding that "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."Palin is a social conservative. A lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Palin believes the right to bear arms includes handgun possession, and has advocated gun safety education for youth. She also supports capital punishment. Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but says it does not have to be part of the curriculum.Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.[Palin has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be," and she is supportive of "abstinence-only" sex education, although in 2006 said she supported contraception; she is opposed to abortion (including when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest), but supports it in cases where the mother's life would be endangered. Palin has promoted oil and natural gas resource exploitation in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and initiated a lawsuit over the federal listing of the polar bear and Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species.

Read the whole article here.

So what does the above tell me? That on every issue of importance, I am in Gov. Palin's corner. Or perhaps, she is in mine. I even like that she sued over the federal listing of the polar bear and the Cook Inlet beluga whale being put on the endangered species list. Why? I am, myself, an adamant conservationist and I am pro-wildlife. But this lawsuit tells me that she has the chutzpah to stand up and question the convictions of the more left-leaning tree-hugger lot, whose word is generally accepted as law.

I like Gov. Palin, and I think that she is the best candidate we have for VP. But I don't have to like it, and I see her candidacy as a contradiction of ordained roles as taught in Scripture. Ultimately, it is the job of the man to protect families, this includes women and the unborn. I am sad that we've gotten to such a sorry state of affairs that men are no longer the best candidates to do that. I am also concerned that evangelicals are so quick to separate the "sacred and secular", as if such a division is even possible. I see it as political expediency, and I believe that it sets a bad precedence.

Palin, Political Expediency, and Complementarians

I have been doing a good deal of thinking and reading about Gov. Palin's run for the Vice-Presidency. I am bothered by how conservative complementarians have reacted to it, and I am afraid that we run the danger of compromising for the sake of political expediency. The argument that has come forth is that, while the Bible is clear that a woman's priority is in the home, and that they are not to exercise authority over men in the context of the church, it is actually silent regarding the issue of a woman holding secular authority. You may find a couple of strong arguments in this regard by Dr. Al Mohler here, and another excellent article by David Kotter writing for The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Dr. Mohler, the CBMW, and David Kotter are complementarians who believe that Gov. Palin's run is not necessarily outside the God-ordained role of womanhood.

I know that my critique of the view of these folks may be prideful assumption, but I find their argument bothersome for two important reasons. And on the third reason, I think that it may fail altogether. Let me outline my concerns and let you have at it in the comment section if anyone so desires.

My first worry is this idea that God has ordained roles for men and women inside the home and church that is not consistently applied in the secular world. That is, if Paul forbids women to "teach or have authority over men" (1 Timothy 2:10), must we assume he only meant in the context of the local church? Further, Paul made his argument from creation, not the church per se. In creation, God gave the man dominion over the created world, not simply the church and family. I find their reasoning to be very compartmentalized. I have to wonder, if Gov. Palin's husband is the head of her household and the one to whom she submits, shouldn't we be voting for him instead of her?

That leads me to my second objection. Since Francis Schaeffer, evangelicals have labored to teach people to have a "Christian World View" and not to compartmentalize the sacred and the secular. The reasoning of Dr. Mohler and the CBMW seems to do precisely that. I fear that this position is undercutting, for the sake of political expediency, the arguments complementarians have been advancing for years.

Finally, I want to address the issue of family. Voddie Baucham wrote a post on his blog entitled Did McCain Make a Pro-Family Pick? that addresses this issue. Baucham emphatically answers his own question with a "No!". Gov. Palin may be pro-life, but she is not acting pro-family by running for VP with five children. In fairness to Gov. Palin, she only has three dependant children. Her oldest son is in the military and is heading for Iraq, surely he doesn't still need her at home. Her oldest daughter is about to be a married woman, and I am of the opinion that a seventeen year old married woman is a woman who doesn't need mom at home. So that leaves three children, one of whom is an infant with Down's Syndrome. My wife has two children and is a stay-at-home mom. My wife can hardly find time in the day to go to the grocery store and go to exercise without a job. I simply cannot see, even with three children, how Gov. Palin could manage to be Vice-President, or even President!, and still keep home the priority.

