Townhall.com Charles Colson
Commentators have been busily trying to explain the weeks of violence that have turned French cities into war zones. Some say it’s a result of high rates of unemployment among youth. Others suggested it is France’s fault for failing to assimilate the children of its mostly Islamic immigrants. Now, while true in part, these are only symptoms of a much deeper problem: France’s loss of moral and cultural vitality.
The unemployment rate among young immigrant men is 40 percent, as nearly every report notes. But no one asks why there is such joblessness. The answer is the economic system that, as writer Elizabeth Eaves puts it, “is eating [France’s] young.”
For the majority of the French, the system is a dream: 35-hour work weeks, six weeks of paid vacation, and a near-impossibility of being fired. The price for this welfare utopia, however, is paid by those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Job creation in France has ground to a virtual halt.
And there’s little chance of changing the system. As Eaves notes, the majority “would choose to keep paying themselves benefits until . . . the rioters have reached the Arc de Triomphe.”
This shortsighted approach has helped to create a permanent class of idle young men. And as any criminologist will tell you, communities filled with idle young men can expect trouble on their streets. Many of the rioters cited “boredom” as one of the reasons they took to burning cars.
Yes, high taxes and big government have a way of doing that.
The prophet Isaiah said: “Woe to you legislators of infamous laws … who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.”
This is exactly what the Republicans in Congress did last night. They slashed aid to the elderly, poor and sick so they could finance another big tax cut which goes overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
Jim Wallis, of Sojourner, writes, “It is a moral disgrace to take food from the mouths of hungry children to increase the luxuries of those feasting at a table overflowing with plenty. This is not what America is about, not what the season of Thanksgiving is about, not what loving our neighbor is about, and not what family values are about. There is no moral path our legislators can take to defend a reckless, mean-spirited budget reconciliation bill that diminishes our compassion, as Jesus said, “for the least of these.” It is morally unconscionable to hide behind arguments for fiscal responsibility and government efficiency. It is dishonest to stake proud claims to deficit reduction when tax cuts for the wealthy that increase the deficit are the next order of business. It is one more example of an absence of morality in our current political leadership.”
Americans – before we criticize the speck in the French eye, we ought to consider the beam in our own. The Republican party has divorced itself from morality and Christ.
Don’t buy the propaganda Dean. Reducing the amount of an increase is not “slashing aid”.
No food, medicine or any other social welfare program was taken away from anyone.
I have to say Sojourner’s stance on issues isn’t that different from the NCC.
Note 4. Sojourners and the NCC are bosom buddies (and aging leftists). Wallis’ scoldings are indistinguishable from Nancy Pelosi’s — except that he likes to add the “prophetic” spin. Makes it seem more credible.
Dean writes: “They slashed aid to the elderly, poor and sick so they could finance another big tax cut which goes overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.”
One interesting proposal on the table is Oregon Senator Ron Wyden’s “Fair Flat Tax Act.”
http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2005/10272005_fair_flat_tax_act.html
Currently wage and investment income are taxed at different rates. Let’s say that a factory worker and teacher make a combined $60,000 per year. The tax rate on their last dollar of income will be 25 percent.
But when Bill Clinton sells stock for a million dollar profit, he pays only 15 percent of that in tax.
Also, the wealthiest people get a disproportionate benefit from the lower tax rate on capital gains. The New York Times reported that for people making less than $100 thousand per year, capital gains and dividends made up 3 to 4 percent of their income — but almost 25 percent of income for those who make between $500 thousand and $1 million — and 61 percent of income for those making over $10 million. In other words, the income of the very richest in the country is taxed at a lower rate than someone one makes, say, $200,000 per year.
Father- why don’t you respond to the message instead of attacking the messenger? Tell us why it not immoral and un-Christian to take away funding for the assistance of the neediest of our neighbors (whom Christ commanded us to help) and give that money instead to the wealthiest among us whose every material need, desire and whim have been satisfied.
Do you realize that there are millions of Christians in the United States like Jim Holman and myself who are literally sick with dispair and anguish over the policies of the Bush administration. The latest polls indicate that Jim and I are not alone.
