The Deal: Strike One
As the dust settles form the last minute settlement to avoid a government shutdown, it is clear, at least to me, that Boehner came up short. From a campaign promise of $100 billion, House Republicans bargained themselves down to $61 billion, which was reduced even further in the negotiations with the Democrats to $38 billion. As for the riders, Boehner did not get a single one.
The bottom line seems to be that Boehner simply was not going to let the government shutdown. In the run up to last Friday’s deadline Democrats were eagerly looking forward to a shutdown, while Republicans grew increasingly fear full. Both sides were looking back at the last shutdown, which, in the mythology of the beltway, has come to be seen as a disaster for the Republican, even though in the next election they held on to the house, losing only two seats.
Even going back to Reagan, Republicans have demonstrated a huge reluctance to shut down the government. Reagan complained about the size of the budgets that Congress put before him, but in the end he signed them because he had to, for otherwise the government would shut down.
The Democrats play this game very well. They know Republicans are likely to blink, and therefore they like large packages of bills. The bigger the consequences of a shutdown, the better the Democrats like it. Thus when Republican passed a bill to pay the military through the end of the year, Democrats refused to act on it. They would rather risk troops in the field going without pay than put NPR or Planned Parenthood at risk.
Boehner, and some other Republicans, claim this is just a first step, and that the amounts of money being cut here, while historically significant, were minuscule when compared with the true scope of the problem. In this they are correct, as $38 billion is only about 1 week’s borrowing. These House Republicans point to the bill on raising debt limit, and next year’s budget as better places to stand and fight, with somewhat vague assurances that they will. Let’s hope so.
A congressman not happy with the deal, John Campbell, being interviewed on Hugh Hewitt’s show last Friday stated that based on the testimony of economist the country has somewhere between 2-5 years, possibly even less, before the house of cards that is the federal deficit brings the economy crashing down. A few worried investors are already beginning to get out of federal treasuries.
So for the three major chances to truly get the federal budget under control, the congressional Republicans have let the first opportunity go by them for a strike, refusing to even swing. They have two more opportunities. Next up: the debt limit.
Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?
Some Christians believe that Baptism is necessary for one to be saved. Supporters point to Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn’t believe will be condemned.” (ISV) Here, they claim, Jesus commands that we be baptized. As one supporter put it,
“How much clearer must we have it said by the Lord Himself than this… Why would Jesus tell His disciples to baptize if it were not necessary? Don’t you think that if the Lord had intended baptism to be optional that He would not have made such a strict command out of it here.”
The problem, however, is that it could have been clearer. Notice that only belief is mentioned in both parts of statement. Thus to be clearer Mark could have written the second half as “but whoever doesn’t believe or is not baptized will be condemned.” That would have been very clear. It would also be clearer if baptism was consistently mentioned as a requirement for salvation, but it isn’t. There are many passages which discuss what must be done to be saved that do not mention baptism.
When Jesus was directly asked in Mark 16:16, “‘What must we do to perform the actions of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the action of God: to believe in the one whom he has sent.’” (ISV) If baptism were required, why didn’t he mention it? If Baptism were required for salvation, how could Paul say that Christ is not send him to baptize? (1 Cor 1:17)
But there is a deeper issue here, one that goes to the core of how we are saved. Eph 2:8-9 says, “For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God and not the result of actions, to put a stop to all boasting.” (ISV).
Salvation is God’s work in us. We can accept it or we can reject it, but we cannot earn it. The real problem with saying that baptism, or any other work, is required for salvation is that it means that Christ death on the Cross is insufficient; that something else is needed. It would hold, contrary to Eph 2:8-9, that salvation is not completely a gift but something that must be earned, at least in part, as the result of the action of being baptized. One can believe that Baptism is necessary, or one can believe Eph 2:8-9. It is not possible to hold both and remain consistent.
Does this mean that we don’t need to be baptized? As the supporter above asked, “Why would Jesus tell His disciples to baptize if it were not necessary?” Jesus commanded a lot of things, if we took all of them as requirement for salvation, we truly would be putting ourselves back under the law. Fundamentally this confuses what is important with what is required.
But if they are not required for salvation, why do we follow them? John 14:21-24 lays this out. As verse 23 says, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word.” We are not baptized to be saved. We do not avoid sin to be saved. We do on serve others to be saved. If we do any of this to earn salvation, our works will be as filthy rags. Rather we should do all of this and more, out of love. We serve our Lord and Savior because we love him. A gift offered to earn something will be judged based on its merit, a gift offered in love, will be judge based on the love in which it was offered.
I have a painted rock sitting on my desk. It has sat there for over two decades now. It is not some expense piece of abstract art. And for many people, it is just a rock with sort of face on it. But for me it is very valuable. This is because it was given to me by my daughter, and it was given in love.
That is how God looks at our works as well. Not for their intrinsic merit, but for the love in which they are offered.
The Problem With Unions
Unions have been in the news quite a bit lately, with Wisconsin at the head of 37 states seeking to limit the impact of state employee unions on their strained budgets. For the unions, given the decline in union membership over the last several decades, the fight is a matter of life and death, as government is about the only place they are still growing.
