Energion Roundtable Week 4 Responses – Other Issues
I found Joel Watts answer to this week’s Energion Roundtable question a mixed bag. I agree with him that we should have a flat rate, so I don’t quite understand his desire in the short term to go in the opposite direction. I also agree that government is too large. I agree we should reform health care, but strongly oppose single payer. We need more real choices for consumers, not less.
His comments that we should use eminent domain for corporations were to me a misappropriation of eminent domain and a misunderstanding of corporations at least the very large ones he seems to be targeting. Who does he thinks owns the stock? It is not just “the rich.” A lot of average people have their retirement accounts and pensions invested in these companies. For example, just to consider the current focus of evil, Bain Capital, since 2000, teachers other government employee pension plans have had $1.56 billion invested in Bain. And this is before one begins to consider just exactly how this would all happens.
Still, I would agree that government should consider the effects of its actions, particularly in the areas of creating barriers to entry into particular markets. This is one of the paradoxes of the left, they oppose big business, but much of the legislation they push has the unintended consequence of making it harder for smaller businesses to compete with them.
Concerning Bob Cornwall’s answer, again there was a lot I agreed with. I would quibble with his claim that Republicans “have been even more profligate” when it comes to spending. One of the problems I have is the lumping of Presidents and Congress together as I do not think they have equal impact. Since the budget reforms of the 1970s the power of the President to directly affect spending has been greatly reduced. They propose a budget, but most Presidents’ budgets, from either party, are at best a starting point and often are “dead on arrival.” Obama’s last budget, for example, could not get even a single democrat’s vote, much less a Republican vote. While the president can veto a spending bill, normally Congress waits until the last minute and thus any veto threatens a government shutdown. Only Clinton was willing to risk this, and that was to increase, not decrease spending.
In terms of Republican versus Democratic Congresses, from 1952-1994 the Democrats held the House where all spending bills must start. During this time the budget was only balanced one year, and that was not by design. Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, and within a few years not only cut taxes, but brought the budget into balance over the initial objections of Clinton.
In the early years of this century, Republicans “lost their way.” With the recession that followed the collapse of the internet bubble, the attack of 9/11 and the subsequent wars, tax cut and new spending programs pushed by Bush, the deficits rose to over $413 billion. With criticism from both conservatives and Democrats, Republican began to reduce the deficit. In the last budget they passed it had been reduced down back down to $161 billion, but anger from conservatives concerning spending, and democrats concerning the war caused them to lose the Congress. The democrats took over in 2007 and their first deficit rose to $459 billion. Then came the financial problems and since then we have been well over a trillion dollars.
Whatever the history, currently it is the Republicans who are pushing to reduce the deficits. The Democrats who control the Senate have not even bothered to do a budget in over 1200 days, even though they are required to do so by law. Without a budget, it is hard to take their claims seriously.
I also disagreed with Cornwall’s claim that that the belief that the wealthy create jobs is “nonsense.” The problem is that the current Democratic definition of wealthy includes a lot of small businesses, the sector that creates most of the jobs in the country. I do not believe that this is an either or proposition. You need consumers who can purchase, and employers who can hire. Many businesses also need investment in order to expand and grow, and thus hire more people. This investment often comes from “the wealthy.” No new investment, no new growth, no new jobs, and therefore no new consumers.
Energion Roundtable Week 4 Responses – The Military
In their answers to this week’s Energion Roundtable question, Arthur Sido, Joel Watts and Bob Cornwall, all expressed the need to cut the military and so I thought I would respond deal with all three on this issue here. Since this was my main disagreement with Sido, I will focus on his comments and will deal with my disagreement with the others in other areas in a different post.
First off, let me say that my disagreement is not total. I, and I believe many that Sido would label “hysterical,” realize that, just like any other area of Government, there is a lot of waste in the Defense Department. There is often a huge difference between what the military needs to defend this country, and what Congress appropriates.
One of the interesting facts revealed in Rumsfeld’s book Known and Unknown was the difference between being Secretary of Defense in the 1970s and then later in the early years of this century in terms of the demands made by Congress. In 1977, during the Cold War and when the Defense budget consumed nearly twice as much in terms of GDP, the legislation authorizing the Department of Defense was 16 pages long. In 2001 it was 534 pages (p. 297). Therein alone is a large part of the problem.