As I watch the administration defending torture, misleading the nation about a costly, deadly and unnecesary war, punishing whistleblowers and launching McCarthyite attacks on loyal Americans, weakening laws that protect the environment, plunging the nation deeply into debt with fiscal irresponsibility, doling out tax credits and lucrative contracts to political contributors, and pursuing a fiscal policy that punishes the desperately poor on behalf of the obscenely rich, I am overcome with anger and negative emotions that drag me down from the positive spirit and outlook a Christian should have. Among other things, Bush is even having a detrimental impact on my spiritual well being.
Dean, while you have every reason to object to any and all policies of the Bush Administration based on any criteria you feel are relevant you should also try to remember the words of our Savior, “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” Luke also commands us to rejoice in the Lord always. While there are many obstacles to fulfilling the joyful Christian life, we must guard against allowing strictly worldly concerns to overcome us. Politics is always a worldly concern even when it has moral dimensions.
IMO the governement of a country mirrors the desires of the people (even if it is not an elected government). The best way to change the political policy is to change the hearts of the population. Such a task from a Christian perspective is one of evangelism and service.
Share the Good News especially in this time of Advent that Our Lord God and Savior is Incarnate, Crucified for us, raised from the dead, Ascended and shall come again. We particiapte in His saving grace by living a life of repentance in the Church. Salvation is there for anyone to partake of and no one will be turned away who turns to Christ.
I am writing this to remind myself as much as to remind you of the essence of our faith.
God bless you my brother.
Note 7. If Bush is really responsible for the exhaustive litany of complaints you provided, and if he even detrimentally affects your spiritual well-being, well, you certainly have invested a lot of authority in the man. I suggest you take a more clear headed approach.
As for Wallis and the “prophetic” language, well, we’ve heard it before. Three or so decades ago Sojourners, the NCC, almost all left-wingers defended collectivism under the banner of a Marxian social justice. Today the objectives aren’t much different except the Marxian appeals (in their “Christian” variants) have been toned down.
Wallis, in invoking Isaiah, attemtps to invoke the authority of scripture to defend his political ideas. Call him the Pat Robertson of the left. His ideas are wrapped in purported care for the poor, a noble gesture to be sure, but given the failure of collectivist ideas to alleviate poverty his ideas require greater scrutiny than he (and you) give them.
Wallis thinks motives justify ideas. The problem with collectivist experimentation is that too often the results are opposite of what is intended. Look at the institutionalization of poverty that arose out of the Great Society experimentation. We should not return to the failed ideas of the sixties and seventies which have contributed to the creation of a permanent underclass. Bad ideas are bad ideas. Defending them as Wallis does — by invoking natural care for the poor and misusing scripture to position himself as a modern day Isaiah — certainly has emotional appeal, but does nothing to justify his failed ideas.
Note 9: “We should not return to the failed ideas of the sixties and seventies which have contributed to the creation of a permanent underclass”
I’m not sure I’ve heard of a persuasive conservative alternative (actually, any alternative) to our current government assistance programs. Are we talking less aid, no aid, stricter controls around the aid currently given? Pretend that the Heritage Foundation had 100% control over our funds — what’s the plan?
I’m not into instigating class warfare: many of the wealthiest people in this country have earned it and have generated more wealth for others (in addition to doing great good, such as the work done by the Bill Gates Foundation).
However, I guess I haven’t seen a reasonable alternative to taking away some of their money to serve as a safety net for the have-nots.
Are we talking less aid, no aid, stricter controls around the aid currently given?
JamesK we’re talking more aid.
The argument is not over a reduction in aid, but a reduction in the amount of the increase.
Fr. Hans writes: “If Bush is really responsible for the exhaustive litany of complaints you provided, and if he even detrimentally affects your spiritual well-being, well, you certainly have invested a lot of authority in the man. I suggest you take a more clear headed approach.”
The problem with the current administration is not so much what they have done but how they have done it. From the very start the modus operandi has been to withhold and distort information and distribute false information. It has been like this in their dealings with their political opponents, the war in Iraq, social programs, budget, science, and with virtually everything that conflicts with their agenda.
The only way to make rational decisions is with good information. When the well of information is contaminated, we lose the ability to make informed decisions, and we end up with a government that is fundamentally dishonest.