But alas, I confess that I will most likely vote for the McCain/Palin ticket in November. I can even see much good from Gov. Palin's candidacy. (I may write on that tomorrow.) And if it is true that politics are the art of choosing between the unpalatable and the disasterous, then my decision is simply status quo and a reflection of the nature of the beast.

Religion, Politics, and Being Ridiculous

I want to share with you my "Laugh Out Loud" moment of the morning and why, after I thought about it, I got a little grieved. It seems that the director of the movie "Borat" has teamed up with Bill Maher of "Politcally Incorrect" to make a movie called "Religulous". You can check out the hype/advertisement piece for it here. The article is appropriately titled, Western religions attacked in film "Religulous". Basically, Maher will interview people "Borat" style and attempt to make Christians, Jews, and Muslims look at stupid at possible.

My first thought upon reading that Maher will try to make Christians look dumb was, "Shouldn't be too difficult." Oh the shame of religious goofiness that pervades the evangelical world! Hopefully, our brothers and sisters will see how ridiculous we can actually be and learn from it. We'll see. I confess that the thought of the average evangelical being caught unaware by a guy whose mission it is to make them look foolish made me uneasy. Especially knowing that the film will be purposefully edited to make them look as dumb as possible. Even a good defense of the faith can be caricatured by a good editor.

Enough with that. Let's move on to the blatant, contradictory idiocy that made me laugh. Look at this quote in the beginning by Larry Charles, the director of Borat:

"You can't get elected in America without having a religious affiliation. And it wasn't always that way." He says this as a sort of lamentation. It used to be a good thing, apparently, that people didn't take religious beliefs into account when they voted. That, in itself, is debatable. But does he really believe that this is a good thing? That a person's religious beliefs shouldn't be considered important? Here's the kicker that comes at the end.

"I think if we can create some sort of debate before the election it may actually help defeat McCain and Palin". In the first of this article this same guy bemoans the state of politics wherein people consider a candidate's religion when they vote. Apparently, he'd like some sort of election where people ignore religious "stuff" when they vote. The problem is that the same guy is rubbing his hands in glee that abusing religion and abusing people of faith will help defeat the guy he doesn't like. That, my friends, strikes me as hypocrisy in rare form. And the funny thing is, I didn't even have to edit him to make him look ridiculous.

Complementarians, Worldview, and Gov. Palin for VP

I believe that the evangelical world, at least the complementarian evangelical world is smiling right now with Senator McCain's pick of Gov. Sarah Palin. Except, I have the sinking feeling that it may be one of those pasted-on fake smiles that attempts to mask the turning of the mental wheels.

First of all, we evangelicals like Gov. Palin. She's pro-life. She has five children. She chose not to abort her Down's Syndrome son. She seems like a happy person. Plus, rumor has it that her husband has won the Iditarod four times, which means he's a manly man at least. She seems like a great lady.

So why is the smile turning to a look of concern? Because she has five children, one of them is a special needs child less than five months old. Evangelicals has spent the last forty years trying to convince moms that the home is the highest calling of her life. How does a woman be VP of the USA and still be mommy to five children? How is our whole-hearted support for her candidacy not akin to 'taking back' all of our ballyhoo about women being needed at home more than the office?

Now we find out that her seventeen year old daughter is pregnant and planning to marry. How will Gov. Palin find time to guide her daughter through this process and still maintain the rigorous schedule of the office of Vice-President?

As much as I like Gov. Palin, as much as I admire her down-to-earthness, her pro-life stance, and her general winsomeness, I am not happy about this choice for Vice-President. I think it goes against much of what I have been attempting to teach the men and women of our church, and it goes against much of the teaching that I have heard from some of the same folks who support this move. How am I supposed to convince the ladies of my church that it is nobler to relinquish career and income for the sake of educating and mothering her children while waving the banner for Gov. Palin? It smacks of political expediency, and I am afraid that it makes evangelicals look like the glassy-eyed Republican 'yes-men' that we are often accused of being.

