Friday, March 28, 2008

Presidential Candidates 2008 - Ronald Reagan Test



 
 

Sent to you by Ryan via Google Reader:

 
 

via Orrin Woodward Leadership Team by Orrin Woodward on 2/4/08

Let’s follow up Ronald Reagan’s leadership post with another on how his thoughts produced actions.  My basic thesis is that how a person thinks in their own mind will flow into their actions in their life.  As a leader, it will flow into the culture they create in everything that they lead.  Reagan believed strongly in the power of the individual to govern their life better than any third party.   This belief propelled him from a small town Illinois kid to a Hollywood star, Governor of California, and President of the United States.  Not only must we give people freedom, but we must teach people how to think about their freedoms and corresponding responsibilities.  This is why the free enterprise system cannot just be transplanted into the former communist countries without some world-view changes. 

 

Reagan made America freer after years of less freedom, but he also cast a vision for America.  He made Americans proud to be Americans again.  One of the most important things the President does is cast a vision from their world-view.  This is why I believe understanding how a person views themselves and the individual will tell us what they feel government's role is.   Because Reagan believed in himself, America, and the individual—he felt his main role in government was to reduce its pervasiveness in our lives.  I will allow Reagan to speak for himself, but notice how his thoughts led to his words which led to his style of government.   In my opinion, Reagan’s views of government and the success of his administration prove that a modern president can lead with the same principles that guided our founding fathers.   This is a huge point for Americans to understand as they listen to the candidates to understand their world-view.   Here is Reagan in his own words from his autobiography, An American Life.

 

 

“The first rule of bureaucracy is to protect the bureaucracy.  If the people running the welfare program had let their clientele find other ways of making a living, that would have reduced their importance and their budget.”

 

“I didn’t think much of the inefficiency, empire building, and business-as-usual attitude that existed in wartime under the civil service system.  If I suggested that an employee might be expendable, his supervisor would look at me as if I were crazy.  He didn’t want to reduce the size of his department; his salary was based to a large extent on the number of people he supervised.  He wanted to increase it, not decrease it.”

 

“There probably isn’t any undertaking on earth short of assuring the national security that can’t be handled more efficiently by the forces of private enterprise than by the federal government.”

 

“I became convince that some of our fundamental freedoms were in jeopardy because of the emergence of a permanent government never envisioned by the framers of the Constitution: a federal bureaucracy that was becoming so powerful it was able to set policy and thwart the desires not only of ordinary citizens, but heir elected representatives in Congress. . . For example, I learned the government had six programs to help poultry growers increase egg production.  It also had a seventh program costing almost as much as all six others to buy up surplus eggs.”

 

“No government has ever voluntarily reduced itself in size.”

 

“No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income.”

 

“Usually with the best of intentions, Congress passed a new program, appropriated the money for it, then assigned bureaucrats in Washington to disperse the money; almost always, the bureaucrats responded by telling states, cities, counties, and schools how to spend this money.  In Madison’s words, Washington was usurping power form the states by the “gradual and silent encroachment of those in power. . . . Over time, they became so dependent on the money that, like junkies, they found it all but impossible to break the habit, and only after they were well addicted to it did they learn how pervasive the federal regulations were that came with the money.”

 

“In return for federal grants, state and local governments surrendered control of their destiny to a faceless bureaucracy in Washington that claimed to know better how to solve the problems of a city or town than the people who lived there. . . . Once started, a federal program benefitting any group or special interest is virtually impossible to end and the costs go on forever.”

 

“We had strayed a great distance from our founding father’s vision of America: They regarded the central government’s responsibility as that of providing a national security, protecting our democratic freedoms, and limiting the government’s intrusion into our lives—in sum, the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  They never envisioned vast agencies in Washington telling our farmers what to plant, our teachers what to teach, or industries what to build.  The Constitution they wrote established sovereign states, not administrative districts of the federal government.”

 

“The waste in dollars and cents was small compared with the waste of human potential.  It was squandered by the narcotic of giveaway programs that sapped the human spirit, diminished the incentive of people to work, destroyed families, and produced an increase in female and child poverty, deteriorating schools, and disintegrating neighborhoods.”

 

“My theme on the campaign stump was familiar to anyone who had heard me speak over the years: It was time to scale back the size of the federal government, reduce taxes and government intrusion in our lives, balance the budget, and return to the people the freedoms usurped from them by the bureaucrats.”

 

“If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”

 

“The same principle that affected my thinking applied to people in all tax brackets:  The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work.  What coal miner or assembly-line worker jumps at the offer of overtime when he knows Uncle Sam is going to take sixty percent or more of his extra pay?”