Those who follow the teachings of a person known as “The Truth” should be concerned about this. In addition, rather than bolting the Ten Commandments on to every courthouse in America, we would be better served if the Ten Commandments were put into operation. In particular, we should reflect on the injunction against “bearing false witness,” and understand that it’s larger meaning calls into question the standard operating procedure of this administration.
This is not a left or right issue, but is an issue for everyone who cares about how our most serious decisions are made.
Fr. Hans: “As for Wallis and the “prophetic” language, well, we’ve heard it before. Three or so decades ago Sojourners, the NCC, almost all left-wingers defended collectivism under the banner of a Marxian social justice.”
In some countries, a Marxist analysis may be closest to the truth. When you have a country in which a handful of families control the means of production, and many people are paid just enough so that they don’t starve to death and can come to work the next day, you have the situation that Marx described.
Fr. Hans: “Wallis, in invoking Isaiah, attemtps to invoke the authority of scripture to defend his political ideas.”
I think you have it backwards. People read the many passages in the Bible dealing with the poor and the exploitation of the poor, and as a result they develop political ideas that are formed in that light.
Also, I think your view is rather unfair. If someone fails to invoke the authority of Scripture in support of political ideas, then he’s a secularist. If he invokes Scripture, then he’s dismissed as a liberal using religion as a cover for liberalism. Is the idea that Scripture only supports conservative ideas?
Fr. Hans: “The problem with collectivist experimentation is that too often the results are opposite of what is intended. Look at the institutionalization of poverty that arose out of the Great Society experimentation.”
Any program, social or otherwise, will have both good and bad results. You can’t just focus on the bad and conclude that the program as a whole is a failure. Granted, welfare did not turn out as one would hope in all cases. But I think the beneficial effects far outweighed the bad. Also, you have to look at what would have happened had these programs not been in place. I think what would have happened would have been a disaster.
The only point you made that does not close the circle and thereby shut off debate is the last one about welfare. It allows for a rational look at welfare programs to determine whether they did indeed accomplish what their defenders promised they would. This is a good start, certainly much better than Dean’s approach (which my response addressed) which substitutes a long string of moralisms for clear thinking.
As for the anti-Bush diatribe, your point that correct information is necessary in order to make clear judgments is certainly true, but I don’t see any here. As the late Daniel Moynihan said (a Democrat who thought clearly and spoke truthfully — even when it went against the impulses of his own party), everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
One more comment. One wise sage said that the problem with Marx was that he understood capitalism better than socialism. While the move from medieval feudalism to mercantile capitalism certainly was not without its injustices, your implied assertion that Marxism redresses these grievances ignores the historical record. Marxism has been a failure whereever it has been imposed. It creates more poverty and causes grave injustices — like mass murder. This record is what the religious leftists like Wallis and the NCC refuse to confront, although their abandonment of Marxist rhetoric (but not the collectivist ideas) shows that they are aware of history’s judgment against them.
If you want to see the lengths to which the NCC for example will go to obscure the historical record, read the complaint NCC lodged against an article I wrote critizing them and the editor’s response to its complaint: Conversations with a Prevaricating Christian.
Most social programs are aimed at alleviating the most dire side effects of poverty, not removing poverty altogether. This is an important distinction and one which seems to be ignored when charges of “Marxism” are being leveled. Let’s face it, even after receiving food stamps, these folks are still poor. They’re certainly not living in the Hamptons.
For these accusations of socialism to stick, liberals would have to be suggesting that no one is entitled to a greater standard of living than anyone else. I don’t hear that. No one’s saying that we have to forcibly take Ted Turner’s ranch and turn it into low income housing.
The private sector isn’t really the whole answer, either, if that’s what’s being proposed: keep in mind that while most Americans are quick to assist in a crisis (as seen in the hurricanes down South), they also eventually suffer “compassion fatigue” when bombarded with needs on a daily basis. So, it’s not practical to suggest that we make repeated appeals for funds from the general populace on an ongoing basis. How many solicitations have we ignored from this or that charity calling us at home or sending us fliers in the mail?
So long as the expectations of government assistance are realistic, they serve a necessary need. Poverty will never be eliminated so long as misfortune, hopelessness and yes, even occasionally laziness, exist.
