Boccieri's desire to "protect the second amendment" is to be commended. But the rest of his policies reveal a socialistic agenda. Boccieri wishes to "strengthen schools." Being that his website was scant on what that means I will provide the following translation: dump more of your money into an atheistic, dumbed-down education system.
Why don't we have a candidate say, "Let's save taxpayer money and provide better education by privatizing the whole thing." The way to improve quality and decrease cost is to create competition in the arena. Just a look at the private schools that already exist in Ashland will show this. Ashland Christian requires less than 3 thousand dollars a year for (what I deem) a better education. Ashland City spends approximately $6,000 per student--Oh, and that is other people's money too.
Boccieri also wants to expand government funded health care. Wow! That sounds like a great idea, make our health care as good as the US postal system! (please note the sarcasm) If you would only take a look at how Britain is now looking to privatize their health care system because of the failure of socialized health care and look at how long it takes Canadians to get a brain surgery, you might consider again how wonderful capitalism is. God really knew what he was doing when he established the rule of the free-market in the ninth commandment. Truly it shows that the way of God will prolong life, bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones (Prov. 3:1, 8).
Another item of disappointment comes from the lips of one of Boccieri's supporters. I quote,
Barb Phillips, president of Ashland-Wayne-Holmes Labor Council, accompanied Boccieri on his visit. She said the senator is a friend of organized labor who would work to secure earmarks for local projects, such as the funding for the 9th Street Dental Center. "Senator Boccieri's all about taking care of labor and spending taxpayers' money wisely," Phillips said.
Just in case you need a review of what an earmark is... It is basically additional spending added to a bill--but not necessarily related to the bill being considered. In essence extra money is drained from the government's account on items that were not originally part of the budget. According to Wikipedia the US government spent over 10.4 billion (yes, billion) in earmark money last year. Earmarks essentially produce deficits. These deficits eventually have to be paid. Do you have any idea whence that money will come? If you guessed the taxpayer, you are right.
Is that really "spending the taxpayer's money wisely?"
But let's consider what the money is spent on. The earmark that Phillips desires--and Boccieri supposedly will grant--needs also to be considered from a Biblical perspective. As I have said before, the Bible does not permit the government to be in the business of redistributing wealth (and, btw, neither does our Constitution). The government's job is to "do us good." But that is not by taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. Their God ordained role is to do us good by "bearing the sword" and being "an avenger who caries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." (Rom. 13:4).
The Ninth Street Dental Center and the ACOHS seem like a worth-while private works. I commend those who started the ACOHS and those who contribute to it freely and of their own accord. Yet it is to be lamented that Rep. R. Regula earmarked funds for it and that the Dental Center accepted these funds. But it seems that, if you want the mistake to be repeated, you should vote for Boccieri.
How can it all be summed up? Easy: vote for Boccieri and you will pay for it.
4 comments:
Mr. Timmons,
I am not sure I follow your reasoning here because it appears most of the candidates make us pay for the earmarks and much more that is not needed. I have a difficult time telling the difference between the candidates of either major political party in the United States.
I would enjoy another article by you on the other major candidate running for the 16th congressional district.
You are right on several accounts. Regarding earmarks: indeed, they are rampant within our government and not confined to one single party. Anyone who spends tax-payer money in such a way is to be frowned upon, as I pointed out with Rep. R. Regula.
Regarding the difference in candidates: you are right again. It is often hard to tell much distinction from cadidate to candidate. This is due to many factors. For one, candidates usually speak in vague generalities (i.e. "I'm for family values"--no duh! Who isn't? But what exactly does that mean?). In today's political climate you also have to factor in that candidates seek to use catchy soundbites to communicate their ideas and rely more on one's image. Issues are not emphasized and adequately detailed.
Also, differences are often hard to see because there are sometimes no differences at all. This usually falls upon Republicans who give in to liberal tendencies. The main point of my commentary is that-- be it republican, Democrate, Libertarian, etc.--all need a Biblical understanding of government's nature and function in society.
Regarding an article for the Republican candidate--I'll see what I can do. I personally had voted for Matt Miller and was not fond of the winner. But just to let you know, I vote my conscience and not a party-line because Republicans do run off base with God's Word.
The writer's comments on "privatizing schools" and "atheistic Schools" should be addressed. We always need to remember the people who came to this country did so because there were opportunities here that were not avalible in Europe, and the one biggest reason was no public education system there was any good. Only the wealthy could afford to send their children to a private school, hence the large population was always lagging behind. I would not EVER want to return to this type of system. Also, when you start quoting how much money is saved on privatization, then please provide all the services that the public schools provide, including good teachers salaries to attract the finest teachers, not the rejects the private ones provide (but not the wealthy private schools). Additionally, I always want the schools to be religion-neutral. If you want to teach religion in school, you are free to send, and pay for, your child to be educated in a private setting.
Obriar,
The number of errors in your statement equal, if not outnumber, the number of sentences in the paragraph. I don't know if I can address them all.
I will begin by addressing your last remark, as it makes my point very clear. You said, "If you want to teach religion in school, you are free to send and pay for your child to be educated in a private setting." Let's change that a little, "If you want to teach your child without the foundation of the Creator of the Universe and Savior of men, you are free to send and pay for your child to be educated in that setting." JUST DON'T DO IT ON MY DIME!
My point is: Give me back my money so that I can spend it on my child's education they way I want. And what gives you or anyone else the right to take my money and pay for your child's education, especially when I do not agree with the worldview it is packaged in.
On that point, the public educational system of this country is atheistic, not "neutral" as you say. That is an undeniable fact. This goes far beyond just "having a prayer" or Bible classes. The recent documentary by Ben Stine, Expelled, clearly reveals this. All education flows out of a worldview. Absolutely no education is "neutral" because each teacher propagates his/her worldview as soon as they step into the classroom and open his/her mouth.
The public education institutions of our nation have embraced atheism and spit on all things Christian. Just look at a Science textbook for proof. (And btw: as a result of this atheism we have children growing up without any moral basis and thinking they are nothing more than glorified germs--no wonder kids are shooting each other and are living sexually permiscous lives).
Further, you make my point by stating the fact that people come to this nation of the opportunities America affords. That's because America offers freedom! But freedom of education is greatly restricted because I have to send a hearty portion of my income to the state due to taxation for other children's government funded education. Is that freedom?
You also mention that in these other countries there are not any public education systems that are any good. What would happen if we would stop funding these institutions and give people their hard earned money to choose how they would like to spend it? I will tell you what would happen: There would be more competition in the market. Institutions would compete for the highest quality for the lowest prices.
Look at the colleges of America. My alma mater, Grove City College, offers one of the nation's best educations for one of the lowest prices out there. People are turned away in droves because there are so many applicants. Check it out for yourself.
(Oh, and by the way, they aren't breaking their necks to get in for state school reject teachers. Great teachers want to teach there becaue it is such a worthy institution.)
Post a Comment