It's My Party So I'll Lie if I Want To...

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector is switching parties to run as a Democrat in the 2010 election. He had previously said in a March 17th interview:

"I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I’m afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That’s a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers."

Actually, the separation of powers defined in the Constitution doesn't refer to political parties but the Senator really didn't care about that anyway, did he? When it became evident that he would likely lose his Senate seat in the next primary elections he announced yesterday that:

"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania."

So he doesn't want to answer to the Republican electorate that supported him for 29 years and now desires "change". He wants to answer to the people of Pennsylvania. So what's his solution?

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary. I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

So you represent the "people" of Pennsylvania and not just the Republicans? But now you say you want your 29 year Senate record judged by the Democrat primary electorate. Excuse me Senator, but if you really wanted to let the "people" of Pennsylvania judge your 29 year Senate record you would run as an independent in the general election and skip the primaries. The problem is that you probably have less possibility of winning as an independent candidate than you do as a Republican.

What is clear to anyone is Senator Specter's real purpose is to retain his position of power. The Democrats have promised him a primary win and a place on the ballot in the 2010 general election in exchange for his switch. The Democrat Party welcomes the switch and will be happy to bankroll his reelection bid because it bolsters it's own power. The people of Pensylvania suffer from a Senator who has shown clearly that it's not for them but for his own self-interest that he wishes to "serve." Senator Spector has shown that he will represent those he thinks can keep him in power rather than "the people."

To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress. (Proverbs 28:21)

Funny...I don't feel stimulated. Part Three

A significant amount of time has passed since I began this series and nothing that the current presidential administration and congress have done has changed the thrust of this column. The budget that was recently passed and signed into law has almost tripled the combined amounts of both so-called bailout and stimulus bills passed in the last 6 months. I’ve already dealt with the issue of unconstitutional spending. Now I want to talk about immoral spending.

When I talk about immoral spending it is clear from the title of this blog that I get my morality from the Bible. For the sake of those who don’t believe the Bible I’ll depart from biblical standards of morality for the moment and just use some common moral standards of the society. I’ll do so by asking some simple questions and leave it up to you, the reader, to answer yes or no.

1. If I borrowed money under pretence of using the money to help someone and then spent it for another unrelated and selfish purpose would that be immoral?
2. If I borrowed money beyond my means to repay it would that be immoral?
3. If I took money from those that had legitimately and responsibly earned it and used it to bail out those who had been criminal and/or irresponsible in their actions would that be immoral?

This is exactly what our government has done. The money for the “bailouts” was given to companies and individuals who committed criminal fraud and/or were irresponsible in handling their own and others’ finances. No one (Congress included) has been held accountable. Large portions of the “stimulus package” money have gone to programs and earmarks that will stimulate nothing in our economy and will generate no economic growth. Look through the long list of spending I posted in the previous installment of this series and list the ones that will create new jobs or new businesses. It won’t take long because your list will be short. Most of the money is to fund government programs and increase government control. Additionally, the President’s recent public addresses have expressed the need to get the banks lending money again. Uh, maybe it’s just me but isn’t that what got us in this crisis to begin with? Bad loans and over extended credit were the cause of the housing market crisis (remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?). Our credit based economy has turned into a monster that cries to be fed and cannot be sustained. Meanwhile, our own government has put us into debt to our enemies (communist China for example) to finance its spending spree. They try to spend our way to prosperity, which, by the way, is not only immoral but just plain stupid. The bottom line is that our government is continuing its irresponsibility and by any standard its behavior with the American people’s tax dollars is immoral.

America is in a precarious financial position that doesn’t look to get better as long as we allow the government to spend beyond our means. Our fate is clearly prophesied in the Bible if we continue to squander our nation’s wealth and resources. It comes in the form of a simple and profound proverb.

The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7)