Do you know the frivolous programs your tax dollars fund?


(Pixabay)

 

 

 

Listen to the 10-min audio

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT:  Harry, last week, it was reported that the National Endowment for the Humanities spent nearly $13 million in just one month for 253 projects. Now, the National Endowment for Humanities gives away a lot of money for a lot of projects and a lot of these projects, Harry, I’d have to just say they’re nonsensical-like grants to investigate the bell and music and culture of Bulgaria.

Another grant for almost $100,000 was given to Texas Women’s University to investigate incorporating global perspectives into its college humanities courses. There’s been thousands of dollars spent on panel discussions concerning the LGBTQ history.

Harry, the list goes on and on and on and on and, most of these things, I think if people had to pay for them out of their pockets, the average American would say, “No way.”

DR. REEDER: And we need to make clear you are paying for it out of your pockets – that’s your tax money that’s going to these issues. And, by the way, the list is unbelievable. You’ve just picked a few little things that were in that report.

Some of the projects, you’ve got one called “Slouch: How to make people sit up better and why do they slouch?” Listen, just cut my mama loose on this one: “Stand up straight, boy.”

FRUGALITY AND STEWARDSHIP

I promised yesterday I would give the reason as to why my mama will be proud of this program. My dad and mom were not part of the Depression, but they were born in the Depression and, therefore, they were born to families that were addressing the Depression.

It carried over into habits to us. My dad and mom taught me and my three sisters a work ethic that is manifested in our life and they taught us frugality – “stewardship.” One of the things it’s allowed Cindy and I to do is to be able to give a lot for Christ out of what God is giving to us and one of the reasons why is because we’re able to live with frugality.

FRUGALITY IN GOVERNMENT

Well, if there’s any place frugality needs to be in place, it ought to be in the government, particularly if you have a view of limited government. What is the government there for? For the general welfare – that’s what the government is there for. It’s not there for special interests.

I believe there’s a place for us to fund medical research and I believe there’s a place even to fund some of the fine arts, but what we don’t fund are specialized agendas.

I was part of the debate in Charlotte over the funding of The Arts and Science Council. The Arts and Science Council had given grants to plays that supported the LGBTQ agenda and I challenged that. And they said, “Well, you just don’t want any support for the arts.” I said, “No, no, I benefitted from the arts.”

When I was a kid in elementary school, I remember them putting us in a bus, driving us down to Ovens Auditorium and that money that had been set aside was used to pay the Charlotte Symphony in order for us to come and hear something we would never have had the money to go and hear.

TRUMP SHOULD EXAMINE THE BUDGET

I’m all for that use of it, but what we don’t want are these specialized projects in place and so I have a recommendation, Tom, out of this program: I think this president is perfectly placed as a “populist president” businessman to go and do what he would do in his company, which is make sure you sharpen the pencil and you don’t have extraneous, nonsensical projects in which you’re spending money where you ought not to be spending money. And, if he could put together a Blue-Ribbon Committee to search and make recommendations of how to destroy all of these nonsensical projects and initiatives that are out there that are there only for special interests.

LITTLE CUTS CAN GO A LONG WAY

Now, people say, “Now, Harry, you’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars of this and millions of dollars for that, we’ve got debt that’s unbelievable. That’s a drop in the bucket.” Well, you put enough drops in the bucket, you’ve got a pail full of water in a bucket.

And, by the way, knocking out 1 to 2 percent of a budget is not a bad idea, no matter what size the budget is. There are some congressmen and some senators I know who share this perspective who are very smart in this matter of looking at spreadsheets and looking at projects and understanding what is important.

Don’t take the money of the citizens of this United States through the tax system and waste this tax money on those initiatives. I don’t care if it doesn’t amount to 1 percent of the budget, go after it and get it done.

TIME TO CUT PET PROJECTS FOR GENERAL WELFARE

TOM LAMPRECHT: Indeed, is this not symptomatic of a bigger problem?

