ObamaCare and Our Duty to God
Robert Cornwall’s, blog post on the health care ruling saw it as a positive because of the effects of the bill itself. While I disagree profoundly on the effects of the bill, (I think it will be disastrous for health care in the country, will result in more, not less, people without health insurance, and that the health care that is delivered will be worse) I am fairly confident that the bill will be repealed following the election, and even if I am wrong, the issue is on hold until then in any event. I did however wish to address one of his other points. He wrote,
“What do we owe our neighbor? As I read the Scriptures, I hear the call to love my neighbor, to be hospitable, and compassionate. I don’t think that God cares whether it’s a NGO, a church, or a government providing services. The point is — compassion should lead us to making provision for our neighbors welfare.”
I somewhat agree, however, I do think God cares whether or not it is government. I believe that the concern for our neighbor goes far beyond simply physical needs. God is concerned about our hearts. He wants us to lover our neighbor, and that our compassion and our giving should stem from that love.
Yet the evidence is clear and overwhelming. The more government gets involved, the less charity there is. Just look at the charitable giving of individuals in Europe, which is minuscule compared to individuals in the United States. Within the United States, conservatives on average give a greater portion of their income than the supposedly more compassionate liberals. This should not be all that surprising. If it’s the government’s responsibility, why should I have to worry about it? This is especially true if the vast majority of the bill will be paid by “the wealthy” as is currently the case.
This is unhealthy for everyone. We show our love for God, by feeding his sheep (John 21). Does having an automatic deduction from my paycheck sent to Government to be distributed to people I never have to think about really demonstrate God’s love? The bottom line is that I do not believe that our duty to love our neighbor can be in any way satisfied by government. However much, or however little government does, our duty remains unchanged.
Now if the programs worked, perhaps they could be justified on those means. It would not satisfy any duty to God, but at least people’s need would be met. However Government track record is bleak. The European model is going bankrupt. Here in the U.S., we are within 3-10 year of a major fiscal collapse that will make our current troubles look like the good old days, assuming that it is not already too late.
In the end, having a politician make a promise to meet needs, is not the same thing as actually meeting a need. When we stand before Christ, saying, “but the government said that they would take care of it,” will not be an acceptable response.
On your own?
Obama’s speech last week in Roanoke is a great example of what is wrong with the Obama Presidency. First and foremost, while he campaigned as someone who would raise the level of debate and unite the country, he has governed and now runs a campaign based on dividing the country into groups and then pitting them against each other. In this case it was wealthy business owners, who are keeping too much of the money they make, and who therefore should “give something back.”
I will leave it to others to debate whether these remarks stem from ignorance or dishonesty, but either way they are hard to square with reality, and call into question Obama’s claim to deserve a second term. The first problem is with Obama’s claims that the wealthy should “give something back.” Note that Obama did not say that they should give more back, but something back. The rhetoric is designed to make it seem as if they are not giving anything and the ever reasonable Obama is just asking that they at least given “something back.”
But the reality is that “wealthy, successful Americans” already do give something back. In fact, according to data from the IRS, those in the highest income brackets pay by far the most in income taxes and more than the share of income that they earned. In 2009, those with taxable incomes over $200,000, the ones Obama claims are not paying their fair share, paid nearly 75% of all personal income taxes, while those making under 50,000 paid just 4%. If you include the income taxes paid by businesses, another favorite target of Obama, the share of taxes paid by those making $50,000 or less drops to only 3.3%.
The other problem with Obama’s statement is that not all businesses are successful, and even those that are often took many years to become so. It is true that growing a business requires other people. If for nothing else, they need customers. Many require suppliers, and as they grow, employees. And they do require an environment and infrastructure that allows them to grow.
But while this is true, there remains a major problem with Obama’s claim. While many people are required, they do not all share the same burden. As an owner, whole or part, in a business, you take on the responsibility of running the business and the risks. When money does not come in, you still have to pay your employees. You still have to pay your taxes and fees to all the various levels of government. You still have to pay your suppliers. In fact everyone else gets paid and only if there is money left, do you get to pay yourself. Many business owners know all too well the feeling of not being able to get paid, because others had to be paid first.
It is important to remember here that not all businesses are large corporations with huge salaries. Most businesses fail and the owners lose all that they had invested in it. But many try again and some succeed.
Obama’s statement shows no understanding of what it takes to actually create a business, of the work and sacrifice, often over a period of years and even decades, that is required. He sees only the successful few and desires their money. He seems to have no idea that just because a business did well this year does it mean they were not struggling last year, or will not be struggling next year. He has no idea that his policies are making it even harder for those who are still struggling.
In one sense Obama’s statement is true in that new businesses often do get help to become successful, but that help is rarely from government. Most often it is from the very individuals that Obama seeks to take even more money from. These are the people in a position to afford the goods and services that these new businesses offer. Reduce their disposable income and you reduce the sales of these businesses. This is why taxes are a net drag on the economy, and why tax increases almost always fail to bring in the revenues that politicians expected and in fact frequently result in a revenue declines rather than increases.