 

“I don’t think we will solve the problem of the deficit until three things happen:  We need more discipline on spending in Congress.  We need a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget.  And we need to give our president’s a line-item veto.”

 

“As I have often said, governments don’t produce economic growth, people do.  What government can do is encourage Americans to tap their well of ingenuity and unleash their entrepreneurial spirit, then get out of the way.”

 

“Every year that I was president, I asked Congress for a constitutional amendment that would require the federal government—like any well-run household or business—to balance its budget.  But Congress (and I concede there was opposition to it on both sides of the political aisle) wouldn’t sit still for this infringement on its spendthrift ways.  There was some important progress: . . . . But never underestimate the willingness of congressman to circumvent their own rules, or the public will, in the pursuit of their enthusiasm to spend other people’s money.”

 

“It is a fact of life that running for political office in this country is very expensive; once in office, few incumbents want to surrender their seats in Congress, so they often trun to the special interest, who want special consideration from them, for the money to finance their campaigns.  Then, after the election, they repay the favors—with the taxpayers’ money.”

 

“Until presidents have a line-item veto and there is a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget, I think the country is likely to face never-ending deficits piled up by a profligate Congress unable or unwilling to make the hard-nosed decisions necessary to bring down spending to a level the country can afford.”

 

“As I have often said, governments don’t produce economic growth, people do.  What governments can do is encourage Americans to tap their well of ingenuity and unleash their entrepreneurial spirit, then get out of the way.”

 

“For the free market to work, everyone has to compete on an equal footing.  That way, prices and demand go up or down based on free choices of people; there are winners and losers under the system of free competition, but consumers are ultimately benefactors. 
Free competition produces better products and lower prices.  However, when governments fix or control the price, impose quotas, subsidize manufacturers or farmers, or otherwise intervene in the free market with artificial restrictions, it isn’t free and it won’t work as it is supposed to work."

 

“The explorers of the modern era are the entrepreneurs, men with vision, with the courage to take risks and faith enough to brave the unknown. These entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. They are the prime movers of the technological revolution. In fact, one of the largest personal computer firms in the United states was started by two college students, no older than you, in the garage behind their home.  Some people, even in my own country, look at the riot of experiment that is the free market and see only waste. What of all the entrepreneurs that fail? Well, many do, particularly the successful ones. Often several times. And if you ask them the secret of their success, they'll tell you, it's all that they learned in their struggles along the way - yes, it's what they learned from failing. Like an athlete in competition, or a scholar in pursuit of the truth, experience is the greatest teacher.”

 

There is Reagan in his own words.  Can you see how Reagan’s worldview led to a specific style of government based on the freedom of the people to learn, grow, fail and try again until they get it right?  This is what we desire for our children and grandchildren—the opportunity to grow and lead by their own merits.  I encourage everyone to study the candidates and give them the Reagan test for their thoughts on the role of government.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Liberty

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 at the Philadelphia State House

Monday, March 10, 2008

Counter-Productive Compassion

Feed: Author Chris Brady's Leadership Blog
Posted on: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11_31 PM
Author: Chris Brady
Subject: Counter-Productive Compassion

 

According to Ronald Reagan, some of the most dangerous words anyone could ever hear were, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."  With his characteristic home-spun, Reagan in that one little quip summed up what plagues much of the United State's current condition.

 

  U_s_government_grant61

Author W. Cleon Skousen coined the term "Counter-Productive Compassion" to describe what I see displayed across nearly the entire landscape of national candidates for President.  Somewhere, somehow, the American populace got it into their head that "the government" is responsible for solving the people's problems.  Even most of those on the "conservative" side barely represent a conservative platform.  It seems as though the citizenry has realized that they can vote "benefit providers" into office to serve their individual needs.

Don't get me wrong.  It's not that we shouldn't care for the poor.  It's not that we shouldn't provide cushion to displaced workers caught in industry shifts.  It's not that we shouldn't get involved in addressing a whole host of human needs across our country.  Of course we should.  To do less would be cold, uncaring, and the farthest thing from compassionate.  What I am suggesting is that we merely consider who the "we" is in these sentences.  Exactly who should care for the poor?  Exactly who should help the displaced worker? Our compassion is correct, our implementation is flawed.

Why?