DR. REEDER: Which is the government is now existing and trying to be a player in the industry. Now, listen, I know there are necessary projects that need to be funded, particularly in the area of science and particularly in the area of medical research. I understand that – I am not talking about that.

I am talking about these inane programs that I think somebody almost proposes them as a joke on the government, but somebody takes it and funds it and now a whole class of people exist off of the dole of the government in carrying out these research projects that are meaningless, that are filed away, that have no impact on the general welfare.

WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S FISCAL ROLE?

Remember, the federal government is here for the general welfare of the people throughout the United States as it carries out the protection of the Bill of Rights and the execution of the law of the land and that is the Constitution.

The government provides defense, the government provides protection, the government provides law and order in a nation – that’s what the government does. It should not be here in order to fund meaningless and unnecessary projects that have nothing to do with the general welfare of the citizenship in this country.

FAMILY BUDGETS CAN SET A GENERATIONAL LEGACY

TOM LAMPRECT: Christian application, Harry, in terms of how we spend our money and in terms of how does the believer respond to the situation?

DR. REEDER: Tom, all I’m asking for is for the government to take a look at its purpose, create a budget according to its purpose and treat the money that you have taken from people through taxation with respect and with thoughtfulness. This isn’t Monopoly money for you to play around with. Be a leader of responsibility – and I know we have a number of elected officials that feel this way.

On a personal level, this is the way that we ought to live as believers. Our money isn’t our money – God has given us stewardship. We are stewards.

What does it mean to be a father and a mother and creating a budget for your family that is not superficial and that is not devoted to following the latest fads of society? Teach your children how to create a budget that is the meat and potatoes of life. Teach your children something about respecting the financial and material resources that God has entrusted to you.

SHOULD WEALTH BE HANDED DOWN?

One final thing that’s a little bit beyond our program for today: I believe one of the most non-productive things is second generation and third generation wealth. You want to hand off a business? You want to hand off property? You want to hand off a stipend to your children? That’s fine, but the No. 1 thing you ought to hand off to your children is a spiritual legacy of what it means to live for Christ, trust in Christ and be a follower of Christ. In the meantime, the money that God has given to you, measure it out and use it for the Lord.

And, when you get to the end of your life, yes, here’s a stipend for your children, here’s a business, maybe, for your children, here’s some real estate for your children, here’s a library for your children, here’s an education I’ve given to you but, everything else, God’s given to me, I’ve invested it according to Biblical principles and values in life and it’s been done in a way to honor the Lord. I’m not like the man that took the gift of God, and dug it, and put it the ground and saved it up. I used it for Him.

Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

print

11 hours ago

Conservatives should stop using the phrase ‘fake news’

Liberals have overused the word “racist” so much that the adjective now lacks any commonly agreed upon definition, and that’s a shame because we need words — especially that word — to mean something.

Conservatives have now done the same thing with the phrase “fake news.”

And we need to stop.

261

Are there racists? Of course, and where they are found, the label should indeed apply. The Alt-Right’s Richard Spencer is a racist. So is Jared Taylor.

But you’re not a racist if you believe our country should have borders. Or if you support law enforcement. Or if you believe in school choice.

Calling you a racist for supporting those things is the left’s attempt at shutting off debate and banishing those who advocate for such ideas.

Is there fake news? Of course, and just like the word “racist,” when it’s found, the label should apply. Dan Rather’s infamous story about George W. Bush’s record in the Air National Guard is a perfect example. It wasn’t true.

But news isn’t fake if it’s simply something you don’t like or would rather not hear. Or if it challenges your perspectives. Or if it, heaven forbid, says something unflattering about the president.

A racist is someone who actually hates people of another color and wishes them ill. Most people called ‘racist’ today are nothing of the sort.

Fake news means the story is a total fabrication. A lie. Complete fiction. Most stories called ‘fake news’ are also nothing of the sort.

In both cases, people making the charge simply want to delegitimize their opponent’s argument rather than make the mental and emotional effort to challenge their ideas.