Father,
You’re right. Leftists such as the NCC and Wallis are collectivists who are bent on covering up the dismal failure of Marxist policies. Unfortunately, a large group of neo-Marxists has decided on a much more effective strategy. They have moved into the Republican Party, renamed themselves ‘conservatives,’ and continue to peddle the same collectivist ideas. Only now, those ideas are ‘right-wing.’
Which ‘conservative’ in office is trying to roll back a major ‘New Deal’ policy? Or a ‘Fair Deal’ policy? Or even a ‘Great Society’ program? None. Because the Welfare state is just fine with the Bush Administration. There are no plans to reform or abolish anything. Where is the tax reform? Where is the rollback in federal regulation that strangles our entrepreneurs? Nowhere. None of that is even on the table. To address our energy problems, Rep. Kingston from Georgia (a man I helped elect his first race), proposed more federal subsidies for ethanol, higher federal standards for fuel economy, and more federal grants to develop alternative energy.
A Democrat could have written that proposal. Instead, it was heralded as ‘bold and conservative thinking.’
The Bush Administration wants Americans to give up individual freedom to feed the collectivist impulse for greater security. The Administration continues to fleece tax payers in order to finance collective security arrangements. The Administration believes in ‘fiscal fine tuning’ of the economy through the Fed, in managed trade deals at the WTO, and is waging war to redesign the Middle East a la Woodrow Wilson.
Where’s the conservatism in any of this? Sure, Wallis is a kook. I agree. But I guess the difference between us is that I don’t feel like pretending that ‘our side’ is any better on almost any of these issues.
Glen, very good questions and ones that I’ve been pondering lately as well. I don’t have an answer for you. In fact, I am halfway through F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” and it’s becoming clearer to me how pervasive the collectivist ideal has become. There certainly is the political dimension as you point out, but since we both believe that politics follows culture, and that religion ultimately informs and invigorates culture, you might agree with this idea: collectivism arises out of a truncated awareness of both the responsibility and capabilities of the human person. The inability to recognize the collectivist impulse on both sides of the political divide (and the dangers it portends) may speak to a common malady infecting all of the culture.
“collectivism arises out of a truncated awareness of both the responsibility and capabilities of the human person. “
What does this mean?
Well, it’s rough so be patient. What I am getting at that when men forget God, they look to the state as their guarantor and protector and ultimately their provider. They forget they were created for freedom and choose slavery instead — a lot like Orwell described in “1984”. But this is ultimately a spiritual malady because it deals with a person’s self-awareness, his sense of what it means to be a human being. If the longing for truth, freedom, virtue, repentence and rebirth — all the constituents that give life its meaning — is to take any coherent shape and ultimately find concrete and creative expression, God must be referenced. Deny, forget, ignore, God and something else will takes His place.
Read my article The Artist as Vandal: Culture and the desecration of religious symbols that explains some of these ideas but in a different context. Within this discussion, my implication is that what was forcibly removed by Marxist utopians in the last century is willingly abandoned by some modern Americans today.
Fr. Hans writes: “What I am getting at that when men forget God, they look to the state as their guarantor and protector and ultimately their provider.”
Not sure what to what you refer here. Specifics would help a great deal. In fact, I get a little tired hearing what I believe is my position referred to as “collectivism” without any recommendations for alternatives.
So how about some specifics. Is Social Security collectivism? If so, with what would you replace it? And would that replacement be adequate? Remember, there was a reason why people supported Social Security in the first place.
How about unemployment insurance? Collectivism?
Workers compensation? Collectivism?
Food Stamps?
Medical assistance programs?
Food banks?
Educational assistance — grants and loans?
Medicare?
Drug treatment?
Community mental health?
Child welfare, particularly foster programs?
As our President said, bring it on. You don’t like the status quo, show us the alternatives.
Jim did you know that what you list were charities that were sponsored by churches prior to the 20th century?
By the 1930s the government began assuming these social welfare programs. Because people began seeing the government as their worldly savior.
Jerry writes: “im did you know that what you list were charities that were sponsored by churches prior to the 20th century?”
Some were, but certainly not all. Workers compensation started in the U.S. shortly after the turn of the century, but even that took years to be fully implemented. There were various attempts at retirement programs, but to my knowledge those never got very far.