Where I disagreed, was over the assessment of the threat, the nature of the threat, and the need for a standing army. I do a lot of reading of history and recently have been reading a lot on WWII. I just finished reading Eugene Sledge’s With the Old Breed, which is a great book, and which was one of the main sources for the HBO series, The Pacific. One of the things that becomes clear in his book and many others, is the link between the role of training and equipment and the chance of survival in combat.
Herein is a huge difference between the military and other branches of Government. Not only is it a prime responsibility of the federal government, but experience has shown that with all the talk of cutting waste, cuts in the military normally end up being born by troops who at the end of the day, still need to get the job done, as they operate equipment that is often older than their fathers, and now days, at times their grandfathers. As a result, peace dividends are often paid for with the lives of our troops.
(On a side note, while one of the videos Sido cited claims we do not need landing craft anymore, that we have not made an amphibious attack since WWII and are unlikely to make one again. Yet as it turns out, the son of a friend of mine was part of the first amphibious attack since WWII, in a craft that was so old that according to him, the threat of sinking was a constant problem, even before they got into combat.)
I also disagreed over the nature of the threat. In one of Sido’s links he points out that we do not face any real threats from Russia and China, and that we would defeat Iran or North Korea if war started with them. (I would quibble a bit his claim that we have not been attacked since Pearl Harbor, 911 comes to mind).
While perhaps true today, this is not so much a result of spending today, but of spending in the past. Much of the spending we do today is to maintain our status. In short it is not so much that we could win a war if attacked, but to be so powerful that no one will attack us. This is particular true given that North Korea is a nuclear power, and Iran, if not stopped, soon will be. So we are not just talking about avoiding war, but nuclear war. Sure we would win, but at what cost?
And while China is not a threat today, it is very clear that they are intending to be, as is Russia. Those concerned about China do not want a strong military so that we can fight China in the near future, (though Chinese military leaders have threatened to attack several times.) They want a strong military so as to preclude any such conflict 20 -40 years from now. Given the length of time to build ships and planes, etc, waiting until they are an actual threat is too late.
The bottom line is that we are the world’s dominant power, and the world it not a safe place. If we relinquish this role, who will take our place, and will that be better for us and the rest of the world in the long run?
Finally, as Sido writes, “Even more troubling is the enthusiastic embrace of unlimited military spending by people who claim the name of Christ.” Perhaps he would include me in this category, but I find it little more than a straw man. No one I know wants “unlimited military spending.” Granted I and others may err on the side of over-spending, but I would rather waste dollars than waste lives. I would rather be so strong that no one would dare attack us, than just weak enough that we end up in a war. I would rather our troops go into battle over-equipped than under-equipped and struggling to make do. In short, I do not believe the threat comes from us being too strong, but rather too weak.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 3:16-18
Week 31: May 20, 2012 / Sept 9 2012
Having contrasted sin with abiding in Christ, John now gives two positive examples to show what abiding in Christ and love really mean.
Study
16 – This is how we have come to know love: the Messiah[1] gave his life for us. We, too, ought to give our lives for our brothers.
– John started this section by saying we are to love one another. Now he gives us some examples of what he means by Love. The greatest example is that Christ died for us, he gave (laid down) his life for us. Notice that John says, For us… This is key for he did not just die to show love in some general abstract sense, he died for us.
– We, too, ought to give our lives
As the Gospel of John taught, Jesus is our example in all things, even this. Does this mean that we should go find someone to die for? No. This should not be seen as our sole duty; this is the limit of our duty. We should be willing to give of ourselves up to and including our very lives. This is not just what we can “afford” nor is it to give of our excess. After all could Jesus “afford” to give his life?
17 – Whoever has earthly possessions and notices a brother in need and yet withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God be present in him?
– Since most of us will not be called upon to give our lives, John further expands on this with a more day to day example.
– Whoever has earthly possessions
When understood within the historical context in which Jesus spoke, that is the economic conditions of the time, when translated to today, this would include virtually every American.
– withholds his compassion from him (κλείω ὁ σπλάγχνον αὐτός ἀπό αὐτός)
– The picture here is of locking up (κλείω) our natural feelings, in short of hardening our heart. It is important to note here that John does not say withhold our goods. Tithing or giving to the benevolent fund is not what John is talking about here. The focus here is more on how we feel, rather than what we do. What we may do in any given situation is complicated. How we should feel about it is not.