I am troubled by this move, and I am more than a little dissappointed with the way it has been treated by most evangelical pundits. That is, we have praised her virtues as a mother...and yet we have been silent on why this run for VP is not the best thing she can do for her children. And if it is, why have we so consistently and adamantly insisted that the best place for a mother is in the home?

Democrat? Republican? Independant?

I recently registered to vote again. In the process, I had to declare myself 'democrat' or 'republican.' I hate that. It gives me the creeps. In fact, it gives me the same creepy feeling I get when someone asks me if I am a Calvinist.

I do not owe anything to Republicans or Democrats, per se. I am an issues voter, and I have basically one issue: abortion. If someone is pro-abortion, like Barak Obama, I simply will never, ever vote for them. I have many other things that I care about, but that is a great litmus test for me, and I hold it unashamedly. In fact, if I had to choose between a big government democrat who was staunchly pro-life and a little government, tax-cutting Republican who was pro-infanticide, I would happily vote for the democrat. Other disagreements seem minor by comparison.

It reminds me of one of my favorites scenes from Monty Python's classic "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." The bridge keeper asks what is the unladened flight speed of a swallow, to which King Arthur replies, "What do you mean, African or European?" So when someone asks me whether I am a Calvinist, or whether I am a Republican, I wonder what they could mean by that. And I generally get a creepy feeling about the whole thing...or did I mention that already?

More on Huckabee

If you read this blog very much, you'll know that I came out "Pro-Huckabee" a couple of weeks ago. In that post, I listed the positives I saw with the Huckabee platform and some of my concerns. (You can read the post here). One of my concerns has been admirably addressed today by Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost. If Joe isn't already one of your regular blog stops, you should consider visiting. He's one sharp cookie, and you can't beat his regular Monday 33 Things.

Pastor Plays Political Pundit

The title of this post doesn't really make any sense, but it's alright because its alliterated. What you need to know is that this post is about the Presidential race and where I stand right now. I'm writing this for two reasons: one is that the primaries are creeping up and are only 3 months away, the second is because I have appreciated reading what others have written, and so I thought I'd toss in my two cents. If you are a member of our church, please remember that I'm speaking as an individual. I don't want to make your mistakes for you if I've been misled.

I freely admit that up until recently, I have been very disappointed with the candidates in the Republican field. If a Texan won't eat a Salsa dip from New York, then I seriously doubt that I currently need a president from there. Gulliani makes me as sad as any of the liberal Democratic candidates. I felt a vote for him is a compromise to the Republican party. I won't vote for Mitt Romney because I don't trust him, and I won't ever.

This left me rather candidateless for awhile. Fred Thompson came on the scene, but he was a dud in my opinion. I don't resonate with the guy, despite the efforts of some evangelicals to get other evangelicals on board with his candidacy.

Then I noticed this guy named Mike Huckabee. As I poked around, it seemed that the only objection to the guy was that he couldn't be elected. That sort of nonsense has never deterred me before, and so I looked into his platform a little closer. For the most part, I liked what I saw. So I thought I'd list the pros and cons and give you his website to explore to make your own decision. Here's what I like, in no particular order after #1:

Pros:

1. He is undeniably and completely pro-life. I truly believe he holds this position by conviction and not for political expediency.

2. He understands and supports the Second Amendment.

3. He wants to secure the border.

4. He is pro-marriage amendment defined as one man marrying one woman.

5. I agree with him about Iraq.

There are other pros to consider, such as his promotion of education and the arts, but almost every candidate says such things. Here are the cons, in no particular order:

Cons:

1. I'm afraid that he's not as fiscally conservative as I'd like. Though he's promised to cut taxes, I'm afraid he likes to spend money too much.

2. He believes he can make us "energy independent" by the end of his second term. That seems like a very, very unlikely promise to fulfill.

