This is the time of year when many Americans get bored with the holidays and try to list ways they wish their lives were better. They call the lists "Resolutions", but once resolved, they are never very resolute.
The practice probably began when some poor sap was hung over from the New Years Eve party the night before, and he swore he would never take another drink. I'll bet that promise lasted until the next Saturday night.
What's really ironic about it is that New Years is not one of the three major days for church attendance--Easter, Mother's Day, and Christmas. One would think that if people wanted to improve their lives en masse, they would choose a day when their consciences were pricked by a professional. It just proves my theory that no one ever listens to the preacher in church, anyway. They all go to be seen, and to gossip about people who are there--what they were wearing, who they were with, etc.
There is an old Preacher's story about a duck church. All the ducks waddled in every Sunday, and listened to the sermon, and then they all waddled home. Once, they had a duck church revival. They invited a duck Evangelist to speak, and he was very charismatic. "You don't have to waddle, my friends," he bellowed at them. "God gave us all wings. I'm here to tell you that you can fly!" All the ducks in the congregation stretched out their wings. Some started to flap and even got off the ground. There were hundreds of duck conversions that day, and scores of duck baptisms. And then, after the service, all the ducks left the church building and they all waddled home.
I guess my point is that real growth happens randomly. It happens when a major crisis occurs, and you cry out to God. It happens when God reaches down and grabs you by the neck and shakes you to your very core. Then, and only then, will you resolve to change the way you behave forever.
So go ahead and play the silly game, if you must. Resolve that you will put "stand on the rings of Saturn" on your Bucket List. Promise that you will move to India and take up where Mother Theresa left off. Swear that you will find a cure for cancer and the common cold in your spare time.
But when 2011 comes, and it looks a lot like 2010, don't be surprised that you do what you've always done.
One thing I would encourage everyone to do this year, however: listen to that still, small voice. Know that God does really love you. And when He finally gets through to you, and shakes you to your very core, then you will know that you are being changed for the better. You are becoming conformed to His image. And you don't have to worry about breaking any false resolutions you might have made.
Have a happy, healthy, prosperous and Godly New Year.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
The relentless pursuit of redemption
As Christmas bears down upon us, many are reminded of Scripture, of Bible stories they learned as children. So in honor of the season, I would like to compare and contrast two separate Bible stories. One is in the Old Testament,the other in the New Testament. In one, a redeemer is made; in the other, a Redeemer is born. One tells how a need was created, and a redeemer was sought out to help meet that need. The other tells how a solution was created, and how we should apply that solution to our every need.
Both stories originate in Bethlehem of Judea. Both involve escapes to other lands. And both a return home,and isn't that what we all want for the holidays?
The first story begins with an old woman who calls herself Mara, or bitterness, because she had lost her husband and two sons. The family had fled from Bethlehem because of a severe drought or famine, and they had moved to Moab. There her sons had found wives among the Moabite women, but soon all three husbands had died. So "Mara", or Naomi as she was known, packed up her belongings and prepared to move back home. Her daughters-in-law were living with her, and they, too, packed up to leave. Naomi urged them to stay in Moab, to go home to their fathers and perhaps seek out other husbands. One of the young women, Orpah, followed that advice. The other young woman, Ruth, stayed committed to her mother-in-law, vowing to remain with her until death. "Wherever you go, I will go," she said. "Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. Where you die, I will die; and nothing but death itself will ever separate us."
Back in Bethlehem, Ruth and Naomi set up a household, and Ruth goes out to look for work. She finds a field where workers are harvesting barley, and she follows behind them, picking up whatever stalks they leave behind. Jewish tradition encourages land-owners to cut corners and leave some stalks behind when harvesting, so that orphans and widows can follow behind and get what they need. Ruth didn't stay at home and wait for government checks to start coming. She went out and looked for whatever job she could find, no matter how menial. And she worked hard. When Boaz, the landowner, came to check on the workers in the field, he saw her working behind them. He asked who she was, and they told him that she had been working the whole day, as hard as they had worked. Boaz told the men to leave a little extra for her, because she was working so hard. At lunch, Boaz gave Ruth some roasted grain. She ate a little, and saved a little to take home. After lunch, Ruth continued gleaning in the field until dark, and then she spent some time at the threshing floor, threshing her barley.
When Ruth came home, she showed Naomi what she had gleaned and threshed, and what she had saved from her lunch. Naomi was impressed, and told her to watch Boaz closely, because he was a kinsman. Jewish tradition was that if a man died without children, the nearest male relative would marry the widow and try to have children with her, so that the dead man's lineage would continue. So not only would the widow be cared for, but the family would continue on. God's grace is so evident in his provision!
When it was time for threshing, Naomi knew that it would take several days to complete. She also knew that the men would stay near the threshing floor day and night until the job was done--they probably spent the night there to make sure no one stole the grain. Anyway, Naomi advised Ruth to go to the threshing floor after the men had finished working, and after they had finished eating and drinking. She told Ruth to go lie down next to Boaz, and ask to be covered with his cloak. This was not a sexual solicitation. Rather, it was a discreet way for a woman to ask if the kinsman would "cover" her--that is, take her in and see to her needs. If he agreed, they would marry; if not, the man would not be embarrassed and the woman would not be shamed. So Ruth goes and uncovers Boaz's feet, and lies down on the threshing floor. Boaz wakes up, and asks her what she wants. "Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer", she says. In other words, will you cover me, and take me in? Boaz agrees in principle, but says there is another who is a closer kin than he.
After Ruth takes the initiative, Boaz goes into the town square where the elders all gather. He confronts the other kinsman, and offers him the property of the dead men. The other kinsman shrugs, and says he can redeem the property. Boaz says oh, by the way, the dead man left a wife, and by taking his property you have to take his wife, too. The other guy thinks about it and says no, he will decline this offer. He might have wanted his own family to inherit his goods, and by marrying the widow, the inheritance would go to the dead man's family instead. Anyway, Boaz does what he needs to do in order to ensure that all things are done legally and in order, so that no one can question his motives. Then he claims Ruth as his wife.
Now remember, Ruth has already pledged her allegiance to Naomi. So we know that the old woman will be cared for. And now Ruth, a young Moabite widow without any name or standing among the people of Bethlehem, has a protector, a comforter, a husband who will give her a name and an inheritance. Boaz and Ruth have a son, who turns out to be the grandfather of King David, the greatest king of Israel.
Luke 2 also begins with Mary, a young woman who is blessed by God. An angel tells her so. But she faces some obstacles. What would her fiance think when he finds out she is pregnant? What would her family think? And to top it all off, she has to go with Joseph to Bethlehem because of some dumb government census, and that trip has to take place right around her due date. Stupid taxes.
But it gets weirder. When she and Joseph get to Bethlehem, where they have to register for the census and pay the tax, apparently every other person in Judea has to go do the same thing at the same time. There is nowhere for them to go--no hotel, no family to stay with, nothing. An innkeeper takes pity on her obvious pregnant predicament and offers to let them find shelter with his animals. Then she goes into labor. When the baby is born, there is no bassinet or cute little crib for the baby to sleep in. The softest surface in the stable is the manger, where sheep come to eat hay. Although it is night, there is an eerie light in the heavens. And shepherds show up with stories of how they saw angels celebrating like it was a king's birthday or something. They kneel before the baby and don't just coo and rock him--they worship him.
