Listening to a political discussion carried on NPR this morning, I noticed the analysis of various subjects - the trees - seemed to lose sight of some overall concepts - the forest.
The conservative panelist justified the rejection of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 on the grounds that "we need to pay for it" and the bill didn't do so.
Moments later, he defended tax cuts because, well, just because, so far as I could tell.
If one steps back to view the fiscal and moral forest, the current GOP position seems to be that we have to "pay our way" in meeting our moral obligations to help those in need, and at the same time they argue that we have to cut back on our ability to do so.
Is the supposed need to "pay our way" the real justification for the Republican Party's rejection of the bill?
"Pay our way." How many people borrow to buy a house? A car? Pay college tuition? Buy that big screen TV.
That is all "good" economics (borrow our way) because it serves business - aka mammon.
Should we borrow to help those in need? The answer of too many these days is not only "No" but "Hell no!"
One current GOP idea is that the nation should manage its finances the same way a family does.
How many families in modern America don't borrow for both important and frivolous reasons?
Not to suggest that helping the poor is a frivolous undertaking. Christ certainly didn't think so. And He didn't put conditions on who he helped.
In addition, note that the goals and financial obligations of a family unit are very different that of a government.
How many families would adopt the "mission statement" of the US Constitution as their family credo:
"To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Is the supposed need to "pay our way" the real justification for the Republican Party's rejection of the bill?
Perhaps Stephen Colbert indirectly provided the answer when he said:
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we have got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition."
Charity is a tourniquet, it is not a substitute for policy. Crisis intervention is appropriate when there's an unplanned for crisis, but when we have a crisis that exists every day, that doesn't go away with intervention and the passage of time, then we need policy that will permanently address the crisis. I think that when 25% of the nation's children have insufficient nutrition when they don't get 2 meals at school, there's something that needs fixing. When we've just transited 10 years where the fix was to give huge tax breaks to people with huge incomes, and nothing is better for those children, we need to craft a better policy.
ReplyDeleteWelfare is funded by money stolen from its rightful owners and given to those the government deems worthy. This is charity funded against the will of the individual (i.e. American national welfare, wealth redistribution, is inherently unconstitutional). Thievery in the name of welfare is wrong and immoral and should not be lawful, regardless of good natured intent of the thief. If you want to debate a Constitutional amendment, that is another subject worthy of discussion.
ReplyDeleteAn individual's income is their private property. Our republican government was instituted with the obligation to protect private property.
2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
Austin
>>Welfare is funded by money stolen from its rightful owners ....
ReplyDeleteWell, if you are a Christian, it all belongs to God. If you're a Methodist, the Book of Discipline specifies that we hold our property in trust.
If you're a member of the society, you understand that we each owe the society for the benefits it provides.
Do away with "welfare" and you'll drive the crime rate up.
>>Our republican government was instituted with the obligation to protect private property.
Actually, the only references in the constitution to private property are in the VIII amendment - which requires just compensation when private property is taken for a public use and the XIV, which provides that private property cannot be taken without due process of law.
The recent right wing meme that "it's all mine and taxes are theft" is extreme.
I'll be happy to discuss scripture.
That 2 Thessalonians 3:10 verse is a pretty strong argument against inherited wealth.
Wanna show all the scripture where Jesus qualified the recipients of His healing and love?
Take you time....
>>Charity is a tourniquet, it is not a substitute for policy.
ReplyDelete>>I think that when 25% of the nation's children have insufficient nutrition when they don't get 2 meals at school, there's something that needs fixing.
Yes, we have a system which screws people at the bottom - until our system is adjusted so that all people get justice, and our system delivers justice, you're absolutely right, "there's something that needs fixing.
>>When we've just transited 10 years where the fix was to give huge tax breaks to people with huge incomes, and nothing is better for those children, we need to craft a better policy.
I agree.
BTW, you mentioned 2 Thessalonians
You might want to take a look at Acts and the first Christian community they shared ownership and property.
Christian history tell us that one reason Christianity grew as it did was because Christians helped the needy - a completely new concept at that time.
Christianity is pretty tough to really follow in 21st Century America
Starting w/the Constitution. Precisely because there is no mention of private property until the "takings clause," validates my point. Unless there is a provision granting authority to the general government or a prohibition of authority to the states or the people, the subject is left to the states or to the people. Confiscation of property for wealth redistribution for welfare is not Constitutional.
ReplyDeleteYou are arguing for government appropriation of property, not Biblical charity. The issue isn’t charity, but property rights. If the Bible rejects the notion of a right to property, then you may have a basis for your perspective. However, I don't recall any verses in the Bible mentioning a grant of authority over charity to the state on behalf of God. The Bible commands "thou shall not steal" and states that earth is God's. We agree on the second part at least.
Accordingly, humans are stewards of God’s property who must not plunder for the sake of plunder and are accountable to him, not to the state, for the disposition of that property. Are there any earthly punishments for disobeying? Punishment occurs when one is judged in Heaven. The Bible commands charity for the poor and condemns the parsimonious, but it does not grant authority to the state to act on God’s behalf to redistribute wealth.
The Law by Frederick Bastiat:
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.