But even for those so wealthy that increased taxes do not affect their spending, increased taxes still hurt businesses. This is because the money has to come from somewhere. The wealthy do not keep their money in a lock box under their bed. They invest it, often in new emerging businesses. So Obama’s increased taxes would further hurt businesses for they would directly reduce the amount of money these investors could spend and/or invest, and it would also reduce any rate of return they could expect.
Thus in the end Obama’s campaign of class warfare not only seeks to pit the wealthy against the rest of America, it is doomed to fail, for by making it harder for small businesses to succeed, he is making it harder for them to grow and hire new employees. It is a plan where everyone loses, except possibly government that would only grow larger. But even that cannot continue much longer unchecked.
The Roberts’ Legacy
Whether it was his aim or not, Chief Justice John Roberts has cemented his legacy. As the Chief Justice, the swing vote and author of the opinion upholding ObamaCare, he will be the one most associated with this ruling, a ruling that renders the constitution null and void.
His motives are irrelevant. It is the effect that will be remembered. To the court’s credit, it did rule that ObamaCare could not be supported by the commerce clause, but Roberts’ structuring of the ruling so as to announce this first, will go down in as one of the worse bad jokes in history, for the media quite understandably announced this as it was read, instilling a sense of relief among millions of opponents of the bill, as if toying with them, only to stomp out that relief a few moments later when Roberts invented a new rationale so as to keep the law in effect anyway.
This new rationale is the most insidious part of the ruling. Robert’s ruling did go a long way towards restoring the commerce clause to it proper place. But then it turned around and rendered it and the rest of the enumerated powers, along with the very concept of limit government that is at the core of the Constitution, irrelevant.
Thus in many respects the court had two rulings. The first was that ObamaCare was unconstitutional under the commerce clause. The second was that the commerce clause and the rest of the clauses defining the role of the government are null and void. Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants, or at least whatever the courts lets them. All they have to do is structure it as a tax and they are home free.
Perhaps even worse is the court’s complicity in deception. Supporters of the law were adamant that this was not a tax, and it is almost certain that had it been called a tax, it never would have passed. But even though its supporters declared it was not a tax, and took great pains not to call it a tax, Roberts considered it a tax so as to give himself a fig leaf of justification. Thus we are left with a bill that never could have passed if considered a tax, but could only be constitutional, at least according to Roberts, if it is considered a tax. A very real question is that now that the court has ruled, is it still a tax, or has it reverted back to a penalty?
As I wrote in my post before the ruling, the ruling itself will have little lasting effect on Healthcare. The bill is an unworkable mess and cannot remain as it is. The ultimate fate of health care will be determined by the election in November, not this ruling. This is the real damage of Robert’s ruling. For in justifying what would have otherwise been an unconstitutional act by calling it a tax, Roberts did not really affect the ultimate the fate of health care. But he did effectively ended constitutional rule in the United States.
We are no longer under the Constitution. We are under the Court, ruled by whatever the current majority of the court says, and the court has given the federal government a free hand to do whatever the powerbrokers in Washington D.C. want to do. It should be remembered that ObamaCare was not passed as an exercise of the will of the people. It was rammed through with raw political power against the will of the people. It remains extremely unpopular.
Robert’s ruling breaks new ground and vastly expands the reach of government. By itself it makes a mockery of the concept of a limited government of enumerated powers that was once the law of the land called the Constitution. But history is very clear that this is not the end. This is just the beginning. If allowed to stand, this ruling will now become the foundation for a whole new area of law. Intrusions by the federal government once inconceivable, are now fresh new fields to be explored and developed.
Thus Roberts’ legacy is set. He will forever be the man who killed the Constitution. It only remains to the people, and the election in November, to see if his ruling will be allowed to stand and to see if the Constitution can be resuscitated.
The Fate of the Constitution
As people wait for the Court’s decision on ObamaCare, it strikes me that there is something fundamentally wrong with this entire process. The whole county is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court which will have a major impact, not only on health care, but the election and possibly the future of the country. This is simply wrong. The court should not matter that much.
It does matter because we, as a country, have largely cut our moorings, and it is now left to the court to decide which way we will go. The country as founded in 1776, and organized into a government in 1789, was a limited republic, where power rested with the people. The Constitution and the Bill of Right both enumerated and limited what the Federal Government was allowed to do. The Constitution began with “We the people.”
Understood in this light, the ObamaCare decision is actually a very easy one. The commerce clause limits the federal government to regulating interstate commerce. If not buying something is deemed to be an act, not only of commerce, but of interstate commerce, then the entire principle of the Constitution, one of enumerated powers, is null and void. There would be no practical or perhaps even theoretical limit on what the federal government could do. This is why the oral arguments went so badly for the defenders of the ObamaCare. When it comes to the meaning and intent of the Constitution this should be a no brainer, an easy 9-0 ruling of unconstitutional, where the only real question was how such a law even got passed so as to come before the court.
But rather than a 9-0 ruling of unconstitutional, it will at best be a split decision and the law might even be upheld. The primary reason for this is twofold. The first is that there is a significant group of people who fundamentally reject the government as defined in the Constitution. Rather than a bottom up republic where the most power is vested in the people and the least with the government most distant from the people, the federal government; these people want a top down government. They want a government where power is centralized at the federal level. They want a federal government not only powerful enough, but one that actually does control every aspect of our lives.