Because, just as Reagan indicated, governments are notoriously bad at executing (unless we are speaking of despotic governments, of course, in which case executions are some of their most efficient work).  Have you ever had to work with or inside of a bureaucracy?  If you have (and who among you hasn't invested

 

Government_t2img

 

hours inside a DMV or Secretary of State's Office?), you know exactly what I'm talking about.  And the U.S. government, although founded upon some of the soundest political theory and documents the world has ever produced, is the world's largest bereaucracy.  Worse, it has a nagging little tendency to continue to grow.  With each new "program," no matter how well intentioned, the pig just gets fatter and bigger and slower and less effective.  What began in compassion ends in a pile of paperwork and waste, with very little, if any, of the intended benefit actually finding its way to the proper recipient.  If that benefit does reach the right place, often times the compassion then breeds entitlement instead of its original purpose.  This is because most government programs, being so bureaucratic, are cold and impersonal, and therefore are not very caring, specific, or good at holding people accountable.  Instead of a hand up, which is what most well-intentioned compassionate people hope to enable the government to provide, it turns into a hand-out.

Let's look at the principles involved, which I borrow from Benjamin Franklin:

1.      Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counter-productive.

Franklin

2. Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter-productive.

3. Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter-productive.

4. Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counter-productive.

So we see that compassion impropery applied leads to bad results.  And we further see that the government is especially gifted at "improperly applying" its compassionate funds.

So if compassion is a dangerous weapon that must be yielded properly so it doesn't backfire, and if government has continually demonstrated its inability to properly implement compassion, how then should it be handled?

The founding fathers had an answer for this, and it comes from a principle called "fixed responsibility."  The principle works much the same as the structure of government they instituted at the birth of the United States, in which local governemnts controlled everything except what belonged to the states and national government, and in turn the states handled everything the local governments could not, and finally, the federal government handled only what was beyond the local and state governments.  "Fixed Responsibility," according to Skousen, works like this:

"The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is the family; then the church; next the community; finally the country, and, in disaster or emergency, the state.  Under no circumstances is the federal government to become involved in public welfare.  The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor.  No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare.  By excluding the national government from intervening in the local affairs of the people, the Founders felt they were protecting the unalienable rights of the people from abuse by an over-aggressive government."

In relation to this, where do you think we are today? And how did we get there? Was it because politicians learned that they could get elected by promising benefits to special interest supporters, thereby "selling votes," or was it because the government must handle these things because individuals, families, churches, and communities will not?

Is our counter-productive governmental compassion a result of power hungry politicians (the kind that can't really solve the problem they crusade for because then they would be without their base of power), or is it due the selfishness and indifference of individuals, families, and churches in our society?

What do you think?

Which candidates align in what positions in relation to these questions?

   


View article...

FW: Life is Too Short to Be Little


Feed: Author Chris Brady's Leadership Blog
Posted on: Sunday, January 20, 2008 5_55 PM
Author: Chris Brady
Subject: Life is Too Short to Be Little

"It's not what happens, it's how you respond." These are easy words to hear, but hard ones to live out. For most of us, it is easy to let people "hi-jack" us emotionally, to "blow our lid," or "get ticked off," or "blow our stack," or "lose our temper,Babycryingtantrum " or "come un-glued," or "let them have it," or "lose control," or "boil over," or "erupt," or "fly off the handle," or "throw a tantrum," or "pitch a fit," or "get our knickers in a knot," or "get our tailfeathers in a knot," or "get jacked sideways," or "spout off," or any number of expressions (in fact, if anybody out there knows any more, perhaps you could contribute them here in the comments section!). Perhaps there are so many expressions for this because there are so many instances of this in our lives. It would make sense that we would need a lot of names for something that happens a lot!

But what a shame, really. How many pharases are there for the opposite? "Keep one's cool," or "stay calm," or "keep control," or "maintain composure," or "turn the other cheek," or "blow it off," or "let it lie," or "leave it alone," or "take it with a grain of salt," or "keep things in perspective," or "let sleeping dogs lie," or "don't rock the apple cart," or "leave well enough alone," or "keep the peace," or take it all in stride." (again, we would welcome your inputs on this blog if you can think of more!)

For both cases, when we lose our temper or when we maintain control, our language is full of expressions to describe the event. It must be that this is a big deal. And in the art of human relations, I can assure you that how we respond to the things that happen to us in life IS A BIG DEAL.

Many, many times the things that happen to us are with, through, about, or because of other people. The interesting thing about life is that we, as humans, are free to choose our response. We are different from the animals which have no choice but simply react by instinct. Sure, we have instincts, but we also have overriding intelligence that offers us a choice of our response in any situation. It is how we choose our responses that matters.

Do we choose our responses because they make us feel better in the moment, riding the emotional wave that wells up in us and forgetting to engage our intelligence? Or do we stop and think for a moment, making a concious choice about what our response will be? HOW we choose our response is important.

