Posts Tagged war

This Week on Lincoln Radio Journal: Paul Kengor Discusses ‘War on the Family’


Radio Program Schedule for the week of July 25, 2015 – July 31,2015

This week on Lincoln Radio Journal:

  • Lowman Henry talks with Dr. Paul Kengor from the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College about his new book Takedown: From Communists to Progressives How the Left has Sabotaged Family and Marriage
  • Eric Montarti and Frank Gamrat have an Allegheny Institute Report on the concept of an Achievement School District
  • Beth Anne Mumford from Americans for Prosperity-PA has a Lincoln Radio Journal commentary on Governor Wolf’s campaign against legislative Republicans

This week on American Radio Journal:

  • Lowman Henry talks with Eileen Norcross from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University about their ranking of the states by fiscal condition
  • Andy Roth of the Club for Growth has the Real Story on congressional efforts to pass a new highway bill
  • Eric Boehm and Matt Kittle have a Watchdog Radio Report on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling clearing conservative groups of campaign improprieties
  • Colin Hanna of Let Freedom Ring, USA has an American Radio Journal commentary on the future of religious freedom

Visit the program web sites for more information about air times. There, you can also stream live or listen to past programs!

http://www.lincolnradiojournal.com

http://www.americanradiojournal.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

GOP Launches a New ‘War on Poverty’


In his 1964 State of the Union Address President Lyndon Johnson launched what became known as the “war on poverty” saying: “Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it, and above all to prevent it.”

Like the war in Vietnam, which he simultaneously fought, Johnson lost the “war on poverty.”  In 1964 the U.S. Poverty rate stood at 17.3%, after a half century with spending totally in the trillions of dollars, that rate today is stuck at 15%.

The “war on poverty” has been lost because the central theme of Johnson’s address got subverted to the cause of big government.  Anti-poverty programs sought not to “relieve the symptom of poverty,” but rather to entrap poverty stricken families in a web of government dependency.  At that the “war” has been successful as, for example, a record 47 million U.S. households today receive food stamps.

Although President Johnson’s anti-poverty initiative failed in its stated goal, it has been a resounding political success for his party.  Under the guise of compassion, Democrats have been successful in creating an entire class of voters dependent on government.  As a result entitlement programs now make up an unsustainable percentage of the federal budget and are driving trillion dollar budget deficits.

Conversely, Republicans have been portrayed as modern day Scrooges who care more about the bottom line than about the needs of poor Americans.  While the negative fiscal impact of deficit spending is real, the GOP has enhanced this reputation by failing to provide realistic solutions to fighting poverty through the provision of human services.

That, however, is changing.

In what is shaping up as a major change in how Republican policy-makers deal with poverty and the confusing and inefficient labyrinth of human service programs designed to combat it, major initiatives are underway at both the state and national level to develop a new – and hopefully more effective – anti-poverty paradigm.

At the national level Congressman Paul Ryan, the GOP’s 2012 Vice Presidential nominee, has spent years researching and developing hisExpanding Opportunities in America program. Ryan proposes reforms to the nation’s educational and social safety net programs.  He also wants a review and streamlining of the thousands of federal regulations that frequently are a roadblock to providing effective services.

Funding for human services trickle down to the state, and ultimately to the county level where many such programs are actually implemented.  So, in addition to federal bureaucracies a level of state administration gets overlaid on human service programs before the dollars actually get to the counties and nonprofit organizations providing service.

State Representative David Reed, who serves as Majority Policy Chairman, last year launched his Empowering Opportunities: Gateways out of Poverty Initiative.  Reed returns to Lyndon Johnson’s original promise saying: “With more than 1.6 million Pennsylvanians struggling in poverty today, our responsibility is to begin the discussion anew on the most effective and successful means of transitioning our citizens from a life of poverty to self-sustainability.”

Congressman Ryan and Representative Reed have thus laid the groundwork for a major change in the way our nation and state address dealing with persistent poverty.  But, bringing about such systemic change will not be easy.  Defenders of the status quo will predictably claim the proposals lack compassion, and some conservatives will balk at a continued major role for government in combating poverty.

After fifty years of failure it is crystal clear that what we have been doing simply hasn’t worked. Ryan and Reed are proposing a way forward that could begin the process of actually addressing the root causes of poverty in a way designed to lift people out of government dependency.  At this point we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Why We Remember


The degree and intensity which Americans commemorate Memorial Day tends to rise and fall depending upon the nation’s level of active involvement in a foreign conflict.  During the height of the recent Iraq and Afghanistan operations – which produced a tragic number of American military deaths – the day was observed with greater solemnity than in years past.

Although our service men and women continue to fight and die in foreign lands, particularly Afghanistan, the military mission has substantially run its course and the media spotlight has moved on to the next big story.  That, however, does not change the fact Americans remain in harm’s way and the threats to our national security continue unabated.

Largely as a result of popular entertainment we expect any “story line” to be wrapped up by the end of a two-and-a-half hour movie or a one hour episode of CSI.  The real world does not work that way.  The “bad guys” are not defeated in a battle that has a neat beginning and ending.  If anything, the lines marking progress, or lack of progress, are more blurred than ever.  Unlike in the world wars, congress doesn’t “declare war” anymore.  From Korea to Afghanistan we have “conflicts” or “operations.”  The new terminology doesn’t change the fact Americans are still fighting and dying.  And we don’t have official endings to such military ventures.  There is no “V-J” day with jubilant celebrations in Times Square.  We just sign “security agreements” meaning our presence in the foreign land will continue for the foreseeable future.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a rally for our troops on the steps of the state Capitol Building.  The numbers were substantially less that when the event was first staged during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan missions.  America has grown weary of wars that began after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and have dragged on ever since.

