Principal Replaces ‘God Bless The USA’ With Justin Bieber’s ‘Baby’

The principal, Kilmeade explained, banned “God Bless the USA” because she felt it was “too grown-up” for the young children to sing at their “moving up” ceremony, particularly a line about starting over with one’s children and wife.

A Hailstorm of Tax Hikes Heading for Wyoming

Wyoming Liberty Group  | By Sven Larson
June 14, 2012


On Thursday June 14, the Heritage Foundation releases its “Taxmageddon” report. Taxmageddon is a $494-billion tax increase waiting to hit the U.S. economy on January 1, 2013. Time is running out for Congress to prevent this disaster, but even if it does, the Wyoming economy could be hit by its own hailstorm of tax hikes.

The Wyoming Tribune Eagle reports (Wednesday June 13):

"An increase in the state’s fuel tax is on the table. Toll roads are not. On Tuesday a state legislative supercommittee reviewed ways to raise money for Wyoming highways. The group will develop a draft bill for state lawmakers to consider in 2013. The draft bill will include a proposal for a higher gasoline tax, based on the committee’s direction. The amount has not been determined. It will also include increases in motor vehicle registration and driver license and services fees. It will apply a sales tax to fuel, too."

A higher gasoline tax is nothing new. In October 2010 the Transportation Committee sponsored a bill that would phase in a ten-cent increase over three years. The idea was to take the state gasoline tax to 24 cents per gallon. Conservative estimates showed that the higher tax would cost drivers $35 million extra per year, though some estimates suggested higher numbers.

These proposals are not the only ones that will raise our taxes. The 2012 legislative session authorized counties to seek voter approval for a one-cent increase in sales taxes. At the end of the legislative session some legislators also speculated about a one-cent increase in the state sales tax.

It is not good for Wyoming that whenever our legislators talk about our economy, their conversation centers in on tax increases. This is not a good trend, especially since there is a risk that the state will face spending cuts up to $75 million.

When spending cuts are coupled with tax cuts they are good for the economy. When spending cuts are coupled with higher taxes, the opposite is true. This combination increases government’s drainage of resources from the economy. Government is a burden on the private sector already as it is; we don’t need to increase that burden by having government take more of our money and give even less back.

Even if at the end of the day there will be no spending cuts, higher taxes will be bad enough for the Wyoming economy. It is fair to assume that the gasoline tax increase would be somewhere in the neighborhood of the 2010 proposal, phased in over three years. Furthermore, let us also assume that all counties vote to raise the sales taxes by one percent. Lastly, we add a one-cent state sales tax increase and allow the higher total sales tax to cover gasoline as well.

A simulation using a so called CGE macroeconomic model of the Wyoming economy gives a rather disturbing picture of what these proposed tax increases would do to the Wyoming economy. The following numbers are for 2015 and compare to a scenario without any tax increases:

• There will be 6,800 fewer private-sector jobs;
• Private corporate investments will be $110 million lower;
• Wyoming families will have $458 million less in disposable income;
• Local governments will see a net loss of $28 million in tax revenue.

Depending on what type of spending cuts would be added to this, the net effect could be considerably worse.

There is no doubt that Wyoming needs better roads. However, massive tax increases is not the way to pay for them. A much better approach is to build closer ties between road usage and the cost of that usage. A gasoline tax is an imprecise instrument in this respect: the gasoline tax affects all drivers, even those who do mostly local driving. At the same time, interstate drivers are increasingly able to get through the state without paying anything for using our highways. More and more passenger cars can, for example, travel the entire stretch of the I-80 through Wyoming without filling up even once, leaving Wyoming drivers with the entire bill for road maintenance.

The tax hikes currently being discussed will actually increase the incentives of out-of-state drivers to avoid a gas fill-up within our borders. This makes it even more surprising that our legislators are entirely unwilling to consider a tolling system or find cost reductions.

By talking tax increases and generic spending cuts, our elected officials are showing us that they are stuck in the same old conventional thinking about government’s role in the economy. Rather than trying to squeeze a fiscally obese government into an economy that is already too small to fit into, our lawmakers should reconsider what role government should actually play in our economy. A smaller, leaner government with fewer spending programs is more able to focus on such things as highway maintenance–and the net burden on taxpayers would go down in the bargain.

The road to a smaller, leaner government goes through principles-based, thoughtfully executed structural elimination of entitlement programs. That takes time, but Wyoming has the financial padding to take that time. Best of all, the payoff from concentrating government to non-redistributive functions are enormous for the state economy.

Death of Common Sense

The Gay Divorcees

There are more than you might think.
By Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate for National Review

Announcing the results of his long-term “evolution” on the subject last week, President Obama revived the debate over gay marriage. In the widespread discussion, however, there is one question that’s rarely asked: How interested are gay couples in getting married?

Heretofore at least, the answer seems to be “not really.” Since 1997, when Hawaii became the first state in the union to allow reciprocal-beneficiary registration for same-sex couples, 19 states and the District of Columbia have granted some form of legal recognition to the relationships of same-sex couples. These variants include marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships; and the most recent U.S. Census data reveal that, in the last 15 years, only 150,000 same-sex couples have elected to take advantage of them — equivalent to around one in five of the self-identified same-sex couples in the United States. This number does not appear to be low because of the fact that only a few states have allowed full “marriage”; indeed, in the first four years when gay marriage was an option in trailblazing Massachusetts, there were an average of only about 3,000 per year, and that number included many who came from out of state.