Addtionally, WHAT response we choose matters, too. We should gain enough control over ourselves to choose the appropriate response. And which response is the appropriate one? Would it be the response of expediency, meaning the choice that serves our personal needs the best? Or would it be better to choose a response that serves the other person? Should our response be in line with the highest purpose we have for our life? Should our response have anything to do with God and His glory?

You see, asking these kinds of questions of ourselves (and what is thinking, if not the attempt at answering questions we ask ourselves?) produces the environment for us to CHOOSE our response, and to CHOOSE appropriately. Remember, we are the happiest when our actions are in line with the highest picture we have of ourselves, and when that picture is as accurate as it can be - meaning: the closest in line with how God would have us live.

People who are given to emotional flights of fancy, getting angry and battling with the people in their lives for whom they are supposed to love, are the least likely to produce lasting relationships. They may have great "people skills" on the front end, but over time, their lack of emotional self-control will deliver misery and regret by the truckload. Many of the wounds resulting from a lack of emotional control are very painful and heal slowly. Trust is destroyed and is rebuilt painfully and slowly, if at all.

Work hard to grow emotionally. Experts agree that your "emotional quotient" is more important than your "intelligence quotient." Get control of yourself by getting clear on who you are and what your purpose is. Don't lose perspective on the big picture in your life. Get in touch with the fact that your life is finite. Keep in mind that the most important aspects of your life are how you touch and influence the lives of God's children around you. You will be remembered more for your contributions or subtractions from people's lives than anything else you will accomplish. And finally, it may be helpful to keep in mind two of my favorite quotes:

"Life is too short to be little,"

and

"A man is only as big as the smallest thing that makes him lose his temper."

So grow big.

Life is too short to live otherwise.


View article...

Too busy to change the world?

Please turn on images.

World Vision

Flooding in Africa: World Vision Responds

----------------------------------------

Dear Sponsor,

You may be too busy to change the world, but you can do ONE thing — you can share your story.

We're looking for thousands of sponsors to create awareness in their churches or small groups for the millions of children living in poverty. And we need you to speak on their behalf.

Sharing the story of a child whose life has been changed is easy! It's the story of YOUR sponsored child!

Nervous about speaking in church? Show a video, and let the images tell the story!

photo


Not sure who to talk with? Start with your pastor, who may surprise you with his or her support of World Vision!

Concerned about the cost? No worries — it's free!

How do you get started? Order a Planning Kit today, which includes:

  • A step-by-step guide about how to plan an event
  • A guide for church leaders to give to your pastor
  • Posters
  • Videos
  • Suggested bulletin text, and more!

Can you make a difference? YES! Whether you find one sponsor or a thousand, every child is valuable, and we want each one to know the hope that comes from being sponsored.

Read about Nichole, who has blessed others by sharing sponsorship at her church through the A Child is Waiting program:

"I prayerfully considered 'A Child is Waiting' after looking on the World Vision Web site for ways to serve locally. I am so impressed and pleased that World Vision has found a way for ordinary and busy people to help with your effort.

I have always wanted to go into the mission field, but being a mother of three small kids, have found it to be quite difficult. This felt like a great way to help serve God's purpose, so thank you for the opportunity."

– Nichole Patterson, A Child is Waiting volunteer

There are thousands of children waiting for a sponsor. Let God use you in this way. Whether you connect one child or 100 with a new sponsor, imagine the blessing you will feel knowing that another child's life will be changed.

Grateful for your partnership,

/s/ Rich Stearns
Rich Stearns
President, World Vision U.S.

P.S. If you host an event during the month of May and you find sponsors for 10 children, we'll send you the Faith In Action Study Bible — FREE! Order your Planning Kit today.



Order a Planning Kit

A Child is Waiting

www.worldvision.org



World Vision United States — Building a Better World for Children
World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice.

Last year, 86 percent of World Vision's total revenue was designated for programs that benefit children, families, and communities in need.

World Vision Donor Services
34834 Weyerhaeuser Way S.
P.O. Box 9716, Mail Stop 110
Federal Way, WA 98063-9716

Phone: 1.888.511.6514
Web: www.worldvision.org
Email: info@worldvision.org


If you found this email compelling, please forward it to your friends and family.
To ensure delivery to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders), please add
info@news.worldvision.org to your address book.

Your email address 6saturdays@6saturdays.net is subscribed to World Vision eCommunications.
Donor account number=100905737 (Sign In)

Privacy Policy | Subscribe new email address | Unsubscribe

campaign=1148081

Kaspersky Lab E-Store