The casualty of such total weakness is not just words, but thought itself.

As our fellow Alabamian Helen Keller wrote in her memoir, she wasn’t able to really think until words entered her mind that day at the water pump.

Words opened Helen Keller’s mind.

Don’t allow words to close yours.

12 hours ago

Grand jury considers Alabama woman’s stabbing of husband with sword

A grand jury in Alabama will hear the case of a woman accused of fatally stabbing her husband with a sword.

Authorities say 50-year-old Jeannette Hale stabbed her husband, Mark, in the chest while he played a guitar in their home on April 2.

60

Lawrence County Sheriff Gene Mitchell tells AL.com that responding deputies found Mark Hale bleeding on their front porch. The sword was in the yard.

Mitchell says the husband later died at a hospital. An autopsy released Wednesday said the cause was complications of being stabbed.

The sheriff says Jeanette Hale was arrested on charges involving domestic violence and drugs.

(Associated Press, copyright 2018)

13 hours ago

Poly Sci 101: Gov. Ivey’s monument ad is a prime case of political framing

“Special interests” and “politically correct nonsense” are responsible for efforts to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces, Gov. Kay Ivey says in a recent campaign ad.

At a campaign appearance earlier this week in Foley, Ivey made similar statements on the issue.

“We must learn from our history. And we don’t need folks in Washington or out of state liberals telling us what to do in Alabama,” she said, according to Fox 10 News. “I believe it’s more important that if we want to get where we want to go, we’ve got to understand where we’ve been. And I believe that the people of Alabama agree with that decision and support protecting all of our historical monuments.”

478

The conversation about Confederate monuments raises some intellectually and morally stimulating questions: What is their function? Do they function as objects of praise or as objects of historical memory? Who ought to determine whether they stay or go?

I’ll leave those questions aside for now because I want to address how Gov. Ivey has articulated the monuments issue.

George Lakoff is a cognitive scientist who has done a lot of research examining how politics and language intersect, particularly how language is used by individuals and groups to present their opponents in ways that welcome easy refutation. Usually, this means the misrepresentation of those ideas or opponents or, at the very least, a simplistic representation of them.

Lakoff refers to this as the act of “framing,” calling “frames” the arguments or scenarios set up by framing.

Here are a few assumptions that Ivey’s frame makes: Monuments are not only a way to learn from our history, but they are central to learning from our history; non-Alabamians and political enemies are trying to tell us what to do in advocating for monuments’ removal; monuments are a way to ensure that Alabama gets “where it wants to go,” politically, socially, culturally; that Alabamians are opposed to monument removal.

There are obvious political benefits to framing the issue this way. Knowing our history is clearly important. Who could argue that? Alabama is a sovereign state. Nobody wants outsiders tampering with decision-making.

What the frame excludes is an argument demonstrating why monuments are central to learning from our history, and how their removal would prevent us from learning from our history. It also excludes names of individuals or groups who have come from afar to tell us what to do.

It’s undeniable that folks from all around the country want Confederate monuments removed all around the country, and some may even be funding that effort from afar, but the major weakness of Ivey’s frame is a failure to acknowledge the Alabamians who are arguing for monument removal.

Birmingham City officials have advocated their removal.

Tuskegee Mayor Tony Haygood said the city has considered the removal of a Confederate soldier monument in the middle of town.

A Tuskegee graduate wrote a petition last year to the have the same monument removed. The petition garnered more than 1,000 signatures.

City officials in Selma have shown a similar resolve over the years, if not to have a monument removed then to cease the city’s contribution to its maintenance.  

Obviously, Ivey doesn’t have time in a 30-second ad to deconstruct the monument debate’s complexity, and I understand that, but her frame doesn’t accurately articulate who is representing the monument removal view in Alabama.

@jeremywbeaman is a contributing writer for Yellowhammer News

13 hours ago

Alabama legislators should follow Iowa’s lead in protecting the unborn

“If we conservatives truly believe abortion is what we say it is — the butchering of an unborn person — then ending the practice must be our top priority.”