Now this, in and of itself, would not be all that bad. After all, the Constitution vested power with the people and contains a provision that allows for the Constitution to be changed. But that brings me to the second problem which is that those who want to change the system do not want to bother with such things as arguing for their positions in the democratic process. Thus for decades they have argued for a new understanding of the Constitution, that of a living document, where the power to change the document does not rest with the people but with judges. Rather than the messy process of submitting an amendment, where they have to convince the country, they have sought change by first convincing judges that they can reinterpret this “living document,” and then asking them to do so.
Thus the ruling on Obamacare will not be 9-0. It will be a split between those who accept the living document view and want Obamacare, or at least a more powerful federal government; those who accept the Constitution as written; and those who are in the middle and could go either way.
When it comes to the fate of Obamacare, in the long term, it really does not matter how the court rules. The election in November will be far more important to the future of health care in America. If Obama wins, the country will move towards single payer, the only real question will be how fast. If Romney wins Obamacare will be repealed, even if it is upheld by the Court. But the Court’s ruling will have a major impact on the role of government and thus the Constitution. Will the original idea of a limited government of enumerated powers get a reprieve, or will it be dealt a death blow. Will we remain a government of “We the people?” Or will we take yet another step towards a government control by “We the Judges?”
Evangelicals and Politics
The recent post at Juris Naturalist, is the sort of thing that drives me crazy. Entitled, Evangelicalism == Christian Legislation, it basically, after a lengthy introduction on Wilberforce and slavery, argues that Evangelicals are too tied to the political process and should instead seek more self-sacrifice in their attempts to deal with societal issues, with the main example being, not too surprisingly, abortion.
A key foundational premise for the author seems to be: “I don’t think morality can or should be legislated.” Thus, all the evangelicals marching in the annual Walk for Life in Washington, D.C., an event that seems to have sparked the post, are misguided as this is not what Christian’s are called to do. We are called to sacrifice, not to legislate.
Now there are a number of problems in this argument, one being that this is not an either/or issue. While I don’t think the particular solution of paying women not to have abortions will work, I agree that the spirit of sacrifice is lacking in the modern church. In fact, many have trouble giving of their abundance, much less anything that might actually be called sacrifice. Thus the question “Where is sacrifice?’ is a very good question and one the church would do well to explore it more deeply.
But that immediately raised a problem in that for the author, sacrifice seems to be only monetary. I have no doubt that many at the march in question sacrificed a lot to be there, including the cost to get there, to be counted as supporting innocent life.
As for the other problems, one that stood out for me was the premise that we cannot and should not legislate morality. While a very common view, this does not change the fact that this view is simply silly. It may sound good on a bumper sticker, but it cannot withstand even the mildest critical analysis.
Now if you agree with the belief that morality cannot/should not be legislated, then simply ask yourself this question: Why do we have laws against murder and theft? For that matter why do we have any laws at all? Virtually every law is either a direct legislation of morality, such as the laws against murder, or an indirect expression of moral values, such as our driving laws being grounded in our value for life, and our belief that it should not be needlessly endangered.
Now lest someone conclude from this that I believe all morality should be legislated, I do not. A key question for people in a democratic form of government is what moral values are considered so important that the power of the state must be used to enforce them.
The author sees legislation, Christian or otherwise, to be “merely another tool for force. “ In this he is correct, though his questioning of whether any legislation “do good, or even do well” is more problematic. Like most things in public life, there is no easy one size fits all answer. In our current era marked by very large, and I would say bloated, government, teetering on the verge of collapse, it is easy to build a case against government action. But the evidence of history is also pretty clear that not enough government can likewise be a bad thing. The difficultly is in finding the right balance.
The discussion over what is the right size for government is a never ending debate that must be fought out and answered on a continual basis. When it comes to abortion, given the central issue of innocent life that is involved, this is as much a matter of legitimate state interest as laws on murder.
Christian involvement in politics is also called for by several other factors, which I will only outline here. The first is that we are to be the salt and light to the world. While I do not believe that these verses are in any way primarily political in their nature, I do not believe that they exclude politics, i.e., that we are to be salt and light, except when it comes to politics.
Second, we are to be subject to the rulers and authorities over us. I do not believe that this duty ceases when the government is a democratic form in which we as citizens have input into the process.
Finally, the period from about 1925 until fairly recently was a period where evangelical Christians largely did withdraw from any active role in our government, though since the 1980s there has been some renewed interest. I, for one, do not think the results of that withdrawal are all that encouraging.
Let me conclude by addressing one of the seeming criticisms the author had of Wilberforce’s efforts on slavery, which by implication he applies to modern efforts to ban abortion; that while it was successful, it was not “a clean win.” While this is true, does this really mean that the effort should not have been made? It is very true that God demands perfection, but he also does not expect us to achieve it in this life. Rather, it is something that we must constantly strive for, particularly in the face of a success.