People often tend to romanticize the time before these programs were in existence. For example, in 1926, my grandfather, whom I never knew, was killed in a prison break at the facility where he was employed as a guard. (Prisoners broke into the armory, stole weapons, and literally shot their way out. My grandfather was shot in the leg, fell from the wall, and a convict then blew his head off with a shotgun.) My father was 16 at the time, and he had to drop out of high school in order to suppport the family, consisting of his mother and two younger siblings. Why? No workers comp. Let me tell you, no one stepped in to give them a dime, church or otherwise. This is the world we want to go back to?
As far as I’m concerned, the origin of any particular program is irrelevant. I don’t care if Jesus and the Apostles implemented the first unemployment program, complete with financial accounting done on papyrus. We’re not there any more.
The question stands: what are the recommendations for TODAY?
Jim,
Is Social Security collectivism? Yes. It was seen in 1935 as the foundation of a welfare state that was decidedly fascistic in nature. Roosevelt was a huge admirer of Mussolini. The first such social insurance plan was actually Prussian in origin. Bismarck used it to blunt workers’ criticism of Prussian militarism. The idea of forcing workers to pay into a mandatory system, rather than allowing them free use of money they earned, is decidedly collectivist.
If so, with what would you replace it? I save for my retirement. You save for yours. Or not, as you or I see fit. Let’s not forget, Jim, that many of the wars you and I are opposed to have been financed by Social Security money. The excess in the system has allowed the government to fight in Vietnam, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere. Social Security is the slush fund that lets Bush run amok in the world today.
And would that replacement be adequate? Remember, there was a reason why people supported Social Security in the first place. Many people supported social security at the depths of the greatest depression in the history of the United States, but rethought that later. It was a dicey thing passing and keeping Social Security, and the program almost didn’t survive until WWII. At that point, the war took people’s minds off the swindle. Samuel Gompers and other union leaders actually opposed the idea from the beginning. They preferred private systems negotiated with employers. Keep Social Security for the needy elderly, but at age 35, I’d be happy to forego the promise of Social Security if we could just stop bleeding me dry.
How about unemployment insurance? Collectivism? Yes. Taxing people to support others is collectivism. I have savings. That is my unemployment insurance.
Workers compensation? Collectivism? Private liability insurance carried by an employer would not be collectivist. When it is forced by the government, then it is. The terms of my employment and any coverage I might have should be between us.
Food Stamps? Of course this is collectivist. I need money to feed my own family. I need money to care for my elderly grandmother. Yet, money is forcibly removed from my paycheck under penalty of a prison sentence to pay for food for others. I give to charity, but should my property be taken from me to support those whose entitlement to it has been determined by a massive poverty-perpetuating bureaucracy?
Medical assistance programs? Yep. I have private insurance. So should everyone else.
Food banks? My church runs one. We pay for it, not the government.
Educational assistance â?? grants and loans? I paid for my undergraduate degree by serving in the Marines. I paid for my MBA by signing an agreement to work for two years for my future employer. There are plenty of ways to pay for school. But in general, all that ‘need based aid’ does is drive up the cost of tuition and expenses. There is no reason for schools to keep costs under control when driving up the costs only gets students more government aid.
Medicare? My life, my responsibility. My family, my responsibility.
Drug treatment? Same.
Community mental health?Same.
Child welfare, particularly foster programs? Used to be the province of churches, who would still do a better job. Seen the stats from Florida lately? The children are safer in abusive homes than in the system.
Jim – the federal government couldn’t be big enough and powerful enough to wage undeclared wars in Iraq and threaten our civil liberties at home, if liberals hadn’t swollen its power with Wilson’s income tax and Roosevelt’s New Deal government programs. That’s just the truth. Bush is taking the tools that liberals gave him and is using them in ways you don’t like. Sorry, he shouldn’t have had this much power to begin with.
Glen writes: “My life, my responsibility. My family, my responsibility,” & etc.
Ok, thanks very much for the response, so I know what your position is.
First, I would note that your position is very different from Fr. Hans’, to the extent that I understand his position. As I understand you, the issue isn’t whether the programs listed above are effective or well-run. Nor is the issue necessarily even what the world would look like without them. Rather, the issue is that a) it’s not the legitimate role of government to do any of those things in the first place, b) it’s the responsibility of the individual to secure these things for himself and his family, and c) were individuals able to retain for themselves the tax money spent on these programs, they would be able to afford these things without government help.
