This past week Paul Ryan unveiled his new budget proposal. In the past Ryan could be counted on for strong, common sense, conservative number crunching that used budget cuts and entitlement reforms to push the Federal government toward spending with-in the limits of the revenue that it was generating. (That would taxes.) His past efforts also included “Growth-Oriented” tax reforms with an eye on improving the economy so that the government could take in more money without raising taxes on the American people. I’m afraid that this year’s effort fell short of his previous work. In fact, I’d say some conservative principles were missing completely.

   Ryan’s proposal does balance the budget… in ten years. There is no doubt that given the current level of dependence on government programs/ government spending, that balancing the budget will cause pain for many Americans and that the faster you make those cuts the more it will hurt those folks. But, we are past the point of making these reforms painless; the longer you draw it out the more you run the risk of the needed reforms being too little too late. Think about these reforms like pulling off a band-aid… the faster you pull it off the more it’ll hurt in the short term but the faster you’ll feel better in the long term. Plus, regardless of how long it takes to get there, when was the last time Congress has done anything that is planned for four years or longer and not made changes to it within two or three years? The point… even if this got passed and signed into law (which it won’t) Congress would monkey with it well before the ten years this plan needs.

    Ryan’s proposal cuts the growth of spending to about 3.4 percent per year compared to the nearly five percent that the current continuing resolutions would continue adding each year. It also cuts about five trillion dollars from current spending. But, unfortunately, it relies on Obama’s $618 billion fiscal cliff tax increase and the $1 trillion Obamacare tax hikes to balance. The budget does repeal Obamacare spending, insurance exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion, but keeps the taxes. Two tax increases that the Republicans fought (but lost) to protect Americans from, now becomes a main stay of the budget for the next decade. Does that sound very conservative to you?

   Like last year, Ryan protects defense from sequestration cuts. This is good. As North Korea’s posturing shows, the world is not a safer place today. But the national defense budget has been reduced by Obama’s just when U.S. forces need to be replenished and modernized. Ryan’s budget essentially adopts the defense spending caps in the Budget Control Act without sequestration. This is better than Obama’s inadequate funding for current and future needs, and certainly better than the sequester, but is still way less than what is needed.

   There is entitlement reform but most of it is focused on Medicare reform. It comes in the form of Ryan’s signature solution of a premium support model. While moving to a patient-centered model would free retirees from having to depend on the unstable and unsustainable government run program; it will be attacked as a means to put more money in the hands of the rich without care for the well-being of the poor. If the Republicans would do a better job explaining the benefits of doing this, it would be a win for conservatives, but they have never been good at educating the public on entitlement reform. Also of note, this budget offers no Social Security reforms.

   The spending caps of the Budget Control Act on “non-defense discretionary” spending is extended for two years and kept at sequestration levels. It also looks to consolidate the federal government’s 49 job training programs, and takes steps toward reining in farm subsidies. It rejects closing tax “loopholes” just to raise revenue. True tax reform should be revenue neutral as any revenue raised by closing a “loophole” should be offset by lowering tax rates. These are all good things.

   There are some very good points to this proposal. There are some troubling points as well. In the end it won’t matter as the Senate will never pass a budget like this and Obama would never sign if it did make it to his desk.

   At some point the Republicans will have to prove that they are serious about the budget. That starts with no longer passing continuing resolutions. If it is necessary to shut down the government to bring the Democrats to the table then do it! Then they must stand on principle. If you repeal Obamacare then that includes all the tax increases that come with it. You must cut spending! Entitlement reform must happen, and that means sooner rather than later. If you don’t do this things then nothing will happen to make things better for any of us and we will all go down together.

Tim Tapp

Religious Freedom!


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ;” Those are the first words of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This is our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom here in America but it is also the basis of the legal concept of separation of church and state.

The concept of separation of church and state, as it was intended, was and still is vital to maintaining religious liberties. The problem is today too many people have come to believe that this separation means that there is to be no expression of anything remotely religious by any branch, form, or activity at any level of our government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in simple, clear, and concise language so that there would be very little room for misunderstanding and no need for interpretation. There is also a reason why freedom of speech immediately follows freedom of religion in the First Amendment. (Not just to protect political speech but religious speech as well.)