– This is because if we have the right attitude, it is far more likely that the correct actions will follow and he will be dealing with actions shortly.
– how can the love of God be present in him?
If God has compassion for those in need, and we are filled by the love of God, how can we not also have compassion for those in need?
a. Expansion: True Love Acts (3:18-20)
i. True Love Acts (3:18)
*18 – Little children, we must not express[2] love merely by our words and manner of speech; we must love[3] also in action[4] and in truth.
– Little children
Again we have a common marker of a transition. Here John will add actions to the feelings discussed in the previous verse.
– we must love in action and in truth
While our feelings are important, without action they are of little value. Why does John add Truth? Truly loving someone in need often takes a great deal of discernment. It involves a good understanding of the circumstances, and the actions we take must do more that alleviate our conscience, they must actually improve the situation. Giving money to a starving alcoholic on skid row, is likely to do nothing other than pay for more alcohol, and further their problem. We might walk away thinking that we have done a nice thing, but in truth all we have done is worsen the problem.
Questions and Discussion
The discussion this week centered on what constitutes a “good” action. As mentioned above, this is not always easy to determine. In addition truly helping can often take a lot more commitment than just giving some money. On the other hand there are far more worthy causes then we have the ability to support. We can’t do it all, and God does not expect us to. It will take a lot of prayer and consideration to determine which ones God may be calling you to support. Finally, we are to be good stewards of our money. We should check out those groups that we support, but this should be in proportion to the how much you are giving. The recommendation of a friend may be enough for small one-time gift, but a more serious ongoing financial support, should not be done haphazardly.
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
[1] 3:16 Lit. he
[2] 3:18 ISV: we must stop expressing
[3] 3:18 The Gk. lacks love
[4] 3:18 Or work
Roundtable 4 : Critical Elements of an Economic Plan
This week’s Energion Roundtable question with Bob Cornwall, Arthur Sido, Allan R. Bevere, Joel Watts, and myself is:
What are the most critical elements of an economic plan for the United States, and how should they be balanced? For example, consider deficit reduction, managing the size of government, creating jobs, maintaining social services, maintaining military strength, supporting current overseas military operations, reducing spending, and increasing taxes. Which candidate has a plan closest to what you prefer?
While most people from across the political spectrum would agree that the economy is currently the most serious problem facing the country, there are significant and even fundamental disagreements over the nature of the problem, how we got here, and therefore what to do about it.
I discussed how we got here in my book, and summarize this here. Let me just state that how we got here is not as simple as “Bush’s fault.” There is blame enough to go around and the key factor that triggered the financial crisis cannot really be tied to either party, and has already been reversed in any event.
As for the nature of the problem, I outlined that in my answer to the second question. I believe that the core of the problem is that fundamentally Government is too big. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This is not to say that nothing government does is of value. But, for example, with taxes so high that people are leaving the state, and with a huge and growing deficit, one has to really wonder why California felt it needed to spend $8 billion dollars on a high speed-train that will almost certainly never get built. But then this is from a state with Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation.
Even when you have legitimate needs and concerns, such as with protecting the environment, Government has no sense of proportion or balance, and thus sees little difference in the legitimate concern of stopping a company from dumping raw waste into a river, and, what I would consider the misguided concern of turning off water to one of the major growing regions in California, causing an artificial drought because of the delta smelt. This latter act has costs billions, and more importantly is devastating countless human lives.
There are so many government programs, controlling so many aspects of our lives, overlapping, duplicating and even conflicting with each other that government has become an incoherent mess. This is why California will waste $8 billion on a high speed train to nowhere that will never get built. The proposed route crosses the habitat of several species consider endangered. As such years and very likely decades will be consumed as the government officials pushing for the train will be fighting against the government officials trying to stop it for a variety of reasons. It will be to California what Jarndyce v Jarndyce was to Dickens’ Bleak House.
So the first key element must be a reduction in the size of Government. While there has been much talk and much wailing and gnashing of teeth about it, with the exception of defense and an individual program here or there, overall one constant for the last 100 years has been the steady growth of government. What are lamented as major cuts are in reality only reductions in the rate of increase.
This is what is behind the firm stance not to make yet another “grand compromise” that raises taxes in exchange for cutting spending. The last several decades are full of such compromises and history is clear that once the deal is struck and the taxes are raise, the pressure is off and the cuts never come.