An obvious question is that if unions are so good, why are they in such trouble. Union members often blame the oppression of business for their problems, but rather than an explanation of the problem, that union members give this explanation is itself an indication of the real problem.
In the 19th century, unions battled real problems. The transformations of the economy brought about by the industrial revolution radically changed the relationship between the employer and employee and it took a century for society to adapt to the new circumstances. Union played an important role in this process.
For decades now, these problems have been addressed, and many of the union’s demands have not only been accepted, but were put into law. More importantly, businesses have continued to develop and grow. Thus, most businesses in the 21st century bear little resemblance to the businesses unions battled against in the 19th. The Robber Barons of old have, for the most part, been replaced by CEOs who focus includes things like stakeholders and how to improve employee retention. But while businesses have changed, many unions have not.
This is the core of the current problem with unions: while the world has changed around them, they are still fighting the battles of the past. Worse still, the adversarial tactics and strategies they employ against management are not only anachronistic; they are counter-productive in the current business climate. The current business environment is much more competitive, much more customer and market focused, and one in which change is far more rapid, than in the early days of unions.
Many unions, however, seek more pay and benefits, without any corresponding improvements in productivity, all the while locking in numerous work rules, greatly limiting companies’ ability to adapt to changes in the marketplace. When faced with the short-term threat of a strike, many businesses have sacrificed the long term health of their company.
Thus much of the decline in union membership has been from companies and industries failing because union contracts simply priced them out of the market or kept them from adapting to changes in the marketplace.
Given the marketplace pressures, the only place that unions have done well is in government which is not directly subject to such pressures. Yet they are not completely immune. The constant push by unions for increased pay, benefits, and regulation of the workplace has had an effect in government as well, creating an imbalance where public sector workers get paid a third more than private sector workers, while getting over two thirds more in benefits. As a result, in public schools for example, before public sector unions we spent a lot less, but taught a lot more. Schools had music programs, sports programs and did not struggle getting textbooks and other school supplies.
A big part of the problem is that public employee unions have become major political forces. They throw their support behind politicians who, once elected, are then beholden to them. The resulting huge imbalance that has emerged between public and private sector workers, while certainly not the only factor, is part of the financial problems faced by so many states, particularly those with long term contract and built in raises which limit the state’s ability to deal with deficits.
In the past, states dealt with the problem by simply raising taxes in order to pay for union contracts. But like the proverbial straw and the camel’s back, many states have already raised taxes so high that those with money are fleeing to lower tax states. Yet even with their high taxes, states still have huge unfunded commitments to unionized employees. Just as unions have bankrupted so many companies, they are now bankrupting many states.
Still, unions demand ever higher taxes, and often seem to have convinced themselves that it will only be the rich and greedy businesses that will pay them. But private sector workers pay taxes as well; so do retired people living on fixed incomes. When public employees unionize, they may be negotiating with politicians who are beholden to them for their offices, but it is the general public who will be left with the bill.
While many public sector workers like to delude themselves with the grandiose ideas of how much money they could make in the private sector, their pay and benefits far exceed their private sector counterparts. Their demands that taxes be continually raised to maintain their high level of benefits, is little more that a demand that those who are far worse off than they are, do with even less, so that they can have even more.
So is it any wonder that there is a growing movement to limit public sector unions?
President Palin?
As 2012 begins to come onto the horizon, two question will take on increasing importance for Republicans, will Sarah Palin run for President, and possibly more important, can she win. The first is really up to Sarah Palin. She is the one that will ultimately make the decision one way or the other. On the will-run side is the fact that she is in a very unique position. People with a far less chance of winning the Presidency than she has, have found the opportunity hard to resist. On the other hand, despite what her critics say, she has shown considerable political savvy, far more than many of her pundit critics, and she may decided that she has more power and influence as a “potential” candidate, somewhat along the lines of Newt Gingrich in previous years, someone who early on seems to be running but never quite pulls the trigger. Finally, she may decide that she is still young, and to wait for 2016 or 2020 or even later. She has the time to wait.
That brings us to the second, and possibly more important question, can she win? The short answer is: of course she could. This should not be taken to mean that she is by any means a slam dunk, as she could also lose. The first issue is whether or not she is qualified to be president. She certainly meets the Constitution’s formal requirements, but does she meet the informal requirements of voters? Here again the answer is yes, at least when compared to past presidents. To see this one has only to look at the current President.
Obama had been a community organizer who had been elected to state senate, and then was U.S. Senator for less than half a year when he began running for President. He had no executive experience, and before being elected President his political experience had been in winning races where his main opponent had been kept off the ballot, Chicago style.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand was a successful mayor of a small town, and then went on to become Alaska’s first woman governor and its youngest. As an executive, she has a record of bring spending under control, fighting corruption, and getting things done, all with an approval rating in the 80s. This is what made her a rising star in the party and ultimately brought her to the attention of John McCain.
In fact, probably nothing reveals a person’s bias more than the claim that Obama was qualified, but Palin is not. Granted, there are people who think neither are/were qualified, a position bolster as Obama’s lack of experience has become clear in his handling of the presidency. Still, they are not really comparable as Obama had no executive experience, while Palin has a good record, even if a somewhat limited one.