The separation is clearly meant to protect all those of faith, and no faith at all, from being persecuted by any majority. No one religion, or denomination there of, can be made the mandatory faith of the nation. All are free to practice, or not, (with few exceptions) as they see fit. That is the limit of this separation. It does not equate to freedom from religion. Let me say that again. Freedom of religion does not equal freedom from religion.

Too often in recent history our court system has taken the slant that the separation is somehow supposed to protect people of differing spiritual backgrounds from being offended by someone else’s spiritual practices. In an effort to keep from offending others our courts (pushed by activist groups like the A.C.L.U.) have endeavored to sanitize religion from almost every aspect of daily government business and every single special occasion that a school or city hall might have cause to recognize, i.e. Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, Hanukah, etc. All of this done (using separation of church and state as the lynch pin of their argument) in the name of protecting the delicate sensibilities of a hypersensitive minority who don’t seem to understand that just because they are offended by something doesn’t mean that their rights are being violated.

No one has the civil right to not be offended! In fact, I would say that with the proper application of freedom of speech and of the press, it is pretty much guaranteed that everyone will be offended by something at some time. It is not a violation of your civil rights if you are; a Christian and you see me wearing a Star of David, a Jew and you see me unroll a prayer rug and start praying toward Mecca, a Muslim and you see me wearing a cross or an “I Love Jesus” tee-shirt.

If in a court building there are monuments to ideas and documents of historical significance to the foundation of our legal system then it is wholly reasonable that the Ten Commandments be present just as mush as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, or any other such deemed worthy. This is not about establishment of religion but recognition of the historical impact that the Ten Commandments had on the legal system of the United States. Having the Ten Commandments, or any other scripture from any holy book or teaching for that matter, posted in a government building does not mean that you must follow that faith to expect equal treatment in your dealings there. If you feel that you are being discriminated against just because of a sign or a plaque is hanging somewhere in a building do you really think your business there will be handled any differently if that sign was not there?

If city hall has a nativity scene at Christmas does it cause you harm to see it if you’re not a Christian? Is it worse if that same city hall, in an effort to be more inclusive, adds Hanukah and Kwanza symbols to there holiday display? I have heard representatives of the A.C.L.U. say that it is worse and still demand that there be no non-secular displays. If a high school football game is opened with a prayer is anyone being hurt? Are players, coaches, or fans of a different spiritual background being prevented from participating because of the prayer? Is anyone’s civil rights being violated?

Don’t get me wrong. There are limits. No one should be directly or indirectly challenging you or your beliefs in these settings. No one should be actively working against your best interests based solely on your beliefs. However, the saying of a prayer before a high school graduation is not a challenge of anyone’s beliefs just an expression of the majority’s beliefs. While this may lead to feelings of being uncomfortable by those of a different spiritual leaning, being uncomfortable is not a violation of your civil rights.

Now to be hardcore about this issue the Constitution is a document intended to limit the scope and power of the federal government of the United States while guareenting many basic rights to the states and the citizens. The founders never thought in terms of the publics schools being a function of the government, especially the federal government. These facts alone beg the question does the separation of church and state as stated in the Constitution even apply to locally run and funded school systems or state court houses. Legal rulings and judgement after judgement have sided with the side of secularism but these rulings have been made by activist judges on the same side as the secularist or by judges who seek to protect the rights of a minority without addressing the basic question of wheither or not any rights are actually being challenged or violated.

To sum up; you have the right to be uncomfortable and or offended, you have the right to believe or not believe however you choose, you have the right to express your political, social, and religious beliefs. Your rights are not being infringed upon if you are exposed to the ideas or beliefs of others. Your rights are being infringed upon if you are being forced into active participation of anothers faith based activities or are being excluded from activities, honors, recognition, or actions of justice based on your faith or lack there of being different from those in a position of authority.