Those were the words of Yellowhammer’s very own J. Pepper Bryars last week in an article he wrote after Congress failed, once again, to ban Planned Parenthood from receiving federal dollars.

Bryars couldn’t have been more accurate in his criticism, but I believe his words are also an indictment of the entire pro-life movement. For far too long we have played defense on the issue of abortion, attempting to hold the status quo while never really producing any substantial legislation on the issue. Not since Casey in June of 1992 have we attempted to make any real challenge to Roe v. Wade.

It’s for that reason that Alabama should follow in the footsteps of the lawmakers from our sister state of Iowa, who last month passed one of the strongest pro-life bills we have seen in decades.

594

Iowa Senate bill 2281 (the text of which can be found here), known as the Heartbeat Billwould legally prevent all abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat has been discovered, except in the very rare case of a medical emergency.

In other words, only when it is concluded by medical personnel that the life of the mother is in danger can an abortion be performed. Not only does it not make the exception for rape and incest as pro-choice legislators like to commonly reference, but it would also charge any doctor that performs an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected with a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Why this matters: The earliest fetal heartbeats can be detected is 5-6 weeks after conception, which is right about the time most women are initially discovering they are pregnant. However, new research from the University of Oxford suggests that a fetal heartbeat may be detected as early as 16 days after conception. With the risk of women dying during childbirth decreasing significantly since the 1970s and the recent trends in fetal research, it is clear that a bill such as this could effectively end 99% of abortions statewide.

Also, by creating legislation that defines life as beginning the moment the first detectable heartbeat is discovered we will be using the same red line that is already in use by most professionals in the medical community.

If I were driving home from work one night and had a terrible car accident, medical personnel after arriving on scene and finding me unconscious would immediately check for a pulse indicating whether I had a detectable heartbeat. If a detectable heartbeat is found, I would be considered a living person. If a heartbeat can be used by the medical community as a means of declaring when a person is living after birth, then it makes no sense why we wouldn’t use the same scientifically backed means of declaring life prior to birth.

For far too long the pro-life movement has focused on arguments surrounding fetal viability and gestational timelines, allowing our opponents on the issue the opportunity to define the terms of the debate for us.

Finally, simply passing a bill such as Iowa’s heartbeat bill would only be the beginning of the fight. There is no doubt that the ACLU, SPLC, and every pro-choice organization in the country would descend upon our state capital like locust filing every legal challenge to the bill imaginable. They would organize large protests where people in hats resembling female genitalia will gnash their teeth, but the resulting legal challenge would finally give us the opportunity to eventually stand before the Supreme Court and reargue the merits of the worst decision it has produced since Plessy v. Ferguson.

So, it is incumbent upon our legislators to truly reflect on the very pointed philosophical question Bryars raised regarding what we truly believe as conservatives on the issue of protecting unborn life.

Do you, Governor Kay Ivey, believe as you so eloquently stated that “fighting for our freedoms means fighting for the unborn”?

Do the members of our State Legislature and the pro-life community believe this as well?

If so, then the time has long since passed for us to stand by our words and attack Roe at its very core.

@dannybritton256 is a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and lives in Athens.

13 hours ago

Alabama forward Braxton Key says he will transfer

Alabama sophomore forward Braxton Key is leaving the team and plans to transfer.

Crimson Tide coach Avery Johnson said Friday Key has been granted his release. He says Key “certainly has a bright future, but he has to do what’s best for him.”

85

Key started 17 games last season after missing the first 10 with a knee injury. He averaged 7.0 points and 5.3 rebounds per game.

He led the Tide in scoring his first season and was named to the Southeastern Conference’s all-freshman team. Key averaged 12 points and 5.7 rebounds as a freshman while ranking second on the team in assists.

He says it wasn’t an easy decision to make.

The Tide is also expected to lose point guard Collin Sexton, who declared for the draft.

(Associated Press, copyright 2018)