This dearth of early adopters is not peculiar to America. Research conducted in 2004 by Gunnar Anderson, a professor of demography at Sweden’s Stockholm University, seems to confirm the trend. Anderson looked at legal partnerships in both Norway and Sweden and found that in Norway, which legalized civil unions in 1993, only 1,300 homosexual couples registered in the first eight years, compared with 190,000 heterosexual marriages; in Sweden, between initial passage in 1995 and a review in 2002, 1,526 legal partnerships were registered, compared with 280,000 heterosexual marriages. In the Netherlands, gay marriage is actually declining in popularity: 2,500 gay couples married in 2001 — the year it was legalized — and that number dropped to 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005. In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, less than 2 percent of marriages in the Netherlands were between same-sex couples.

Controlling for the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals does little to explain the enthusiasm gap. For rates to be similar, we would have to pretend that only 0.5 percent of the population of Sweden, 0.7 percent of the population of Norway, and less than 2 percent of the population of Holland is gay. In fact, the numbers tend closer to an average of 4 percent, which suggests that heterosexual couples are up to eight times more interested in registering their relationships than homosexual couples. It is, of course, possible that the estimated number of homosexuals is wrong, but, if anything, gay-rights groups tend to argue that the projected numbers are too low, and statistics show that the numbers of self-identified gay citizens are going up in every Western country.

Enthusiasm for marriage is somewhat lopsided by gender. Divorces, too. According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex couples in the United States are lesbian. (Solely on the “marriage” front, in Massachusetts’s first four years, this statistic was 62 percent.) While data in the United States are clearly limited, Scandinavian countries have been at this a little longer. Denmark was the first country to introduce recognition of same-sex partnerships, coining the term “registered partnership” in 1989. Norway followed suit in 1993, and then Sweden in 1995. Again, Stockholm University’s study seems to confirm the American trend. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved. In Sweden, the divorce risk for male-male partnerships is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual marriages, and the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men. This should not be surprising: In the United States, women request approximately two-thirds of divorces in all forms of relationships — and have done so since the start of the 19th century — so it reasonably follows that relationships in which both partners are women are more likely to include someone who wishes to exit.

The debate over marriage does not necessarily hinge on its popularity among the eligible, and advocates of gay unions would no doubt assert that “equality” is not a numerical proposition as quickly as their opponents would aver that the very idea is a hopeless category mistake. But it is nonetheless worth noting that there is no particular groundswell — even in states and cities that have both legal gay marriage and significant numbers of homosexuals — and that, when gay couples do decide to get married, they are more likely than their straight equivalents to change their minds later.
— 

Cultivating Courage

The First Cardinal Virtue

By: Eric Metaxas

Sometimes it takes courage to do the right thing. But what is courage, and why does the Church need it in spades?

The day before Chuck Colson fell ill at the Break the Spiral of Silence conference, he filmed a series of “Two-Minute Warning” videos on a topic he felt was crucial for the survival of our culture and our nation: The cultivation of virtue.

So starting today and continuing through the next three Wednesdays, you can watch the final four “Two-Minute Warnings” Chuck recorded — all at ColsonCenter.org.

Just as there are laws we must follow for physical health, so too there are laws we must follow for the health of the soul. That's what virtues are: laws for a healthy soul. And healthy souls are a prerequisite for a healthy civilization. As John Adams once wrote, “Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.”

Greek and Roman thinkers placed a high value on cultivating virtue. And four virtues in particular — prudence, justice, courage, and temperance — they ranked as the cardinal virtues, meaning that they are foundational to all the others. For example, courage is a cardinal virtue because doing the right thing — practicing any of the virtues — under pressure takes moral courage.

So what is courage? It’s not the absence of fear. Courage is overcoming a natural fear. Courage means saying yes to right action even at risk of pain or loss, just as Chuck did during Watergate.

At that time he was offered a plea bargain: He could plead guilty to something he didn’t do and be charged with a misdemeanor, or he could face years in prison. But Chuck could not swear to a falsehood. Instead, he pled guilty to a different charge, and he and his family paid the price. The story is all in “Born Again.” If you’ve never read it, we have it for you at the Colson Center bookstore online.

Another important aspect of courage is that it is not a momentary, one-time thing. Courage sticks with a challenge, however difficult, until it is finished.

The fact is, friends, we’re facing a challenge in America today that’s going to require a good dose of courageous stick-to-itiveness. That challenge is defending religious liberty. Chuck made it very clear in his final months and days — and I agree with him — religious liberty is under assault in America today like never before.

We have been alerted to the danger, and we must act, regardless of the risks. The Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has just completed a statement on this topic called “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.”

As Catholic scholar George Weigel points out, the document not only tackles the so-called HHS contraception mandate, it highlights “state laws that impede the Church’s service to immigrants, attempts by state legislatures to turn religious communities into bureaus of state government, discrimination against Christian students on university campuses, and restrictions on the Church’s capacity to draw on public funds in its service to orphans and victims of human trafficking.”

The bishops rightly say, “Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations.”

Folks, they are right. And even though we will face a lot of opposition, this is a battle worth having. But we will need courage.

Editors Note: This week’s “Two-Minute Warning” is hosted by John Stonestreet and Timothy George. Next week, Chuck Colson’s pre-recorded broadcast on the cardinal virtues starts. In total, we have an eight-part series, four of which Chuck recorded.