On the eighth day they circumcised Jesus--hopefully they weren't still living in a stable by that time! And after 40 days they went the five or six miles to Jerusalem to have Jesus dedicated to the Lord. Jewish tradition was that the firstborn of both man and beast would be dedicated to God. When they were there, they were met by two prophets, a man and a woman. The man, Simeon, met them on the temple steps and thanked God for allowing him to see the Salvation of Israel. The woman, Anna, commended the child to all the temple visitors as the Redemption of Jerusalem.
Well, apparently Joseph had had enough of travelling, and he found a house and a job in Bethlehem. Because two years later, wise men from the east arrived with gifts of gold, incense and myrrh. Gold was a gift for a king, incense was a sacrifice to a god, and myrrh was a preparation for death. An angel warned Joseph to get out of town, because jealous king Herod was going to come to Bethlehem and kill all the children two years old and younger. So they fled to Egypt, probably glad that they had the gold to pay for their trip. After Herod had died, they moved back home. Jesus became the Redeemer of all Creation by his sacrificial death, a death that was foretold to Mary by the prophetess Anna, who had said "And a sword will pierce your heart, also."
People who believe in Jesus now have a standing in Heaven. Where they were once lost, cast out, and fatherless, the Redeemer has given them hope, healing and a future. But as we see in the Ruth narrative, we don't just get it by being. We don't even get into Heaven by believing. "The demons themselves believe, and tremble," the Bible says.
Just like Ruth had to go to the threshing floor and ask to be covered by Boaz's cloak, we have to go to God and ask for His salvation. But unlike Boaz, who had work to do to complete the redemption process, God has already worked out the details. Jesus has already died for us, and we do not have to wait and wonder whether He will come for us.
Christmas will come and go. We will enjoy family, presents, and good will. And after the holidays we will pack up the ornaments and lights, and put them back into storage until next year. Yet Jesus is always with us. If you have asked Him, He lives in your heart. We don't have to put Jesus away with the manger and the star.
If you have not asked Jesus into your heart, do it today. Make this Christmas a true time of celebration, a time of rebirth and redemption. Make this the merriest Christmas ever.
Both stories originate in Bethlehem of Judea. Both involve escapes to other lands. And both a return home,and isn't that what we all want for the holidays?
The first story begins with an old woman who calls herself Mara, or bitterness, because she had lost her husband and two sons. The family had fled from Bethlehem because of a severe drought or famine, and they had moved to Moab. There her sons had found wives among the Moabite women, but soon all three husbands had died. So "Mara", or Naomi as she was known, packed up her belongings and prepared to move back home. Her daughters-in-law were living with her, and they, too, packed up to leave. Naomi urged them to stay in Moab, to go home to their fathers and perhaps seek out other husbands. One of the young women, Orpah, followed that advice. The other young woman, Ruth, stayed committed to her mother-in-law, vowing to remain with her until death. "Wherever you go, I will go," she said. "Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. Where you die, I will die; and nothing but death itself will ever separate us."
Back in Bethlehem, Ruth and Naomi set up a household, and Ruth goes out to look for work. She finds a field where workers are harvesting barley, and she follows behind them, picking up whatever stalks they leave behind. Jewish tradition encourages land-owners to cut corners and leave some stalks behind when harvesting, so that orphans and widows can follow behind and get what they need. Ruth didn't stay at home and wait for government checks to start coming. She went out and looked for whatever job she could find, no matter how menial. And she worked hard. When Boaz, the landowner, came to check on the workers in the field, he saw her working behind them. He asked who she was, and they told him that she had been working the whole day, as hard as they had worked. Boaz told the men to leave a little extra for her, because she was working so hard. At lunch, Boaz gave Ruth some roasted grain. She ate a little, and saved a little to take home. After lunch, Ruth continued gleaning in the field until dark, and then she spent some time at the threshing floor, threshing her barley.
When Ruth came home, she showed Naomi what she had gleaned and threshed, and what she had saved from her lunch. Naomi was impressed, and told her to watch Boaz closely, because he was a kinsman. Jewish tradition was that if a man died without children, the nearest male relative would marry the widow and try to have children with her, so that the dead man's lineage would continue. So not only would the widow be cared for, but the family would continue on. God's grace is so evident in his provision!
When it was time for threshing, Naomi knew that it would take several days to complete. She also knew that the men would stay near the threshing floor day and night until the job was done--they probably spent the night there to make sure no one stole the grain. Anyway, Naomi advised Ruth to go to the threshing floor after the men had finished working, and after they had finished eating and drinking. She told Ruth to go lie down next to Boaz, and ask to be covered with his cloak. This was not a sexual solicitation. Rather, it was a discreet way for a woman to ask if the kinsman would "cover" her--that is, take her in and see to her needs. If he agreed, they would marry; if not, the man would not be embarrassed and the woman would not be shamed. So Ruth goes and uncovers Boaz's feet, and lies down on the threshing floor. Boaz wakes up, and asks her what she wants. "Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer", she says. In other words, will you cover me, and take me in? Boaz agrees in principle, but says there is another who is a closer kin than he.
After Ruth takes the initiative, Boaz goes into the town square where the elders all gather. He confronts the other kinsman, and offers him the property of the dead men. The other kinsman shrugs, and says he can redeem the property. Boaz says oh, by the way, the dead man left a wife, and by taking his property you have to take his wife, too. The other guy thinks about it and says no, he will decline this offer. He might have wanted his own family to inherit his goods, and by marrying the widow, the inheritance would go to the dead man's family instead. Anyway, Boaz does what he needs to do in order to ensure that all things are done legally and in order, so that no one can question his motives. Then he claims Ruth as his wife.
Now remember, Ruth has already pledged her allegiance to Naomi. So we know that the old woman will be cared for. And now Ruth, a young Moabite widow without any name or standing among the people of Bethlehem, has a protector, a comforter, a husband who will give her a name and an inheritance. Boaz and Ruth have a son, who turns out to be the grandfather of King David, the greatest king of Israel.
Luke 2 also begins with Mary, a young woman who is blessed by God. An angel tells her so. But she faces some obstacles. What would her fiance think when he finds out she is pregnant? What would her family think? And to top it all off, she has to go with Joseph to Bethlehem because of some dumb government census, and that trip has to take place right around her due date. Stupid taxes.
But it gets weirder. When she and Joseph get to Bethlehem, where they have to register for the census and pay the tax, apparently every other person in Judea has to go do the same thing at the same time. There is nowhere for them to go--no hotel, no family to stay with, nothing. An innkeeper takes pity on her obvious pregnant predicament and offers to let them find shelter with his animals. Then she goes into labor. When the baby is born, there is no bassinet or cute little crib for the baby to sleep in. The softest surface in the stable is the manger, where sheep come to eat hay. Although it is night, there is an eerie light in the heavens. And shepherds show up with stories of how they saw angels celebrating like it was a king's birthday or something. They kneel before the baby and don't just coo and rock him--they worship him.
On the eighth day they circumcised Jesus--hopefully they weren't still living in a stable by that time! And after 40 days they went the five or six miles to Jerusalem to have Jesus dedicated to the Lord. Jewish tradition was that the firstborn of both man and beast would be dedicated to God. When they were there, they were met by two prophets, a man and a woman. The man, Simeon, met them on the temple steps and thanked God for allowing him to see the Salvation of Israel. The woman, Anna, commended the child to all the temple visitors as the Redemption of Jerusalem.
Well, apparently Joseph had had enough of travelling, and he found a house and a job in Bethlehem. Because two years later, wise men from the east arrived with gifts of gold, incense and myrrh. Gold was a gift for a king, incense was a sacrifice to a god, and myrrh was a preparation for death. An angel warned Joseph to get out of town, because jealous king Herod was going to come to Bethlehem and kill all the children two years old and younger. So they fled to Egypt, probably glad that they had the gold to pay for their trip. After Herod had died, they moved back home. Jesus became the Redeemer of all Creation by his sacrificial death, a death that was foretold to Mary by the prophetess Anna, who had said "And a sword will pierce your heart, also."
People who believe in Jesus now have a standing in Heaven. Where they were once lost, cast out, and fatherless, the Redeemer has given them hope, healing and a future. But as we see in the Ruth narrative, we don't just get it by being. We don't even get into Heaven by believing. "The demons themselves believe, and tremble," the Bible says.
Just like Ruth had to go to the threshing floor and ask to be covered by Boaz's cloak, we have to go to God and ask for His salvation. But unlike Boaz, who had work to do to complete the redemption process, God has already worked out the details. Jesus has already died for us, and we do not have to wait and wonder whether He will come for us.
Christmas will come and go. We will enjoy family, presents, and good will. And after the holidays we will pack up the ornaments and lights, and put them back into storage until next year. Yet Jesus is always with us. If you have asked Him, He lives in your heart. We don't have to put Jesus away with the manger and the star.
If you have not asked Jesus into your heart, do it today. Make this Christmas a true time of celebration, a time of rebirth and redemption. Make this the merriest Christmas ever.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Throwing tax money down a rabbit hole
Today's headlines included stories that the President has compromised with Republicans to support a bill that maintains the tax rates at current levels, extends long-term unemployment benefits another 13 months, and gives working people a "tax holiday" on 2% of their payroll (Social Security) taxes. Democrats are furious. For some reason, they were looking forward to increasing tax rates for the wealthy back to Clinton-era percentages. Remember Clinton, the president who passed a tax increase retroactively to nine months before?
I really don't understand the class warfare. If you read my prior post, you understand my confusion. Why does America routinely punish the successful? Why is it such a sin that those making a lot of money would pay the same tax rates as those earning a lesser amount? The only complaints I have heard from actual taxpayers is that the rich are always able to find tax loopholes or tax shelters. But the fact remains that if I earn $10K a year, 20% would be $2000; but if Mr. Bigbux earns a million a year, 20% would be $200K. So any way you look at it, he is paying more taxes than me, even if he does find a tax deduction that I didn't find. There is no good reason that he should pay a higher tax rate than anyone else.
This week in my devotional Bible reading, I read about Joseph as Pharoah's right-hand man. You remember in Genesis, Joseph was the second-youngest of the twelve brothers, and his father's favorite. He wore the coat of many colors (inspiring a Broadway musical starring Donny Osmond--but I digress.) Joseph was sold into slavery, bought by Potiphar, falsely accused by Mrs. Potiphar, and thrown into prison. There he became a trusty in the prison, and interpreted dreams, correctly predicting that the cup-bearer would be freed and the baker would be executed. Then Pharoah had a dream, and Joseph was called to interpret it. He foresaw 7 years of plentiful harvests, followed by 7 years of famine. He suggested hoarding up the surplus grain during the first seven years so that there would be enough to survive on during the famine.
What does this have to do with tax policy? I'm getting to the point, I promise. After five years of famine, the people of Egypt came to the government and complained that they didn't have any money left to buy food. They said here, take our houses and lands in exchange for food. With that they survived the sixth year. But after that, they came back to the government with the same complaints, and said that they had nothing left to give but themselves. So they offered themselves to the Governor of Egypt as slaves in exchange for food. Remember that the Governor of Egypt at the time was Joseph. Joseph gave them the food, but he set up a universal taxation throughout the land. All Egyptians were to give 20% of their incomes to the government. And when the rains returned and harvests came, the Egyptian government became more wealthy than any other land.
Today, we Americans have come to the government, hat in hand. We have asked for relief from the Great Recession, and the government has responded by expanding the welfare state. For the next 13 months, the unemployed will get paid for looking for work in their chosen field. I guarantee you that if long-term unemployment ended today, tomorrow the folks would start looking for any available job, instead of holding out for the job they were laid-off from two years ago.
This morning I heard several media-types bemoan the fact that extending the current tax rates to the wealthy (AKA not ending the Bush-era tax cuts) would "cost" the government over $700B. I would like to disagree. The wealthy may hoard their money, or they may invest it in businesses that employ people, so that tax rolls would expand and the government receipts would multiply. But you see, it wouldn't be the rich who were paying the taxes directly, it would be the working folks--and that is what has Democrats in a snit.
Instead of taking the Old Testament method of taxing everyone 20% (look it up--even after Israel became a nation, their base-rate of taxation was the tithe, and along with other fees and required payments, the total collected was about 20%), we have become a nation of feudal serfs. If you don't remember the Middle Ages, I would remind you that the king of each city-state would have knights that paid him about 40% of their earnings. And the knights' earnings came from a protectorate set up to defend the land surrounding the knights' homes. In exchange for this small measure of protection, the serfs would work 4 days out of the week tending to the knight's estate, leaving only 3 days to work their own land.
The problem with this feudal system of economics was that if a king made a treaty with a rival king, he would give away a knight or two, and the serfs who served him. So the serfs were not actually sure who they worked for ultimately; they just knew that in peace-time their crops would not be burned, their villages would not be pillaged, and their families would not be harmed. And they hoped and prayed for peace.
We are in that same situation now, people. We have not heeded the words of Ben Franklin, who said "Those who give up freedom for security often get neither." We have sat back and allowed Big Government to take more and more responsibility for our lives, and as a result demand more and more of our persons and our property. And what do they have to show for it?
This morning I heard on NPR a story of how our tax dollars are going to produce a cop-show television series in Afghanistan. For those of you who don't believe that television influences a society, here are the details. The US Embassy in Kabul is sending money to an Afghan production company, Tolo Television. They have produced a TV series called "Eagle Four", about four Afghan cops who chase bad guys, including terrorists and suicide bombers. Two of the four stars are women; we are trying to open up gender equality in a centuries-old male dominated society. The cops dash after bad guys, like someone who puts on a suicide vest and pinpoints a location on a map. So we are trying to indoctrinate the Afghan people that terrorists are bad, that police are good, and that Law & Order reigns supreme. In fact, it sounds very much like the plot of a Law & Order episode. The reporter for NPR has filed a Freedom Of Information Act request to find out exactly how much money we are spending on this venture, but so far there has been no response. But we know a typical episode of Law&Order costs a few million dollars to produce. You do the math.
And this is why we send our tax dollars to the US Embassy in Kabul?
To those democrats who cry against tax relief for the wealthy, I would say let's reign in this kind of ridiculous spending, and save our $700B that way, and not worry about soaking the rich.
I am afraid that if we continue on our present course, we will go from a feudal system of government to a share-cropper economy. Share croppers were freed slaves who wanted to farm. But they did not own the farm land, or the equipment necessary to farm it. So the Company Store would sell them seed and equipment to farm on land that they did not own. And no matter how much they grew, or how bountiful the harvest was, the Company Store would settle up accounts in such a way that the farmer always ended up owing something. The earnings never quite caught up to the debt. So while the share-croppers were technically free, in reality they were still enslaved by the land-owning Company Store.
If you are not following this, let me spell it out. The US Government is like the Company Store in the era of Reconstruction, right after the Civil War. They give out loans, they let us use their land, but in the end, there is never enough tax revenue to cover the government obligations. We, the Share-Cropper Nation, are going deeper and deeper in debt, and are thereby giving up our freedom, one annual deficit at a time.
While other countries are making sincere efforts to live within their means, the US media terms their efforts as "austerity measures." This makes it sound like they are giving up their fortunes, and deciding to live an "austere" life. If you don't know what that means, Google it. Up to now, "austerity" has been thought of as un-American. Maybe we should change our lifestyles, and find some austerity measures of our own.
I really don't understand the class warfare. If you read my prior post, you understand my confusion. Why does America routinely punish the successful? Why is it such a sin that those making a lot of money would pay the same tax rates as those earning a lesser amount? The only complaints I have heard from actual taxpayers is that the rich are always able to find tax loopholes or tax shelters. But the fact remains that if I earn $10K a year, 20% would be $2000; but if Mr. Bigbux earns a million a year, 20% would be $200K. So any way you look at it, he is paying more taxes than me, even if he does find a tax deduction that I didn't find. There is no good reason that he should pay a higher tax rate than anyone else.
This week in my devotional Bible reading, I read about Joseph as Pharoah's right-hand man. You remember in Genesis, Joseph was the second-youngest of the twelve brothers, and his father's favorite. He wore the coat of many colors (inspiring a Broadway musical starring Donny Osmond--but I digress.) Joseph was sold into slavery, bought by Potiphar, falsely accused by Mrs. Potiphar, and thrown into prison. There he became a trusty in the prison, and interpreted dreams, correctly predicting that the cup-bearer would be freed and the baker would be executed. Then Pharoah had a dream, and Joseph was called to interpret it. He foresaw 7 years of plentiful harvests, followed by 7 years of famine. He suggested hoarding up the surplus grain during the first seven years so that there would be enough to survive on during the famine.
What does this have to do with tax policy? I'm getting to the point, I promise. After five years of famine, the people of Egypt came to the government and complained that they didn't have any money left to buy food. They said here, take our houses and lands in exchange for food. With that they survived the sixth year. But after that, they came back to the government with the same complaints, and said that they had nothing left to give but themselves. So they offered themselves to the Governor of Egypt as slaves in exchange for food. Remember that the Governor of Egypt at the time was Joseph. Joseph gave them the food, but he set up a universal taxation throughout the land. All Egyptians were to give 20% of their incomes to the government. And when the rains returned and harvests came, the Egyptian government became more wealthy than any other land.
Today, we Americans have come to the government, hat in hand. We have asked for relief from the Great Recession, and the government has responded by expanding the welfare state. For the next 13 months, the unemployed will get paid for looking for work in their chosen field. I guarantee you that if long-term unemployment ended today, tomorrow the folks would start looking for any available job, instead of holding out for the job they were laid-off from two years ago.
This morning I heard several media-types bemoan the fact that extending the current tax rates to the wealthy (AKA not ending the Bush-era tax cuts) would "cost" the government over $700B. I would like to disagree. The wealthy may hoard their money, or they may invest it in businesses that employ people, so that tax rolls would expand and the government receipts would multiply. But you see, it wouldn't be the rich who were paying the taxes directly, it would be the working folks--and that is what has Democrats in a snit.
Instead of taking the Old Testament method of taxing everyone 20% (look it up--even after Israel became a nation, their base-rate of taxation was the tithe, and along with other fees and required payments, the total collected was about 20%), we have become a nation of feudal serfs. If you don't remember the Middle Ages, I would remind you that the king of each city-state would have knights that paid him about 40% of their earnings. And the knights' earnings came from a protectorate set up to defend the land surrounding the knights' homes. In exchange for this small measure of protection, the serfs would work 4 days out of the week tending to the knight's estate, leaving only 3 days to work their own land.
The problem with this feudal system of economics was that if a king made a treaty with a rival king, he would give away a knight or two, and the serfs who served him. So the serfs were not actually sure who they worked for ultimately; they just knew that in peace-time their crops would not be burned, their villages would not be pillaged, and their families would not be harmed. And they hoped and prayed for peace.
We are in that same situation now, people. We have not heeded the words of Ben Franklin, who said "Those who give up freedom for security often get neither." We have sat back and allowed Big Government to take more and more responsibility for our lives, and as a result demand more and more of our persons and our property. And what do they have to show for it?
This morning I heard on NPR a story of how our tax dollars are going to produce a cop-show television series in Afghanistan. For those of you who don't believe that television influences a society, here are the details. The US Embassy in Kabul is sending money to an Afghan production company, Tolo Television. They have produced a TV series called "Eagle Four", about four Afghan cops who chase bad guys, including terrorists and suicide bombers. Two of the four stars are women; we are trying to open up gender equality in a centuries-old male dominated society. The cops dash after bad guys, like someone who puts on a suicide vest and pinpoints a location on a map. So we are trying to indoctrinate the Afghan people that terrorists are bad, that police are good, and that Law & Order reigns supreme. In fact, it sounds very much like the plot of a Law & Order episode. The reporter for NPR has filed a Freedom Of Information Act request to find out exactly how much money we are spending on this venture, but so far there has been no response. But we know a typical episode of Law&Order costs a few million dollars to produce. You do the math.
And this is why we send our tax dollars to the US Embassy in Kabul?
To those democrats who cry against tax relief for the wealthy, I would say let's reign in this kind of ridiculous spending, and save our $700B that way, and not worry about soaking the rich.
I am afraid that if we continue on our present course, we will go from a feudal system of government to a share-cropper economy. Share croppers were freed slaves who wanted to farm. But they did not own the farm land, or the equipment necessary to farm it. So the Company Store would sell them seed and equipment to farm on land that they did not own. And no matter how much they grew, or how bountiful the harvest was, the Company Store would settle up accounts in such a way that the farmer always ended up owing something. The earnings never quite caught up to the debt. So while the share-croppers were technically free, in reality they were still enslaved by the land-owning Company Store.
If you are not following this, let me spell it out. The US Government is like the Company Store in the era of Reconstruction, right after the Civil War. They give out loans, they let us use their land, but in the end, there is never enough tax revenue to cover the government obligations. We, the Share-Cropper Nation, are going deeper and deeper in debt, and are thereby giving up our freedom, one annual deficit at a time.
While other countries are making sincere efforts to live within their means, the US media terms their efforts as "austerity measures." This makes it sound like they are giving up their fortunes, and deciding to live an "austere" life. If you don't know what that means, Google it. Up to now, "austerity" has been thought of as un-American. Maybe we should change our lifestyles, and find some austerity measures of our own.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Awash in public debt: a parable
Once upon a time there was a Club with millions of members. Lets call it UNSTAM, the Unified Neopolitan Society for Terrific American Members. In its original bylaws, the governing body was given the mandate to defend the club from all enemies, and to promote the general well-being. At first, its dues were set very low. The Club had a standing Army, and the Members had a right to do pretty much whatever they wanted, as long as it did not hurt anyone else.
In its early years, the Members decided that comprehensive education was an important thing to do, so education for all was instituted. Some of the dues collected by the club were used to pay for schools and teachers throughout the entire membership. Later on, some of the Members saw that as people in the Club got older, some of them were unable to care for themselves financially and medically. Most of the time the older Members were being taken care of by their families and Churches, but some of the Members thought that since the Club did such a better job at education than the Churches had done, then the Club should take over the care and feeding of their older Members.
About this same time, some in the Club complained that the dues collected for the general welfare were being levied unfairly. Some members, they argued, were too poor to pay the same dues as the richer members. So the Club decided to not collect dues from the poorest members. Then, they decided to collect more dues from the richer members than they collected from the middle class members, because the richer members were, well, richer. Later, it was decided that the poorer members were staying poor through no fault of their own. The Club began collecting dues from other members and rebating or refunding those dues to the poorer members, even though the poorer members had not paid any dues at all. This was called, among other things, the Poor Person's Dues Credit. Some of these credits and subsidies were totally outrageous, but passed because some Club members did not vote, and those who voted were not educated about the issues, or more accurately, were motivated more by self-interest than the general welfare.
As time went on, the Club took on more and more responsibility for the happiness and welfare of the members. The Club members who made their living on the farm were starting to get poorer, so the Club gave them Farm Dues Subsidies. The children throughout the entire Club were not all graduating from Club schools with the same grades, so the Club created a Department of Education. Additional dues were collected from all of the Club members to pay more to teachers and build more modern schools. The new Department needed a national Secretary, and he became good friends with the teacher's unions. Dues were given to Universities for studies of all manner of social sciences, and Grants were given for experiments in every conceivable realm of society.
Unfortunately, as the Clubs expenses grew, they began to run a deficit. Some said they should raise the Dues on the rich, others said they should collect more Dues from every member. Still more members said they were paying too much in Dues, and could not afford an increase. While the debate on Dues went on, the deficit grew.
In the year 2000, a very conservative Club President was elected. He had campaigned on less Club involvement in people's personal lives and lower dues. But the very next year, tragedy struck. An evil land sent bad people to hurt the Club, and 3000 members died. The Club President decided to spend more on defense, and he waged war on the evil land. But he also created another Club Department, with a high-level Secretary and lots of bureaucrats to run it. He called it the Department of Club Security. But the duties given to the Secretary of Club Security were already being done by the Club Intelligence Agency and the Firm Bureau of Investigation. But the President said the new Department was necessary, so that the members would all feel secure.
Eight years later, a famine hit the land. Lots of people lost their jobs. Many grown children had to move back in with their parents. Many banks went out of business, because there was not enough money. Some major manufacturing companies, like Chrysler and GM, were on the verge of going bankrupt. Since so many of the Club members worked in the banks and in Chrysler and GM, the new President decided to bail out the banks and buy Chrysler and GM with money collected from the members in dues. But there was still not enough money. So the new President decided he would print some new money, and he hoped that with al the new money being given to the Members, the Club would survive the famine.
As things started to get better, the new President made a promise to the club members. He promised to find ways to reduce the deficit. He appointed a bi-partisan commission to study the issue, and to come up with ways to grow the economy and reduce the deficit.
Some in the commission said the Club should raise dues. Others said no, that would kill jobs; the way to do it would be to stop spending Club money on unnecessary things. When they were asked what unnecessary things they would de-fund, the commissioners did not know. They hemmed and hawed, and scratched their chins, and said the Club could stop spending so much on older people. Some of the older people were rich, they said, and did not need subsidies from the Club. Those older people should not be eligible for subsidies at age 65, they said; the new eligibility age should be 67. Oh, but the Club had already promised to take care of the older members, so the changes should not take effect until 15 years from now.
Many Club members got together and called themselves the HEAR party, as in Had Enough AlReady. The HEAR party wanted to stop printing money. They also were against raising dues. They wanted the Club to find cheaters who owed dues but did not pay. They wanted the Club to find people who received subsidies but were not eligible--they said the subsidies should continue to be paid to eligible Club members, but some were receiving subsidies fraudulently. This should stop, they said. The ideas of the HEAR party were good, but they did not go far enough.
Interestingly, nobody in the Club suggested what really needed to be done. They did not suggest real reduction in the size of government. Examples would be to dismantle the Department of Club Security, since its work duplicates that of the CIA and FBI. No, many Club members say; you just want us to be less secure. But I remember when we felt secure without a government department and a cabinet-level secretary.
There are other cabinet level departments that should be dissolved. Education, Commerce, and Labor have all outlived their usefulness. We have laws in place that mandate education, fair business practices, and fair pay and benefits; there is no longer any need for the government to promote these ideas.
The government should not tell us what kind of light bulbs we should use in our homes. The government should not tell us how much money a teenager should get on his first job. The government should not tell us how to package things we sell, or how to consume the things we buy. Citizens should be free to make their own choices about these things.
The best way to promote the general welfare, I think, would be to scrap all government agencies, departments, bureaus and contractors hired or created in the last hundred years. We should stop paying tax monies to NGO's, community organizers, unions and farmers. Once all the madness has stopped, then we could decide anew which entities were absolutely necessary and would die without government help. We could set new priorities for the 21st century, and move forward, unencumbered by outdated obligations.
It might be a whole new world. While some groups may try to exert influence for their own self interest, the whole population may just wake up and become engaged in the process. If everyone was involved, then the country's interest might outweigh the interests of a select few. Or it might just descend into chaos. We are too much used to the status quo to make any appreciable change.
That's just sad.
In its early years, the Members decided that comprehensive education was an important thing to do, so education for all was instituted. Some of the dues collected by the club were used to pay for schools and teachers throughout the entire membership. Later on, some of the Members saw that as people in the Club got older, some of them were unable to care for themselves financially and medically. Most of the time the older Members were being taken care of by their families and Churches, but some of the Members thought that since the Club did such a better job at education than the Churches had done, then the Club should take over the care and feeding of their older Members.
About this same time, some in the Club complained that the dues collected for the general welfare were being levied unfairly. Some members, they argued, were too poor to pay the same dues as the richer members. So the Club decided to not collect dues from the poorest members. Then, they decided to collect more dues from the richer members than they collected from the middle class members, because the richer members were, well, richer. Later, it was decided that the poorer members were staying poor through no fault of their own. The Club began collecting dues from other members and rebating or refunding those dues to the poorer members, even though the poorer members had not paid any dues at all. This was called, among other things, the Poor Person's Dues Credit. Some of these credits and subsidies were totally outrageous, but passed because some Club members did not vote, and those who voted were not educated about the issues, or more accurately, were motivated more by self-interest than the general welfare.
As time went on, the Club took on more and more responsibility for the happiness and welfare of the members. The Club members who made their living on the farm were starting to get poorer, so the Club gave them Farm Dues Subsidies. The children throughout the entire Club were not all graduating from Club schools with the same grades, so the Club created a Department of Education. Additional dues were collected from all of the Club members to pay more to teachers and build more modern schools. The new Department needed a national Secretary, and he became good friends with the teacher's unions. Dues were given to Universities for studies of all manner of social sciences, and Grants were given for experiments in every conceivable realm of society.
Unfortunately, as the Clubs expenses grew, they began to run a deficit. Some said they should raise the Dues on the rich, others said they should collect more Dues from every member. Still more members said they were paying too much in Dues, and could not afford an increase. While the debate on Dues went on, the deficit grew.
In the year 2000, a very conservative Club President was elected. He had campaigned on less Club involvement in people's personal lives and lower dues. But the very next year, tragedy struck. An evil land sent bad people to hurt the Club, and 3000 members died. The Club President decided to spend more on defense, and he waged war on the evil land. But he also created another Club Department, with a high-level Secretary and lots of bureaucrats to run it. He called it the Department of Club Security. But the duties given to the Secretary of Club Security were already being done by the Club Intelligence Agency and the Firm Bureau of Investigation. But the President said the new Department was necessary, so that the members would all feel secure.
Eight years later, a famine hit the land. Lots of people lost their jobs. Many grown children had to move back in with their parents. Many banks went out of business, because there was not enough money. Some major manufacturing companies, like Chrysler and GM, were on the verge of going bankrupt. Since so many of the Club members worked in the banks and in Chrysler and GM, the new President decided to bail out the banks and buy Chrysler and GM with money collected from the members in dues. But there was still not enough money. So the new President decided he would print some new money, and he hoped that with al the new money being given to the Members, the Club would survive the famine.
As things started to get better, the new President made a promise to the club members. He promised to find ways to reduce the deficit. He appointed a bi-partisan commission to study the issue, and to come up with ways to grow the economy and reduce the deficit.
Some in the commission said the Club should raise dues. Others said no, that would kill jobs; the way to do it would be to stop spending Club money on unnecessary things. When they were asked what unnecessary things they would de-fund, the commissioners did not know. They hemmed and hawed, and scratched their chins, and said the Club could stop spending so much on older people. Some of the older people were rich, they said, and did not need subsidies from the Club. Those older people should not be eligible for subsidies at age 65, they said; the new eligibility age should be 67. Oh, but the Club had already promised to take care of the older members, so the changes should not take effect until 15 years from now.
Many Club members got together and called themselves the HEAR party, as in Had Enough AlReady. The HEAR party wanted to stop printing money. They also were against raising dues. They wanted the Club to find cheaters who owed dues but did not pay. They wanted the Club to find people who received subsidies but were not eligible--they said the subsidies should continue to be paid to eligible Club members, but some were receiving subsidies fraudulently. This should stop, they said. The ideas of the HEAR party were good, but they did not go far enough.
Interestingly, nobody in the Club suggested what really needed to be done. They did not suggest real reduction in the size of government. Examples would be to dismantle the Department of Club Security, since its work duplicates that of the CIA and FBI. No, many Club members say; you just want us to be less secure. But I remember when we felt secure without a government department and a cabinet-level secretary.
There are other cabinet level departments that should be dissolved. Education, Commerce, and Labor have all outlived their usefulness. We have laws in place that mandate education, fair business practices, and fair pay and benefits; there is no longer any need for the government to promote these ideas.
The government should not tell us what kind of light bulbs we should use in our homes. The government should not tell us how much money a teenager should get on his first job. The government should not tell us how to package things we sell, or how to consume the things we buy. Citizens should be free to make their own choices about these things.
The best way to promote the general welfare, I think, would be to scrap all government agencies, departments, bureaus and contractors hired or created in the last hundred years. We should stop paying tax monies to NGO's, community organizers, unions and farmers. Once all the madness has stopped, then we could decide anew which entities were absolutely necessary and would die without government help. We could set new priorities for the 21st century, and move forward, unencumbered by outdated obligations.
It might be a whole new world. While some groups may try to exert influence for their own self interest, the whole population may just wake up and become engaged in the process. If everyone was involved, then the country's interest might outweigh the interests of a select few. Or it might just descend into chaos. We are too much used to the status quo to make any appreciable change.
That's just sad.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Outrageous Taxpayer Subsidies
Did you know that American taxpayers subsidize cotton farmers? Did you know that American taxpayers subsidize cotton farmers in Brazil? The next time one of your liberal friends asks "What programs would you cut from the federal budget?" as if ending any program was tantamount to taking food out of children's mouths, tell them you would cut the $150M a year we are sending to Brazilian cotton farmers.
American farm subsidies began during the Great Depression. Basically, it was to make sure that farm families did not go bankrupt, and disrupt the US food supply. But when the war came, and many farming families sold their farms to big corporations and farming conglomerates, the farm subsidies did not die. During the post-war boom, when the American economy was growing by leaps and bounds, the farm subsidies did not die. Nor did the subsidies die when the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its member countries voted to limit the subsidies paid by governments to their farmers.
Let me reiterate that last point. The WTO, of which the United States is a member, entered into a treaty, a multi-national agreement, to curtail most farm subsidies. Despite the agreement, despite the Full Faith and Credit of the US Government, Congress still voted to give farm subsidies to US farmers. This made other countries, who were abiding by the treaty, angry. Brazil cotton farmers were really mad. The US farm subsidies were making their cotton sell at a disadvantage on the world market.
So they sued. Brazilian cotton farmers and their Interior Secretary took the US to court, and won. The international court of the WTO found that America had violated their agreement to limit farm subsidies. The US appealed, and lost. We appealed again, and lost again. Then we did something very American.
We sent a delegation to Brazil to negotiate with the Brazilian cotton farmers. Our delegates explained how hard it is to kill a program once it is enacted by Congress. They said it might take years to stop the subsidies altogether. This was not a good negotiating position. The Brazilians didn't care about how hard it is for Congress to stop paying farmers. They just knew we were violating an agreement we had entered into with other cotton-producing countries.
So the US delegation offered to pay Brazilian cotton farmers a fee, a penalty of sorts, to appease them. Since the US Congress will not take up the Farm Bill until 2012, we offered to pay $150M a year to Brazil to help level the playing field until we could take up the issue and make changes. The agreement was struck in April of this year. Had you heard about it before now? Neither had I, until I heard a report on National Public Radio today. And although the NPR report did mention that the US taxpayer was now subsidizing cotton farmers in Brazil, it was not reported with any outrage or urgency. It was almost noted in passing.
Now, to those of you who might say that $150M is a drop in the bucket when compared with the total US Government annual budget, you are right. Compared to our trillion dollar debt, this is small time. But exactly where do you draw the line?
If my family signed up for every convenience advertised on television and radio, and didn't worry about the cost because it was always "just pennies a day", there would come a time when those pennies added up to such a sum that we could no longer pay the mortgage or the light bill. And that is exactly what our government has done with this settlement agreement with Brazilian cotton farmers. Instead of making the hard choices to stop subsidizing huge farming conglomerates at home, and abiding by an agreement made with the WTO, we opted instead for a convenient fee paid to a foreign government.
How many of the other foreign aid line items in our federal budget are there for the very same reason? It is easier to pay a few million a month to keep them at bay than it is to reduce our bigger contributions to big political contributors. In other words, Big Farm Firms, like Big Pharma, or Big Oil, pay big bucks to re-elect their favorite Congressman every year. And that Congressman is afraid that if he stands up to his big contributors, then he might lose his job.
My heart bleeds.
American farm subsidies began during the Great Depression. Basically, it was to make sure that farm families did not go bankrupt, and disrupt the US food supply. But when the war came, and many farming families sold their farms to big corporations and farming conglomerates, the farm subsidies did not die. During the post-war boom, when the American economy was growing by leaps and bounds, the farm subsidies did not die. Nor did the subsidies die when the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its member countries voted to limit the subsidies paid by governments to their farmers.
Let me reiterate that last point. The WTO, of which the United States is a member, entered into a treaty, a multi-national agreement, to curtail most farm subsidies. Despite the agreement, despite the Full Faith and Credit of the US Government, Congress still voted to give farm subsidies to US farmers. This made other countries, who were abiding by the treaty, angry. Brazil cotton farmers were really mad. The US farm subsidies were making their cotton sell at a disadvantage on the world market.
So they sued. Brazilian cotton farmers and their Interior Secretary took the US to court, and won. The international court of the WTO found that America had violated their agreement to limit farm subsidies. The US appealed, and lost. We appealed again, and lost again. Then we did something very American.
We sent a delegation to Brazil to negotiate with the Brazilian cotton farmers. Our delegates explained how hard it is to kill a program once it is enacted by Congress. They said it might take years to stop the subsidies altogether. This was not a good negotiating position. The Brazilians didn't care about how hard it is for Congress to stop paying farmers. They just knew we were violating an agreement we had entered into with other cotton-producing countries.
So the US delegation offered to pay Brazilian cotton farmers a fee, a penalty of sorts, to appease them. Since the US Congress will not take up the Farm Bill until 2012, we offered to pay $150M a year to Brazil to help level the playing field until we could take up the issue and make changes. The agreement was struck in April of this year. Had you heard about it before now? Neither had I, until I heard a report on National Public Radio today. And although the NPR report did mention that the US taxpayer was now subsidizing cotton farmers in Brazil, it was not reported with any outrage or urgency. It was almost noted in passing.
Now, to those of you who might say that $150M is a drop in the bucket when compared with the total US Government annual budget, you are right. Compared to our trillion dollar debt, this is small time. But exactly where do you draw the line?
If my family signed up for every convenience advertised on television and radio, and didn't worry about the cost because it was always "just pennies a day", there would come a time when those pennies added up to such a sum that we could no longer pay the mortgage or the light bill. And that is exactly what our government has done with this settlement agreement with Brazilian cotton farmers. Instead of making the hard choices to stop subsidizing huge farming conglomerates at home, and abiding by an agreement made with the WTO, we opted instead for a convenient fee paid to a foreign government.
How many of the other foreign aid line items in our federal budget are there for the very same reason? It is easier to pay a few million a month to keep them at bay than it is to reduce our bigger contributions to big political contributors. In other words, Big Farm Firms, like Big Pharma, or Big Oil, pay big bucks to re-elect their favorite Congressman every year. And that Congressman is afraid that if he stands up to his big contributors, then he might lose his job.
My heart bleeds.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
What happens when children run society? Fiscal irresponsibility
When I was in high school, I had a job as a counselor in a summer camp. One of the things I remember doing was stocking the cola vending machines. The camp director could buy the colas in bulk (this was before Sam's Clubs made this task easier). The average retail price of a single cold soda was 35 cents. But the camp director set all of the machines to accept two quarters and not give any change. The reason he gave was that he did not want the grade-school campers to have to worry about putting in exact change, or forgetting their change in the machines when the soda was dispensed.
What do you think was the economic effect of the 30% increase in the price? There was no reduction in the number of colas sold. The kids didn't care what it cost. Their mothers had given them money to spend at camp, and they were going to spend it all, either on snacks or T-shirts. They didn't care.
To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, when I was a child, I spent like a child.
Fast forward to today. President Obama was giving a speech on the radio recently, touting the benefits of his Health Care Plan. He pointed out that now young people can be covered under their parent's health plan up to age 26. A co-worker was surprised and pleased to hear this, as she has a son who was just released from prison, and he needs dental work. They were wondering how to get his extensive dental work paid for since he had no insurance of his own. Now she plans to add him to her family policy, and claim his dental treatment against our company's group health policy.
She asked me what I thought of the new policy. I need my job, so I didn't tell her what I really thought. I said it was nice that her son, who had a need, could now find a way to get that need met without a huge cost to the family.
What I really wanted to say was this is a huge cost to society. My insurance premiums are now going to go through the roof because your son can't find a job or pay for his own treatment. When Congress was debating this bill, the Obama administration put out the word that insurance premiums would go down as a result of this legislation. But after the bill was passed, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that premiums would go up as a result of the new changes in the law. So we were lied to in order to get this bill passed, and Obama can now cite this as a major accomplishment of his presidency.
Responsible adults have to bear additional costs so that children can enjoy a new government benefit. And in this case, the word "children" refers to persons older than 21 years of age, who are able bodied and should shoulder their own load and pay their own way. This is what happens when children choose the government. Remember that Obama was swept into office by a rise in first time voters, 18 to 24 year olds who have not had sufficient life experience to understand the consequences of government intervention.
Alas, it has always been thus. I remember when colas were 35 cents in a machine, 25 cents if you bought them at the grocery store. But then someone in the FDA decided that all edible consumables needed to be labeled with calories, fat grams, sugars, etc. This caused a huge cost to the cola companies and packagers. And they passed those costs on to consumers. And even though this was a one-time cost, the companies continued to charge the higher prices, because the consumers showed that they were willing to pay the extra cost. Overnight, colas went up from 35 cents to 50 cents. Today, a cola can cost from $1.25 to $2.00. Part of the price increase is from the government mandated FDA labels years back. But when is the last time you read the calorie or fat content on your cola can?
I am afraid the same thing will happen with the increased premiums on health insurance. Unless somebody rises up and repeals the health care reforms, then consumers will all take it for granted. They will not look at their paycheck stubs and notice that last year their insurance premiums were 30% less. Or if they do, they will not link it with the government reforms that caused the increases. We will still be like children--we don't care what it costs, we just want more sugar.
What do you think was the economic effect of the 30% increase in the price? There was no reduction in the number of colas sold. The kids didn't care what it cost. Their mothers had given them money to spend at camp, and they were going to spend it all, either on snacks or T-shirts. They didn't care.
To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, when I was a child, I spent like a child.
Fast forward to today. President Obama was giving a speech on the radio recently, touting the benefits of his Health Care Plan. He pointed out that now young people can be covered under their parent's health plan up to age 26. A co-worker was surprised and pleased to hear this, as she has a son who was just released from prison, and he needs dental work. They were wondering how to get his extensive dental work paid for since he had no insurance of his own. Now she plans to add him to her family policy, and claim his dental treatment against our company's group health policy.
She asked me what I thought of the new policy. I need my job, so I didn't tell her what I really thought. I said it was nice that her son, who had a need, could now find a way to get that need met without a huge cost to the family.
What I really wanted to say was this is a huge cost to society. My insurance premiums are now going to go through the roof because your son can't find a job or pay for his own treatment. When Congress was debating this bill, the Obama administration put out the word that insurance premiums would go down as a result of this legislation. But after the bill was passed, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that premiums would go up as a result of the new changes in the law. So we were lied to in order to get this bill passed, and Obama can now cite this as a major accomplishment of his presidency.
Responsible adults have to bear additional costs so that children can enjoy a new government benefit. And in this case, the word "children" refers to persons older than 21 years of age, who are able bodied and should shoulder their own load and pay their own way. This is what happens when children choose the government. Remember that Obama was swept into office by a rise in first time voters, 18 to 24 year olds who have not had sufficient life experience to understand the consequences of government intervention.
Alas, it has always been thus. I remember when colas were 35 cents in a machine, 25 cents if you bought them at the grocery store. But then someone in the FDA decided that all edible consumables needed to be labeled with calories, fat grams, sugars, etc. This caused a huge cost to the cola companies and packagers. And they passed those costs on to consumers. And even though this was a one-time cost, the companies continued to charge the higher prices, because the consumers showed that they were willing to pay the extra cost. Overnight, colas went up from 35 cents to 50 cents. Today, a cola can cost from $1.25 to $2.00. Part of the price increase is from the government mandated FDA labels years back. But when is the last time you read the calorie or fat content on your cola can?
I am afraid the same thing will happen with the increased premiums on health insurance. Unless somebody rises up and repeals the health care reforms, then consumers will all take it for granted. They will not look at their paycheck stubs and notice that last year their insurance premiums were 30% less. Or if they do, they will not link it with the government reforms that caused the increases. We will still be like children--we don't care what it costs, we just want more sugar.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Customized Experiences Lead to Lack of Common Sense
I have determined that there is no such thing as common sense any more. Just the other day I was reading in the sports page of my local newspaper. A professional football player in Florida was at the home of a team cheerleader; he is 30, she is 19; the team has a rule against cheerleaders dating players, so she was referred to as his "ex-girlfriend". The couple was upstairs in her parents' house, in a gameroom, allegedly watching television. A man in a ski mask appeared, brandishing a gun. The gunman dragged the girl around by her hair, and struck her with his fist while the football player watched. When the gunman turned to pistol-whip the football player, the girl ran downstairs to get a gun. The gunman gave chase, and shots were fired. The football player shut the door, put a chair up against it, and jumped out of the window so he could "run next door to call police".
"This is wrong on so many levels," I commented aloud. A female co-worker responded: "Yeah. She shouldn't have had a gun in her house."
Huh?
Several weeks ago I wrote a column for the newspaper. I praised the efforts of local Baptist churches for getting involved in charitable work. The charity I mentioned was all about helping lower income families get food, clothing, shelter, and school supplies for their children. I commented that many have the mistaken idea that Evangelicals are all about sharing the Gospel, and not about feeding the hungry, like other more socailly liberal denominations.
The only letter to the editor published in response to my column was a woman ranting against giving tax-exempt status to churches. Did she miss the point, or did I?
And that is the point I am trying to make here. Americans used to have things in common, like families and community events. Barn-raisings and bake sales. As the electronic age was birthed, families gathered around their radios for news of the war. Later, we would all talk about the same characters on the same television shows.
Where has that sense of community gone?
There used to be something called "common sense", and it sprang from the same common experiences we all went through. Be nice to animals. Don't spit into the wind. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
But now, in the name of "diversity", we all have different cultures. With 400 channels, no one watches the same shows. Even with sporting events, over 100,000 people can show up for a Cowboys game, but ten times that many people in the DFW metroplex do not even know they are playing, and do not care what the score is. There are no winners or losers in children's games any more. You have to give out ribbons to everyone for "participation". You can't fail students any more; everyone gets a minimum grade of 50% just for turning in their work.
These different experiences have splintered us as a society. We no longer have a shared experience, therefore we are moving toward a time when we no longer have a shared purpose.
When will it all end?
"This is wrong on so many levels," I commented aloud. A female co-worker responded: "Yeah. She shouldn't have had a gun in her house."
Huh?
Several weeks ago I wrote a column for the newspaper. I praised the efforts of local Baptist churches for getting involved in charitable work. The charity I mentioned was all about helping lower income families get food, clothing, shelter, and school supplies for their children. I commented that many have the mistaken idea that Evangelicals are all about sharing the Gospel, and not about feeding the hungry, like other more socailly liberal denominations.
The only letter to the editor published in response to my column was a woman ranting against giving tax-exempt status to churches. Did she miss the point, or did I?
And that is the point I am trying to make here. Americans used to have things in common, like families and community events. Barn-raisings and bake sales. As the electronic age was birthed, families gathered around their radios for news of the war. Later, we would all talk about the same characters on the same television shows.
Where has that sense of community gone?
There used to be something called "common sense", and it sprang from the same common experiences we all went through. Be nice to animals. Don't spit into the wind. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
But now, in the name of "diversity", we all have different cultures. With 400 channels, no one watches the same shows. Even with sporting events, over 100,000 people can show up for a Cowboys game, but ten times that many people in the DFW metroplex do not even know they are playing, and do not care what the score is. There are no winners or losers in children's games any more. You have to give out ribbons to everyone for "participation". You can't fail students any more; everyone gets a minimum grade of 50% just for turning in their work.
These different experiences have splintered us as a society. We no longer have a shared experience, therefore we are moving toward a time when we no longer have a shared purpose.
When will it all end?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)