Fr. Hans’ position, as I understand it, is not that these programs are illegitimate in the first place, but that they need to be more effective and accountable. For example I don’t think he would oppose welfare programs per se (at least he hasn’t up to this point), but he does oppose what he sees as a kind of fanatical attachment to them that ignores the actual results of the programs. Now if that’s not his position, then he can clarify that for us.
As you can imagine I have a very different view of these programs. that said, I do agree with you that some people, perhaps even the majority of people, could do better on their own without all these programs. Actually, I think I’m probably one of those people.
In the same way, some people will do better to forgo life insurance, because they’re going to live well into their 80s or 90s. The problem is that we don’t know up front who these people are. I don’t know if I’ll live to be 90, or if I’ll be dead before I finish this posting.
In a sense, all of the programs listed above function as a kind of social insurance, in the event that one is overtaken by unfortunate circumstances. Some of these circumstances are such that all the saving and pre-planning will not be enough.
People get sick. They die. They have profoundly disabled children. They are injured in terrible accidents. The stock market goes down. Industries collapse. Hurricanes and earthquakes arrive.
I would suggest that there are many life events that can simply overwhelm a family regardless of any prior preparation, unless you’re talking about a family with almost unlimited resources.
Take workers compensation for example. Let’s say we eliminate that requirement. If you’re injured or even disabled your only option would be to sue the employer. So the first issue is, having perhaps paid out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical care, can you afford to hire an attorney. If you can, there’s no guarantee that you’ll win a settlement, because many on-the-job accidents are not really anyone’s fault. When you’re a choker setter on a logging crew, and the wrong cable snaps and you’re crushed by a log, that’s not necessarily anyone’s fault. Even if you win a settlement, can the employer pay it? Some businesses don’t have many assets; everything is leased or rented. Or, by the time your case finally makes it to the courthouse, will the employer even be in business?
In short, in response to my question concerning wheher we should return to a system in which minor children have to drop out of school to support the family when one of the adults is killed, your response seems to be yes, we should.
Jim,
I have no problem with states enacting whatever workplace regulations they see fit. Actually, Worker’s Compensation is a state program, and the requirements vary by state. I think that it really should be based on negotiation between employers and employees, but if individual states want to enter into regulation, then I have no problem with it.
I am a traveling consultant. I have Life and disability insurance through my company. This is not mandated by the government, but is offered as a bonus to gain and retain my services. Were labor markets in the U.S. not constantly undercut by immigration, more positions could be offering such benefits.
But I digress. The main criticism I have of these programs is that they are not legitimate functions of the FEDERAL government. The lead to dangerous expansions of federal power that can be used in horrible ways.
I notice you didn’t respond to my comment about Social Security surpluses being used to fund wars. It’s true, and you know that it is true. Giving Washington the power to do good is also giving it the power to destroy.
The initial Progressive movement in the United States was focused on state regulation and reform. The leader in this was Wisconsin which pioneered a lot of these very social programs under Bob LaFollet.
I don’t get in a snit over PAS in Washington. I don’t live in Washington. I also don’t have a cow over Worker’s Comp regulations in CA, which are much more costly than Florida, because I don’t live in CA. Local people should have the programs they are willing to pay for, but taking tax dollars out of Florida to fund food stamps in Boston (after skimming most of the proceeds off the top to pay salaries for bureaucrats) is just plain wrong.
During the 60’s, recognizing the danger of Washington, a lot of really, really liberal people like Tom Hayden spoke eloquently about federalism as a way of ensuring local control so that more enlightened states could create more livable societies. I’m all in favor of that, as opposed to one-size-fits-all solutions made by government in Washington.
Liberalism has destroyed the traditional “safety net” and substituted dependence on government
On the political side, liberalism promises to make life easier for people by having government assume some of the ordinary burdens, expenses and risks of life. In return for “social security” the people lose control over a large chunk of their paycheck for their entire working life. After this control of this kind is transferred from individuals to government, it is virtually never returned.