But the battle continues.

In a recent article for Imprimis, a pamphlet published by Hillsdale College, Brian T. Kennedy of the Claremont Institute sounded the alarm on the need for continued national defense by recalling the lessons taught by Harold Rood, a professor of international relations at Claremont-McKenna College who passed away in 2011.  Mr. Rood was a soldier in General George Patton’s army in World War II, so he knew and understood the nature of war and conflict from first-hand experience.

Said Kennedy: “He (Rood) taught his students that war is permanent to the human condition and that in war it is better to win, for no one ever had to accommodate a loser.  America will always have enemies, he told them, and those enemies will forever be planning and expending resources to place themselves in a position to defeat us.  It would be nice if it was otherwise, he was fond of saying, but it is not otherwise.  It is the way the world works.”

It is the way the world works.

This Memorial Day, as our nation’s recent experiences in open warfare begin to fade, we would be wise to remember that our enemies around the world continue to plot against us.  And as September 11, 2001 morphs from a current event into history we must remember the threat of terrorism within our borders also remains a constant.

That is why deep cuts to the American military now being undertaken in Washington, D.C. should be viewed with alarm.  Just as “no one ever had to accommodate a loser,” few are willing to challenge the biggest kid on the block. Or, as Ronald Reagan put it: “peace through strength.” From the mid-east to Russia challenges to our national interests continue to grow as do the domestic threats to our nation’s vital infrastructure from the electric grid to tele-communications systems.  Now is not the time to be cutting back, now is the time to be gearing up to meet these challenges.

So this Memorial Day there are three thoughts that should be on the minds of Americans:  First, we must continue to remember and venerate those who gave their lives so that this nation might prosper.  Second, we must remember the need to always remain militarily strong and vigilant.  And third, the reason why we do all of this, in the words of Abraham Lincoln: “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

 

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org)

 
Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

It’s for the Children


Unsurprisingly, in the realm of politics and public policy folks often say one thing while meaning something entirely different.  For example, when a public official decides to retire to “spend more time with the family,” you can almost always assume it is because he or she has decided running again would lead to certain defeat and retirement is a preferable option. It’s not that elected officials don’t value their families, or cherish time spent with them; rather the citing of family obligations is more often an excuse rather than a reason.

The most often used catch phrase – usually uttered when all other arguments have failed – is that it is “for the children.”  By throwing in that line the user immediately places any opponent on the defensive.  After all, who among us is against children?  It is a rare unifying trait that people of all political persuasions, ideologies and backgrounds care for their children.  Among the admirable attributes of our society is that we universally strive to protect and nurture the youngest among us.  So, by claiming a policy objective is “for the children” the user cloaks any argument in difficult to assail body armor.

Just like a politician retiring to spend time with one’s family is cover, so too are arguments claiming a policy’s end goal is “for the children.”  If the policy being advanced benefits children it is typically a by-product of the proponent’s real goal, and not the central objective.  We are all, of course, pleased when children benefit, even tangentially, so this argument often achieves the desired goal of garnering support.

President Obama recently gave interviews to major television networks bolstering his request for congress to authorize him to take military action against Syria.  You might think bombing a third world nation even further back into the Stone Age would be detrimental to children, but not so!  During his interviews the president claimed he was acting to “protect” the children of Syria from chemical weapons. It is true children were victims of the Assad regime’s chemical attack, and nobody doubts President Obama wants to prevent further deaths – children or adult. But the driving factors behind the proposed Syrian attack have more to do with the regional power struggle underway in the mid-east and the Obama Administration’s credibility on the world stage.  Preventing the deaths of more children is certainly a goal, but one stated much more often as the other arguments fail.

Here in Penn’s Woods teachers in a number of school districts are attempting to nurture young minds by going on strike.  Pennsylvania is a perennial national leader in teacher strikes. This year organized labor is working hard to defend that title by staging several walk outs.  Of course young Johnny and Suzie cannot prosper academically if their teacher doesn’t get regular pay hikes and continue to receive Cadillac health insurance benefits without contributing a co-pay.  Never mind that many moms and dads in the private sector have seen wages stagnate and health care costs escalate, teacher compensation is “for the children” therefore taxpayers must fork over whatever is asked.

The sad fact is teacher union contracts have virtually nothing to do with “the children.”  Former Governor Tom Ridge said it best when he claimed the next teacher union to care about the kids will be the first.  Teacher unions are especially well positioned to play the “it’s for the children” card, but in reality their main objective is the preservation of union power and the special privileges, like using school districts as dues collection agencies, they now enjoy.  Teachers don’t go on strike for better books or technology for the kids; they go on strike to enhance themselves economically.

The political Left is far more adept at playing the “it’s for the children” card than the Right.  Part of the Leftwing narrative is that conservatives don’t care for children.  This despite the fact conservative policy proposals are aimed at empowering parents and strengthening families.  Actually, the Left uses the “it’s for the children” line more frequently because all other rational arguments fail. Global warming revealed as junk science?  OK, let’s argue we must preserve the planet for our children.  Congress set to reject military strikes on Syria?  We must do it to save the children.  School district unable to meet contract demands?  They must do it “for the children.”

So the next time you hear someone argue that a policy or political position is “for the children,” stop, look deeper, because typically it is about anything and everything – BUT the children.

 

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment