Solutions for Social Justice – Part 2

Since my post several weeks ago titled “Solutions” for Social Justice?, I have been delving deep into books, blogs, and articles that speak to capitalism and its relationship to human action. Specifically, my concern was how the poor are affected by capitalism and if it is indeed the best economic model for the poor, the rich, and those in between. While I am absolutely positive that socialism is not a viable economic model, since it concentrates economic control into the hands of a few, my thought was that Distributism would be a practical “third way,” as I expressed in my previous “Solutions” post, which would counter the concentration of wealth that appears inevitable within a capitalist system. While Distributism certainly has some striking benefits as an economic system based on subsidiarity, which is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority, in practical terms it appears the implementation of this model en masse would require a fundamental remake of our economy, but I believe it would be a powerful model for social and economic change. Still, I continue to believe that capitalism as it currently exists is a viable economic model that preserves individual liberty while providing opportunity for the upward mobility of all classes. In particular, I believe the Austrian School of economics provides the best model for robust capitalism, and I would argue that our system of government should further incorporate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity sans its hierarchical social structure (closer to sphere sovereignty in Reformed parlance) if it is to continue successfully with capitalism as our chosen economic model.

I recently finished the book Money, Greed, and God by Jay Wesley Richards, who is a former Director and Research Fellow at the Acton Institute, a Christian think-tank whose mission is “to promote a free, virtuous, and humane society. This direction recognizes the benefits of a limited government, but also the beneficent consequences of a free market. It embraces an objective framework of moral values, but also recognizes and appreciates the subjective nature of economic value. It views justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and wants.” Note the emphases on limited government, free markets, and moral values, which are buttressed by justice as a duty of all to serve the common good in a free society with free markets. I believe Jay has captured in his book the crux of what makes a free, capitalist society such as ours work and thus achieve greatness as a young republic. His book provides deep insights into capitalism and its history, and he has explicated the ideals of the Acton Institute in concert with the controversial yet powerful Austrian economic model, providing a clear way forward for realizing the continued greatness of our country, if we embrace capitalism for its highest purpose.

In leveraging Jay’s book as the basis for this post, I want to be clear that neither Jay, in his book, nor I, in this post, believe that any economic system is perfect. Despite what some in government would have us believe, there will never be a utopia on earth (and of all people, Christians should know this better than anyone else). Government simply cannot and will not solve all of our problems, because human interaction is incredibly complex. The best the government can do is provide a framework for economic interaction that produces the best possible outcomes, and then properly enforce the rules of engagement. The more government attempts to take on above and beyond the limited number of things it is designed to do well, the harder it is for a society to function because decision-making becomes concentrated into the hands of a few instead of allowing a fairly-traded market to decide outcomes based on free interchange. Though there are some brilliant and highly talented people working for the government, it is humanly impossible, particularly at the federal level, for any of them to fully consider the consequences of meddling in free markets.

For just a moment, think about the fact that the framers of our Constitution, many who were men of wealth, power, and prestige, could have constructed a centralized system of government, but instead chose to provide a small number of enumerated powers to the federal government while allowing the states to conduct their own affairs. The wisdom in this choice was that people were free to govern themselves at the state level, and moreover, free to own property and to conduct business through free markets (evils of slavery notwithstanding). The states were (and continue to be) in constant competition with one another to test out new ideas and either fail or succeed in the manner in which they decided to govern. If a state government became too onerous or abusive in its power, or did things to hurt its own economy, its citizens were always free to move to another state that provided more opportunities or freedoms (which I am seriously considering doing since I happen to live in the sorry state of California). What was common to all states was the Constitution, which was the supreme law of the land, yet it also expressly limited the powers of the federal government. If only the folks in Washington, D.C. would adhere to these limits.

Now, to get to the topic at hand, the problem is, as Jay states in his book, that we have reflexively looked to the government for the past forty years to solve social problems. It hasn’t worked because when the state takes over a task that is better handled by someone closer to the problem, it transgresses its proper boundaries and creates more problems than it solves. Jay discusses a set of overlapping “circles of responsibility,” which I have ordered as follows: self, family, neighbors, churches and nonprofits, city/state government, and the federal government. It is when the federal government steps in and runs roughshod over this intricate “web” of overlapping responsibilities with no knowledge of the situation on the ground, violating the principle of subsidiarity, that we have increased problems. The federal government simply grows itself by confiscating capital that could be used more efficiently at the lower levels, and redistributes the wealth it has taken based on its own priorities. This is entirely different from general taxation for legitimate government functions as enumerated in the Constitution. Rather than promoting the general welfare, these redistribution schemes end up allowing citizens to vote for the government to take property from others to give to them. And it doesn’t solve the poverty problem, but simply breeds more dependence on the federal government. And apparently, that is precisely why they do it even though it is impersonal, inefficient, lacking in necessary knowledge, and decidedly unconstitutional.

More to come in Part 3, where I will discuss how capitalism does not reward the rich at the expense of the poor, and how it provides the best model for lifting the poor out of poverty, requiring a change in the government mindset towards to the poor and allowing those who can best serve the poor to do so. Of course, this will mean no more cheap votes, which I believe is the federal government’s purpose for involving itself in social programs in the first place.

share on: facebook

Miss USA and Theological Cherry-picking

I apologize for being so rudely interrupted in my series on social justice solutions, but I couldn’t resist this post, and will pick my other more important topic back up soon. I won’t go much into the controversy over Carrie Prejean’s unfortunate question and response at the recent Miss USA pageant, as that is well reported. But I do want to call out a particular interview on the CNN Campbell Brown show between guest commentator Roland Martin and Miss Prejean. In the interview, Martin quoted former Miss California 2003, Nicole Lamarche, who is now an ordained minister, as having said the following:

"In the past few days, much has been made of the words of Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean. She stated that marriage is between a man and a woman... While this sentiment is shared by many who seek to condemn gay people and gay marriage, citing pieces of the Bible to further one’s own prejudice fails to meet the Bible on its own terms.”

First, what are the "terms" of the Bible she speaks of? If it is flawed, or all the more, false, then what's the point of being an ordained minister? Second, why should we take Lamarche’s admonition that the Bible says we should love our neighbor as ourselves if it can’t be trusted? Is she asserting that you can take what you like and encourage that, but discard what you don't like and say it's up to interpretation? That appears to me very flawed logic. Third, how is Lamarche so certain that Carrie is attempting to “further her own prejudice”? Couldn’t we also assert that Lamarche is prejudiced since she believes her own position is right? Who is to judge if there is no objective moral standard? Apparently there isn’t one since Lamarche doesn’t see the Bible as having any particular authority unless she accedes it. Thus, she sets her own standard and projects her standards on Prejean. What a shame.

I can certainly respect those who feel the Bible is a flawed, errant document that is just a collection of fables. But if they feel that way, I think it’s only honest to be consistent on that view. The Bible is propositional in that it makes truth claims that one can accept as true or reject. Its entire veracity rests on the truth claim of the resurrection of Christ, and nothing else. Concomitant with this truth is Christ’s proclamation that the Old Testament is true, and that he witnessed its history as a part of the Holy Trinity, co-eternal with God. So the Bible is not a book where you can accept some of its tenets as authoritative, while rejecting others. If it is not true, or is only partially true, then what one accepts or does not accept as true is simply a matter of personal opinion.

Unfortunately Lamarche wants to have her cake and eat it too. She sees the Bible as authoritative in areas where she happens to be in agreement, but she doesn’t see the same in areas where she doesn’t. For someone learned in religious studies, it frightens me that she doesn’t understand the concept of progressive revelation and that not everything the Bible reports is what it condones. Sinful behavior is a regular occurrence in the Bible, thus the story of redemption within its pages. She further violates basic methods of interpretation in her exegesis of New Testament passages. Let’s now look at a few quotes from a recent interview with her alma mater, Pacific School of Religion:

“Most people seeking to condemn gay people point to the Book of Leviticus, where we read that men lying with men is an abomination. However, we rarely hear of other verses found in the book of Leviticus that are equally challenging. For example, Leviticus also tells us that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination. And that a person should not wear material woven of two kinds of material—an impossible mandate for a pageant contestant!”

First, she presumes that anyone against gay marriage is “seeking to condemn gay people.” While this may be the case for some, isn’t it reasonable to say that people can be against gay marriage because they believe the Bible is true and that it condemns homosexuality? And isn’t it possible to love gay people as the Bible commands while not agreeing with their lifestyle choice, and further, not abridging such? If those people respect biblical authority as Lamarche presumably does, then why should they believe otherwise? As to comparing homosexuality to eating shellfish, this is where Lamarche completely misses progressive revelation. The prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 was enjoined with other practices such as incest, adultery, and marriage of close relatives, under Mosaic law. While these prohibitions were included in Mosaic law, it must be known that the Mosaic law was temporal and conditional, but these prohibitions were in effect before the Mosaic law, during, and now continue to this day as being fundamental to society. Would anyone say that we should allow incest, adultery, and marriage of close relatives today because their prohibition is limited to Mosaic law? As with many other prohibitions in the Mosaic law, in the New Covenant all dietary restrictions were deemed unnecessary under the dispensation of grace, and are not in effect today. Lamarche then continues with her next rhetorical volley:

“In Paul’s letter to the community in Corinth we read, ‘For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church….’ And yet these words have not prevented Christian denominations from ordaining women, such as myself. Sadly, the Bible has been used to further prejudice throughout history. We have used it to permit ourselves to enslave people; to conquer and kill; and to denigrate the earth.”

Here, Lamarche focuses on a narrow passage, violating the three basic hermeneutical rules consisting of context, context, context for biblical interpretation. This passage is within the larger context of keeping order in church meetings. Paul’s call was not for absolute silence, but was specific in that he wanted wives to wait to ask their husbands questions at home. At that time they actually respected men as the head of their households. In God’s eyes, the woman is personally equal to the male, but she is distinct in her womanhood from his manhood. Thus God designed the woman to function in willing subjection to her husband’s headship in the church. So this in no way enslavement, but a willing partnership between equals with different roles.

Finally, Lamarche demonstrates extraordinarily poor biblical exegesis, particularly for someone who carries the title of ordained minister:

“The truth is that it is difficult to know for sure the intentions of the biblical authors, but we do know something about God. Those of us who know God through Jesus of Nazareth know that he went to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were labeled as outcasts. He spent time with children, prostitutes, and lepers, all of whom were labeled as outside of the grasp of the Holy. As we continue to seek God’s vision for us as a nation grounded in a love for justice, I pray that we might move closer to the cause of grace.”

The truth is that it is no more difficult to know the sure intentions of biblical authors than it is for you, my dear reader, to know the intentions of the post you are currently reading, or to know the intentions of Lamarche’s writings. Otherwise, biblical interpretation would be an academic exercise and become purposeless since the Bible could be interpreted to suit whatever one desires at any point in time. The purpose of biblical interpretation is authorial intent (as it is with this post). No more, no less. Now for Jesus to go to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were outcasts inferred no special status on this group of people, but was to demonstrate that he came to save all of the lost who would put their faith in him. There simply are no people that are outside “the grasp of the Holy,” as Lamarche puts it in her brand of plain old bad theology. We are all sinners saved by grace when we accept Christ, and none of us has any special status in the eyes of God. So it is the height of ridiculousness to assert that we should accept gay marriage in order to “move closer to the cause of grace.” The very reason we need grace is because we are sinners who have transgressed God’s law. So I would suggest Lamarche return to a reputable school for remedial training in both biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, and keep her own personal prejudices aside by rightly dividing the word of truth moving forward.

To wrap, I would like to add that Lamarche and folks of her ilk are a most destructive lot. Who would propose that the Bible supports the gay political agenda, under the false veil of justice and equality, when a homosexual lifestyle is clearly inimical to the teachings of the Bible? This is a most deliberate and wanton misinterpretation for anyone who believes the Bible has one shred of truth. My assertion is if Lamarche wants to make her argument, that she make it on other grounds without attempting to falsely marshal support from the Bible. I then may at least respect her argument. But her current attempt is to argue her position from the Bible while undermining its very foundations. This tactic is nothing less than unconscionable, and fair minded people should never give in to this type of grown-up biblical bullying.

share on: facebook

“Solutions” for Social Justice?

It has been a few weeks since my last post, and I would like to thank the few, the proud, the readers of my intermittent ramblings. During this time I’ve been doing some research on the founding principles of the US Constitution, Economics, and learning about a Catholic economic model called Distributism, which claims to be a “third way” between socialism and capitalism (specifically, avoiding the centralization of political power in the former, while avoiding the centralization of economic power in the latter). Including the benefits of Distributism (or some elements thereof) in my economic thinking was suggested by one of my Facebook friends, Brennan, and since my next blog idea was to discuss government “solutions” within the context of social justice, I thought it might be worth the time to do some research in this area. The idea of a post on government solutions for social justice was seeded by an exchange with another Facebook friend, Travis, who is a classmate at Talbot, working on his Masters in Theology. So my heartfelt thanks go out to both Brennan and Travis, to whom I will be looking for feedback. I will only touch on Distributism in this post, but will follow up in more detail in the next.

Travis and I both attend a conservative school of theology and are both evangelical Christians, but from a political perspective, Travis tends to lean Democratic and is an Obama supporter, while I lean conservative and was a McCain supporter in last November’s election (well actually, I wasn’t a true supporter but believed McCain was the “lesser of two evils,” as it were). On matters such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Travis and I are in general agreement. Where we tend to disagree, however, is with the specific role of government in terms of social justice, which includes providing more resources for inner city communities and schools as they continue their epic struggles to this day. Travis feels Democrats are offering solutions whereas Republicans are not, but admits that after over forty-plus years of Great Society social programs, there has been little progress in terms of lifting those in the inner city out of the generational poverty, crime, and lack of education that continues to haunt these communities.

My assertion is that the proper role of government at the federal level is to provide a level playing field and to vigorously enforce such, which is consistent with conservative principles of personal responsibility, a small federal government with limited powers as outlined by the Constitution, and low taxes to spur economic growth such that opportunities abound for all who would take advantage of them. What I don’t believe is that government can “fix” these communities such that they will be able to effectively take part in the opportunities available. Why? Because I believe the problem has more to do with the decay of the family and moral values in those communities than any other factor. Though church attendance is high in inner-city black communities, the timeless values taught in church somehow do not effectively translate into action in terms of excellence in the classroom, strong family units, or abstinence until marriage as the ideal. So if the values which would preserve and uplift these communities are not practiced to any appreciable degree voluntarily, there is little government can do. But what the government does is to continue to sink federal and state dollars into these communities at the behest of liberal Democrats with little real results, only perpetuating a generational cycle of dependency, ensuring cheap and enduring votes for the Democratic party because of the perception that they are doing something. Apparently pushing for equal opportunity and the enforcement thereof, as championed by the Republican party during the civil rights era and beyond, is considered not doing anything.

What I am arguing as a conservative is that there is no government funded solution to the inner city problem that is purely a factor of government spending, particularly any solution as currently outlined by liberal Democrats. With a relativistic and mostly materialistic view of the universe, liberals simply don’t see that the problem is a lack of accountability as well as a lack of objective moral values and virtue in these communities. Over the past forty-plus years, liberals have rejected timeless and transcendent values that are vital to turning these communities around, instead promoting a “do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody” social policy concordant with a sex and passion-driven mainstream media, as if the only type of harm one can do to someone else is physical. From their perspective, one can engage in all other manner of risky and deviant behavior, but if one finds him or herself in a compromised situation, it is the government’s job to bail them out since they simply exercised their “right” to live their life in a capricious and irresponsible manner as they so decide with little thought to the consequences. In other words, one has rights but no concomitant responsibilities along with those rights.

The key issue Travis and I discussed was related to supply-side (or “trickle down”) economics as not benefitting the lower classes, and thus being a major factor in their strife. While I don’t believe supply-side economics necessarily are at fault, since everyone benefits through lower taxes for all that promote economic growth, I do see the downside to a purely individualistic approach and see some flavor of Distributism as a better model particularly within inner-city communities to harmonize the relationship between morals and economics, thus bringing healing to these communities. Distributism, as an economic system, promotes local control (through decentralization of political power into the lowest level possible), ownership of private property, self-reliance, industry and thrift, and community spirit. A Distributist system would, however, place spiritual and ethical demands on these communities to lessen playing out of their passions and appetites in favor of family unity, generosity, and cooperation. I envision this would consist of local government working with churches, charities, and private investors to setup guilds, cooperatives, credit unions, home-based businesses, and micro-credit banking to empower productive communities to become interdependent as opposed to being dependent. Though Distributist ideals have grown out of Catholic social doctrine, they do not demand adherence to the Catholic faith, but would rely on core Christian teachings as a mooring for economic and social policy within these communities.

I will expand further on how I envision Distributism working practically to promote social justice in my next post.

References:
Triolo, John F., 2008, Can Distributism Work? Part II. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.thecontrariansreview.com/Can_Distributism_Work__2.html, accessed on 19 April 2009.

Society for Distributism, 2009, Brochure. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.scribd.com/doc/13266644/The-Society-for-Distributism-Brochure, accessed on 19 April 2009.

share on: facebook

Lovelle Mixon: Looking Forward and Backward

Tonight I watched a Bill O’Reilly episode on Fox News, and was intrigued by the dialogue that took place between two guests over the recent rallies in Oakland honoring Lovelle Mixon, the man who fatally shot four officers before being killed by Oakland police last week. The purpose of the rally was reported to also have been a condemnation of the police. As the story is well reported I won’t belabor the details, but what was intriguing about this exchange was the clear contrast between these two black guests: one a talk-show radio host looking forward, and the other a Ph.D. still looking backward though he has risen from a similar situation as Mixon.

James T. Harris, a conservative talk-show radio host in Milwaukee, WI, condemned those in the rallies honoring Mixon, saying they had a “collective mindset” that was legitimate 30-40 years ago, but is simply illegitimate today. He cited the breakdown of the family and the declining role of religion as the true reasons that many black communities continue to be mired in poverty and crime-ridden neighborhoods. Harris goes on to say that while solidarity was a necessary and helpful thing 40-50 years ago, it is now destructive because it continues to aim at past inequities that no longer exist to any wide extent.

On the other hand, we have Marc Lamont Hill, who holds a Ph.D. (with distinction) from the University of Pennsylvania. Hill is considered one of the leading “hip-hop generation intellectuals” in the country. Hill argued that those taking part in the rallies were not celebrating Mixon, but simply responding to “police terrorism” that has been endemic to their community for decades. O’Reilly responded, rightfully, that this was an inappropriate forum in which to voice their concern, particularly since Mixon was a rape suspect and a cop-killer who left three widows and ten children without a father. But Hill was undeterred. He said that Mixon had a right to “fundamental humanity,” so his life deserved to be celebrated though his actions clearly didn’t. O’Reilly wasn’t buying that either.

Harris then attacked Hill’s very premise that there was such thing as “police terrorism” in the black community. He argued that the “cups of sorrow” from previous generations continue to be propagated needlessly in the black community into the current generation, looking for terrorism where it doesn’t exist. He continued that blacks are now free, but too many continue to look to the past though times have clearly changed. O’Reilly graciously gave Hill the last word, which Hill used to blather on about how the rallies were challenging a “repressive and oppressive police state.” Thank goodness O’Reilly pulled the plug, as I had had enough of Hill and his whining. Hill is legitimate proof (as is Obama) that a black man, through hard work and determination, can achieve whatever his mind can conceive if he applies himself and accepts responsibility for his own life and his own family (ironic that I borrow a bit of phrasing from Jesse Jackson). This same opportunity is available to our brothers and sisters in Oakland if they would simply accept responsibility for their own communities.

So there you have it, one black man who acknowledges our horrid past of slavery and Jim Crow, but demonstrates thankfulness for what we have overcome, and is looking forward to the future (amen to that). Yet we have another black man who has achieved a high degree of success himself as an intellectual who writes, speaks, and appears on national television, but continues to look backward and rail on about inequities of the past. I think the only thing Hill really demonstrates in this exchange is the double standard too many blacks hold towards whites. We want them to treat us with decency and respect, but we don’t have to return the same when it suits us because of past wrongs. Those rallying around Mixon have no defense, as their cause célèbre is indefensible, but Hill sure gave it a hell of a try. Certainly, he could apply his Ph.D. training to defend causes that are actually of some benefit.

share on: facebook

Seeking Truth

I’m finally getting around to writing something mildly philosophical, but this post also goes to the core of my purpose for writing blogs, and tries to make this purpose more concrete. Obviously, I am a Christian, but I want to make it clear why I am a Christian, why it is important to me, and more importantly, why it would be important to you. First, my number one commitment is to truth, and not to Christianity (though I am committed to Christianity because I believe it is true). That may sound strange to some, but truth is the one thing all of us seek, whether consciously or subconsciously. In agreement with the great contemporary Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, I would also assert that truth seeking is a part of our proper function. In essence, I’m arguing that we are naturally truth seeking, but our intellects and the noetic effects of sin both conspire to cause us to either reject the truth or to avoid the truth, respectively. Yet ultimately, we have a choice in the matter.

A close acquaintance of mine is a high-level executive for a Fortune 500 company, with hundreds of employees worldwide under his charge (and care). His brilliance is without question. Yet even as a Christian, he disagrees with me that humans are truth seeking, and further that we can even know the truth. Fundamentally, as he has related to me, he doesn’t believe there is objective truth, and by extension objective moral truth. In everyday life, however, he operates as if the very thing he denies actually exists. For example, at work he must communicate complex thoughts and ideas regarding company strategy and tactics to his team, ensuring that they are properly executed in a timely manner. His very presumption is that even though their minds are separate and distinct from his, there is a universal ability to interpret and execute on his directives in a manner that meets his approval. Moreover, he expects them to perform their work ethically. Without some universal standard of ethics, he would have no measure on which to punish actions he believed to be unethical. I can just imagine him calling one of his employees out on some unethical practice, and that employee responding that since ethics are relative, there isn’t a problem so they should just drop the whole thing. Now that would be a “career limiting move," but I digress.

So basically where I’m going with this post is that it is my belief that objective truth exists, that it is real, and that it encompasses moral truths that indicate what we ought to do. We put truth into practice in virtually every human experience whether cognizant of it or not. It is also my belief that Christianity best accords with truth, given the alternatives. Clearly, I don’t know this exhaustively, as no human has access to exhaustive knowledge. That is reality and is a part of the human condition. Given that caveat, with the best of my knowledge I believe it is my duty to work from core Christian beliefs that are transcendent and eternal. It is these truths on which our country and its Constitution were founded, whether from a deistic or orthodox Christian view of a creator. An atheistic or relativist view could not deliver the same as there would be no grounding basis or imperative other than force through monarchy, at a societal/cultural level through social contracts, or purely individual, all of which would be temporal and transitory at best (with the last being, effectively, “survival of the fittest”).

The Bible states that the [moral] law has been written on everyone’s heart, as described in Romans 2:15 and Jeremiah 31:33 (and yes, I am aware that things can and do go wrong, so I presume proper function for this law to be in effect). The knowledge of right and wrong is unmistakable; you can see this in an inchoate state in children even before they acquire language. Even Hitler knew what he was doing to the Jews was wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have attempted to hide his gruesome handiwork. For him to know it was wrong, and for us to know it was wrong also, requires a universal rule or measure from which to determine right from wrong, i.e., some truth or truths. We Christians believe we have encountered truth, and are fully aware that we are all part of a fallen creation. Others, unfortunately, use their intellect and the sinful nature they have in common with us to override the truth that God has made so plain (cf. Romans 1:20).
share on: facebook

Whoopi and Taxes

For those who haven't had the chance to see Whoopi Goldberg's perspective on taxes on "The View," it's definitely worth viewing:



She makes a great argument that while she doesn't mind paying taxes and giving back, since she has done well financially, she still feels she's being punished by the government for her success. And Whoopi, I couldn't agree with you more. You see, I'm not jealous of your success, as I know that talented, entrepeneurial people like yourself are the folks that are taking risks and creating jobs for those of us who are employees. You and other business owners small and large are the engine and the driver of our economy. But your government, in it's current form led by the Democratic party, doesn't see it that way. And that's not to say it was considerably better under the previous Republican administration, since they strayed far away from core conservative principles of small government, low taxes, and personal responsibility. They received the "due penalty" of their error, and are now doing penance (I pray).

These days I often hear liberals say that Reaganomics have concentrated money at the top over the past 25 years, and now that Democrats control the Presidency and Congress, they will "redistribute" money back to the poor and the middle class. But here is the question: why do they believe those doing the "redistribution" can do a better job than properly regulated market forces? There will be a small, concentrated group of people performing the wealth redistribution (i.e., Obama and Congress), which means they will decide what to take from whom and to whom they will redistribute the proceeds. Do liberals really feel this is a job for government? And with the trillions of dollars this small group of people plan on redistributing, can they do this solely on the backs of the "rich," who make over $250,000? I don't think that's realistic. The middle class will have to participate in this ill-gotten, productivity killing scheme as well.

To demonstrate my view, please note the following summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data from 2006, showing each group's share of income taxes (source: Internal Revenue Service):

• Top 1%: 39.89% (>$388,806)


• Top 5%: 60.14% (>$153,542)


• Top 10%: 70.79% (>$108,904)


• Top 25%: 86.27% (>$64,702)


• Top 50%: 97.01% (>$31,987)


• Bottom 50%: 2.99% (<$31,987)

Note that the top 5% (Whoopi and other "greedy" folks making over $388,806), are already carrying 60% of the tax load, and that the top 50% (making over $31,987) are carrying 97.01%. The bottom 50% are paying 3% of the total tax load. Looking at these numbers, the issue of fairness comes in to play. If the top 10% are paying 70% of the taxes, what is a "fair" amount for them to pay? 80%, 90%, 100%? Even if you ask the top 10% to carry all of the tax load, you're asking some that are making just a little over $100,000. That sounds like a lot of money in some states, but in states such as California and New York, that's middle class living at best in major metropolitan areas.

Let's again note that the bottom 50% pay a total of 3% of the taxes. According to the Wall Street Journal, with the new and expandable refundable tax credits Obama's budget is proposing, the bottom 50% will pay NO taxes. This, the paper notes, "could cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government." So in this regard, the Democrats could permanently assure themselves both the Presidency and the Congress because they will have a plurality of voters that, with a little help, could vote themselves the largesse they feel they deserve. And I believe as politicians, they will look out for themselves first, since they will be in an elite class that wants to remain an elite class. If that means class warfare and redistribution of wealth as a means to that end, then so be it. The key question is what would happen if a portion of the top 50% got fed up with being penalized for achievement, and decided to cease being as productive? What would happen then? Inquiring minds want to know.
share on: facebook

Helping My Liberal Friends to Understand the Conservative View – Part 2 of 3

Whenever I offer any criticism of Obama's policies, some of my liberal friends accuse me of "bashing" him personally. I want to be emphatic that it is not my intent to "bash" Obama explicitly or implicitly, and certainly not personally. I simply believe his policies won't work and know that very little of the "investments" (that's code word for spending) and tax increases for the "rich" he is proposing are directly related to stimulating the economy. Instead of focusing on the economic crisis to restore confidence in our financial system, which is a difficult task within itself, he is using the crisis as an opportunity to conduct an aggressive social agenda through massive government spending that will change society as we know it. Those who support this grand redistribution of wealth plan either haven't done their homework or don't realize the unintended consequences of more and bigger government in every aspect of our lives.

Few of my friends understand what conservatism is about, and on what principles it stands. So I thought I would include excerpts from a recent speech by a well-known conservative that spoke to the heart of conservatism. Please carefully consider the following: "We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party. Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people."

"When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government."

"We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the [sic] preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness. Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault."

"We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we'll try to stop it, but it's a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty. We love the people of this country. And we want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us. We resist the effort to make us feel that we're all the same, that we're no different than anybody else. We're all different. There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance - - We don't hate anybody. We don't -- I mean, the racism in this country, if you ask me, I know many people in this audience -- let me deal with this head on. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe."

"I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed. Also, for those of you in the Drive-By Media watching, I have not needed a teleprompter for anything I've said. And nor do any of us need a teleprompter, because our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances. Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology. Our beliefs are our core. Our beliefs are our hearts. We don't have to make notes about what we believe. We don't have to write down, oh do I believe it do I believe that we can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively."

The above speech was none other than that delivered by Rush Limbaugh at the recent Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) Conference. Yes, Rush is a polarizing figure somewhat lacking in the social graces, and no, he is not the voice of the Republican party. But he is a (not the) voice for the conservative movement. He made it clear in the speech that he doesn't want Obama to fail if his policies are good for the country (e.g., economic growth, low taxes, liberty), but he wants Obama to fail if his policies will be detrimental to our Republic (i.e., federalization of health care, education, and energy through onerous taxation). The liberal media won't quote Rush in full context because it wouldn't be news, instead they make it news by saying that he wants Obama to fail and leave it at that. That isn't news, but it is irresponsible journalism.

* A fellow graduate student asked me to note that Rush's attribution of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the preamble of the Constitution is incorrect, and that this phrase is actually found in the Declaration of Independence.
share on: facebook