On the social side, liberalism works to destroy the traditional safety net. Liberalism teaches that allegiance to nuclear families and extended families is a unwarranted restriction on an personal freedom and fulfillment. The traditional safety net was composed of the nuclear family, followed by the extended family, followed by the Church followed by the local community. These concentric rings of protection, would in most cases, help families hit by disaster. Americans today barely acknowledge a duty to look after their own children let alone their elderly parents or disabled sisters, brothers or cousins.
These trends are complimentary and not co-incidental. Traditional family structure and traditional safety nets are an afront to the natural desire of government to grow until it controls all aspects of life. Social structures which are independent of government funding and government control provide a base for resistance to government, and they must be weakened. So far the plan has worked quite well.
I was greatly disappointed by the mean-spirited ad hominem attacks on Jim Wallis, of Sojourner magazine. Mr. Wallis is a good Christian man who has prodded the political left towards the mainstream center and towards greater understanding with people of faith. Such grossly misinformed and mean-spirited chracterizations cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.
First Jim Wallis is NOT a “Pat Robertson of the Left”. For one thing, Wallis is sane. Unlike Robertson, he has never called for the assasination of a world leader of described terrorist attacks or Hurricanes as God’s punishment on America. While Robertson is a polarizing figure who literally demonizes hiis political opponents, Wallis has long urged reconciliation and reaching out.
Also Wallis is not a “traditional liberal” calling for a return to “failed government policies of the past.” Consider the tile of his last book: “God’s Politics: Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It.” If Wallis was a traditional liberal would he say the “the Left doesn’t get it?”
An essential part of Wallis’s message is that people on the Left must not ignore religion or separate moral discourse and personal ethics from public policy.
“Wallis argues that America’s separation of church and state does not require banishing moral and religious values from the public square. In fact, the very survival of America’s social fabric depends on such values and vision to shape America’s politics – a dependence the nation’s founders recognized says the author”
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050121godspolitics.shtml
That sounds a lot like what Father Jacobse is always saying.
No. 25. Missourian: The flaw in your argument is your assumption that everyone in the world is exactly like you, equipped with exactly the same resources and benefitting from the same opportunities. If we assume that everyone in life begins with the same opportunites, then it is easy to attribute the failure of some to do as well as others to thier own personal faults and faiings and avoid any sense of responsibility for their plight.
In fact, we know that huge disparities exist in the opportunities available to different human beings as they enter the economic arena. Some children have parents who love them – some do not. Some children have parents who can spend time with them – others have parents who to work two or three jobs. Some children have parents who are able to save for their college education; other children turn 18 and go to work. Some children live in suburbs where there are plenty of jobs; other live in impovershed inner city or rural areas where very few employers are located.
Christians are not allowed to look down from lofty moral perches upon the less fotunate sneering superiority. The Pharisees in Jesus’s parable-lessons do that. Christians are required to identify with the poor and defend their interests with all means possible.
In the ideal world perhaps, strong families and compassionate communities would make government assistance to the poor unneccesary. But just look at the headlines “GM to cut 30,000 jobs”, for example. In the real world, the magnituide of socio-economic forces leaving millions of human beings economically marinalized and dispossed require stronger and more systematic responses.
One reason GM is cutting 30,000 jobs is that fact that it cannot keep pace with the econmically unrealistic health and pension benefits extorted from them by selfish unions oft times in bed with organized crime. Which is not to say I support the proposition that what is good for GM is good for the United States. They have made coporate decisions that are rapacious and greedy exploiting workers in the past, but the fact of the matter now is that the benefits workers have received, in part due to past wrongs are no longer econmoically realistic. Often times unions will put a company out of business, loosing all of the jobs rather than accept cuts.
There was a union in eastern Kansas that went out on strike because the prescription co-pay was increased from $2 a prescription to $10. Stupid.
Christians are not allowed to look down from lofty moral perches upon the less fotunate sneering superiority. The Pharisees in Jesus’s parable-lessons do that. Christians are required to identify with the poor and defend their interests with all means possible.
Been reading a little Liberation theology lately Dean?
What is your basis for this so called Christian teaching?
God’s Democrat: The Church of Jim Wallis.
Back Down Memory Lane At Berkeley.
I read Sojourners. Basically is an NCC copy but a bit less restrained. The ideas are eclusively left wing, except for the support of restrictions on abortion which is a necessary concession given the radical pro-abortion stand is hurting the Democrats.