3. I don't understand his plan to "fix" health care, but I do like the fact that he doesn't believe in a universal, government mandated type of health care system.

4. He is seen as weak in the area of foreign policy.

That's the short list of the pros and cons I see. I hope that you find my observations helpful, and I hope that you will also look into the candidates and make up your own mind. If you feel that your candidate has been slighted or is better than Huckabee, make your case in the comment section. Here is Mike Huckabee's website: Mike Huckabee for President.

A Pastor and His Politics

*Warning, Satire to Follow*

I write this post to confess that I am utterly perplexed when it comes to the political realm, and I want to offer an apologetic to any candidate who cares on why I am not alone. For some reason, it has become vogue for evangelical pastors to be up-to-snuff on all things political, and since I am an "evangelical" pastor, I thought I'd give my political two cents here as a private citizen (<--- I think that I have to say that I'm giving this as a "private citizen" so my church won't be sued, just so you know.)

First, I freely confess that I am not qualified to speak on the American economy. The numbers are too big for me. My wife and I are supremely happy when our meager checkbook balances. If I expanded my personal economic policy to the political candidate most like myself, I would be left with no candidate. The main reason for that is that I abhor debt, and short of my one car payment, my wife and I have none. Yes, I drive a 1990 Ford Ranger, so what? Instead of putting my dollars down the sinkhole of depreciation, I have them working for me in an appreciating portfolio. Nice economics, if you ask me. I don't see anyone advocating that sort of policy, do you? I know, it's got to be more complicated than that or else Social Security wouldn't be in such a mess. It couldn't be a simple matter of spending more than we get, right?

Second, I have no idea what to do about the "immigration problem." I like people, and I like immigration. In fact, immigration makes my job easier. I am called to carry the gospel to the nations, it makes it convenient when the nations come to my neighborhood. I don't even have to move. If someone goes to the trouble of sneaking over here for employment, I say give the man a job. BTW, it baffles me that a man can sneak into our country with 20 pesos, no ID, and no English skills, and within a week he can find self-supporting labor. Yet, if I drive within two miles of my house I can find a half dozen healthy men sitting on their porch watching TV and smoking cigarettes all day. These have the advantage of being born here, they speak English just fine and have a perfectly good ID, and yet no job. Anybody up for addressing that problem?

Thirdly, I can't tell if politicians are serious. It seems to me that they spend a great deal of time talking about things that 50% of Americans have no idea about anyway. They talk about boosting the economy by creating more jobs and things like that. How does a politician create a job? And don't they all say that? Another favorite promise of a candidate is the one where they promise to improve the economy. I know I addressed this a little already, but let's think a little more about it. I recently read where the average American has over $9,000 in credit card debt alone. That means that the average American thinks that it makes economic sense to pay around $250 for an item that costs $100. So don't talk about economics and job creation, American voters don't understand that stuff anyway.

Fourthly, I do not know how to solve the education crisis. Part of me says, "Give me back my tax dollars and I'll educate the kids at home, thank you." But the other part of me knows that this will not work for everyone, and I have lived in this country long enough to know that I am financially responsible for not only educating my kids but everyone else's kids as well. So I guess my answer is to simply start paddling kids again, and if that doesn't work, send someone over to paddle their parents.

Fifthly, I hate taxes. I really like it when a candidate promises to cut taxes, but some folks say that cutting taxes is a bad idea. Apparently, if I stop giving the government half my paycheck the United States will be thrown into utter chaos. (You know, George Washington and the founding fathers thought it was a good idea to start shooting people over a 2 cent stamp tax. Those guys were crazy.) By the way, I think that George Bush cut my taxes. This makes him an alright guy in my book.

Sixthly, I don't know what to do about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, I think that we should send in the Wal-Mart executives. If people in Iraq could have a Wal-Mart to walk around in, it would do wonders to relieve stress and to promote the beauty of capitalism.

That pretty much sums up my political dilemma. I know that many of you may be dismayed that I did not even venture into the realm of morality. I would, but it wouldn't really help you, would it?