Second, there must be a move away from a top-down command and control that is the norm in government, to a more bottom up approach that allows for choice and competition and thus can take advantage of market forces. I lay out the rational for this in my book, but the bottom line is that the economy is simply too large and complex for the government to manage. And while often attacked and disparaged, this view comes from a basic belief that a free people if permitted will make better choices for themselves, than some distant government employee, no matter how well meaning.
Not everything lends itself to a bottom up approach, but in those areas, government agencies such as EPA, should be forced to consider the economic impact of the decisions. In the case of the EPA ,for example, it is far too often making the best decision for a fish, mouse or even a fly, without any consideration of the impact on the lives of humans. In fact, this has led some bureaucrats to act as if they are a law unto themselves, such as the EPA actions against the Sacketts where the Sacketts had to fight for years just to be able to have the right to challenge an order by the EPA to stop building their house.
Significant change is coming. On our current path, we will see a fiscal collapse in the next 3-10 years. The CBO projections for next year show unemployment rising to 9%. So, one way or the other, change is going to come. We will choose it, or like Greece, it will be forced on us.
I believe we need a government that will do far less, and what it does do it does so in a way that encourages freedom and choice; A government that seeks to foster competition, rather than erecting barriers to entry that ultimately that do little for the consumer, but do protect the well-connected few; A government that when it does need to assist, does so in a way that encourages freedom and choice instead of government control and direction, and one that when it acts considers its impact on people’s lives.
This would be a government much differs than we have now. As for which candidate has a closer plan to this, Romney at least begins to move in that direction. Obama takes us in the opposite direction. In addition, Romney’s plan at least addresses the looming fiscal crisis. Obama does not have a plan. While his intension may be good, government has already promised more than it can deliver, and there is no compassion in an empty promise.
The Truth in an Unscripted Moment
One of the problems with modern conventions is that they are so scripted and staged that there is an air of artificiality. This is not necessarily bad, but it makes judging a party somewhat like judging someone based on a first date. You know that they are putting on their best face, and there is always the question of how much you see is real and how much is show. This is doubly so with a convention; after all we are dealing with politicians.
This is why conventions have become so scripted, and why the unscripted moments that do occur can be so revealing. One such moment occurred on the second night of the DNC convention. It began when the platform committee removed long standing references to God (i.e. our God given potential) and to Jerusalem as the capital Israel. When this became known a small firestorm erupted and this led to the unscripted moment when the leadership moved to have these two items added back to the platform.
This of course immediately raises the issue of which was the “real” position. Platforms planks, while often largely ignored by the public, are closely scrutinized and often the subject of fights within the party, and so it is difficult accept that this was just an omission. But the attempt to put them back in removed all doubt and made a bad situation much worse.
To restore them required a 2/3 vote of the delegates. When a voice vote was called by LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, not only did they not get the 2/3 majority ,it’s quite possible that they had 2/3 against. Clearly caught off guard, Villaraigosa, apparently thought the delegates had not understood the question. So he wanted a do over; this time outlining the positions more slowly. Again the majority was clearly opposed. Stunned and unsure how to proceed a number of seconds passed before Villaraigosa called for a 3rd vote, and again the delegates clearly voted no. But this time Villaraigosa was undeterred and simply declared the measure passed anyway, to the loud boos of the delegates.
As a result of this unscripted moment, three things are clear. First the original removal of the God and Jerusalem is clearly the position of the convention delegates. Second, when push comes to shove, Democrats will do what they want regardless of the vote. Not that we should be surprised, for after all this is how health care reform was passed. The people clearly opposed it, in polls and at the ballot box, But the Democrats just pushed it through anyway.
Lastly, while politicians are known for bending the truth, the reaction to this event by leading Democrats such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz the chair of the DNC really casts a doubt on their truthfulness. Before the vote her claim that this was simply a “technical oversight” might have been overlooked as simply political speak. But her claim in the face of the loud booing, that “there wasn’t any discord” and concerning the vote that “it was absolute 2/3” put her in the league of Bagdad Bob, and was described by the normally supportive Anderson Cooper as being in an “Alternative Universe.”
This is key because in this election there is a lot in dispute. For example, Republicans claim Obama has weaken the work requirements, Democrats say he hasn’t. Who to believe? If the democrats will lie so blatantly when all one needs do is watch the video to see that are lying, can we really trust them when the truth is buried in the details of the Welfare reform law and will ultimately only be settled by judges and complex legal arguments?