But ultimately people do not vote for President based on resumes. If we assume for the moment that Palin does run, she will be judged on how she runs her campaign. To be sure, she will have to overcome the extremely negative press bias against her. If she is unable to do that, she will not even win the nomination.
Right now most of her critics view her through the lens of the Couric interview and Saturday Night Live skits. In fact, for many Tina Fey is Sarah Palin. But if she does run, people will begin to see her, not Fey. She will have to be very careful not to play into her critic’s image, but she has shown an ability to go over the heads of the press connect and with voters not seen since Reagan. So while the vicious press coverage, and sheer hatred of her on the left, means she will start out in a hole, she has, at least potentially, the tools to overcome this and go on to victory. It is important to remember that President Carter wanted to run against Reagan because the Democrats bought into their own political rhetoric and believed that he was, in Speaker O’Neil words, an “amiable dunce.”
So if Sarah Palin runs, she could win, but it is still only a maybe. The simple fact is that there are four main factors in any Presidential election: The candidates, their campaigns, the mood of the people, and events. For the sake of argument let’s assume the candidates are Obama and Palin and both will run good campaigns, as both have run winning campaigns in the past and no one sets out to run a bad one.
As for events, they are really unknowable. After all, one of McCain’s strongest points and probably the reason he won the nomination was his strength in foreign policy and military affairs. While known as a budget hawk, he himself admitted that he was weak on the economy. Following the conventions, McCain was in the lead, and so he looked like a good choice. Then the markets locked up, and TARP shifted the focus to economics, McCain’s weak area, and the campaign was lost. What will the events be around 2012? No one knows.
That brings us to the mood of the people, while also unknowable and subject to events; this will be the real key for Sarah Palin’s chances. Right now the mood is very much anti-Washington, anti-big government. It is also likely to stay this way, as with a divided government there is not much prospect for change. This is a perfect spot for Sarah Palin, and she does seem to be positioning herself as a real outsider candidate. On the other hand, if the mood changes, she could be running as the outsider when people are looking for an insider who can “get things done.”
So can Sarah Palin win? Certainly, but like everyone else, she has some advantages and some disadvantages, and for her to win will take a lot of hard work, a lot of skill, and ultimately some luck.
How can Christians be Conservative? Part III
The final question, posed to me on how Christians can be conservatives dealt with the issue of how, since they are so against government intervention, can they seek to use government to impose their view of morality on others, in particular with the Pro-Life movement?
While a common question, it has several problems. For one, conservatives are not against all government. There is, for example a difference between libertarianism, and conservatism. Thus there is nothing inconsistent with conservatives seeking to, as the question puts it, “use government to impose their view of morality on others.” But the question is more complex.
When you get right down to it, the slogan “You can’t legislate morality” is just silly. Virtually all laws legislate some view of morality, and thus impose that view on others. It is not that all morals should be legislated, but rather that laws are basically the morals of a society that are believed to be so important; the power of the state should be used to enforce them.
Murder is morally wrong. In fact, it is so morally wrong, we do not want to leave it up to individuals to decide this particular issue for themselves. Therefore, we use the power of the state to enforce the moral view that murder is wrong and to impose that view on others.
What does distinguish conservatives from, on the one hand, liberals, who seem at times to want to right every wrong by passing a law, and on the other hand, libertarians, who often seem to be boarder line anarchist, is that conservatives, for the most part, have different standards depending on the level of government. At the federal level, they are much closer to libertarians wanting very little government. Yet the closer the level of government is to the people the boarder the latitude they give the government to pass laws, and thus in that sense are closer to liberals when you get to local government, at least in their willingness to use government.
For example, while I oppose prostitution, I would also oppose a federal ban on prostitution, as that is not a federal concern. If a state or better yet, a community wants to ban it as in most of the country, or legalize it, as in a few areas of Nevada, then that is their concern.
So how does this come into play with abortion? There are two parts to this question. The first is the closely related, but somewhat different issue of Roe v Wade and the constitution. Many, but certainly not all, conservatives seek the overturn of Roe, and this is very consistent with conservatism in general. This is because an overturn of Roe, would simply remove the issue from the federal level and return it back to the states. Before Roe, abortion was already legal in many states, illegal in others, but the trend was towards legalization at least in cases of rape, incest, or threat to life of the mother.
When it comes to opposition to abortion itself, it really comes down to how one views the fetus. It is biologically alive and genetically a human life distinct from that of the mother. Thus those who are pro-life believe that the power of the state should protect innocent human life in the womb, just like it protects it in a lot of other areas.
Now granted things get very complex at this point because there is not just one human life to consider, but two. Exactly how the rights of the two humans are balanced and in what circumstances one can take precedent over the other, is a matter of consider disagreement and a discussion of this would go well beyond a blog post. But, in short, pro-life conservatives believe that the Declaration of Independence’s claim that we have been endowed by our creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to human life even if it is in the womb.
Thus they don’t see any contradiction is pushing for laws to protect human life in the womb, just like we have laws protecting it out of the womb.