Note 29. Everytime the religious left is challenged on its presumptive moral posturing, it accuses its detractors of moral superiority. Nice deflection, but nothing more.
Note 27,Not Fair, Dean
I don’t think your note is fair Dean. I described the moral universe of America pre-WWII. I know of this from my parents with whom I was very close and often discussed these things. Unfortunately, they have passed away but if they were here they could tell you that what I described as the “traditional safety net” is what they grew up with.
Society as a whole taught this set of values. Society as a whole accepted this set of values. My parents told me that you were taught to be ashamed if a member of your immediate family or extended family went without something essential if there was any way you could help them.
I described a traditional safety net that really existed. The first stage of the net was the nuclear family. If the nuclear family could not meet the needs of its members, the extended family would then provide help. If the extended family could not meet the needs of its members the Church community would provide help. Lastly, if the Church community could not provide help the local government could help. In the Middle Western States of America, the unit of government that provided personal welfare help was the County. The officials who administered emergency aid knew everyone in town. It was difficult to abuse the generousity of the community because everyone knew everyone. They could distinguish between a loafer and a widow hit by misfortune.
I don’t think that I held myself out as superior to anyone. I think you tend to have more faith in government then in the teachings of the Church which direct us to care for our families, our extended families, those in our Church community and local community. If we all did that, all would receive the care that is needed without selling out souls to a omnipotent government.
Note 27 GM has the largest health and pension system in the U.S. other than the government
Dean, since WWII, GM workers have been ably protected by a vigorous union. Union workers at a local plant in my metropolitan area make $30,000 to start and can progress to $35,000 after two years. AFter 10 years they can earn $45,000 for essentially low-skilled assembly line work. The health and safety practices in GM plants are very advanced. I have visited one in Bowling Green, Kentucky. It was clean, bright and quite quiet in most of the plant.
G.M. carries the heaviest health system and pension system in America after the U.S. government. It administers billions of funds for retired workers.
The union philosophy is always “I’ve got mine, Jack.” G.M. has to compete against world labor in Japan, Korea and soon China. I suppose that you will be happy if GM goes bankrupt, after all the corporations are the source of all evil in the world so the sooner they all go bankrupt the better.
Note 32. Does the fact that 66% of all black children are fatherless mean anything?
There is cultural poverty and material poverty. Many people came to America with nothing but the clothes on their back and some fractured English, however, they were culturally rich with religious belief and dedication to work and family. If you answer that the immigrants did not face racial discrimination, I would remind you that the Irish faced intense religious and nationality based discrimination. Many Asian American faced similar discrimination, but they overcame. I agree that in a good world, no one should have to overcome, but the point is that CULTURAL WEALTH teaches people to overcome adversity not wallow in it.
What do you think the impact of fatherlesness is? What do you think happens to young men who have no one to imitate except rap artists and athletes? We know what happens, we have a black crime rate that is 9 times higher than the white crime rate. This is cultural poverty. There is food aid and housing aid available for people in America. The crime rate comes from CULTURE.
I would also point out that BLACK IMMIGRANTS from the Carribean and from Africa, do better economically that African Americans whose families have been here for generations. Somehow these new immigrants managed to overcome whatever racism still exists here. The statistics are embarassing and are seldom discussed. There is nothing as lethal as a defeatist, “the world owes me a living” attitude. This is the attitude fostered by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Lastly, please note that I am not advocating the abolition of all publicly funded safety nets. I would like to see a serious reform of those safety net programs with greater emphasis on job training and productivity for all who can do some useful work. I am not advocating a total return to the 19th century. I am just pointing out that life was possible without the “parent government” of today.
Glen writes: “I notice you didn’t respond to my comment about Social Security surpluses being used to fund wars. It’s true, and you know that it is true. Giving Washington the power to do good is also giving it the power to destroy.”
It’s a misuse of funds which should be retained within the scope of the program. I don’t see that as an argument against Social Security any more than a misuse of military force is an argument against having a military.
Missourian writes: “The traditional safety net was composed of the nuclear family, followed by the extended family, followed by the Church followed by the local community. These concentric rings of protection, would in most cases, help families hit by disaster.”
I think you have a very romantic idea of the past, especially when hard times hit an entire region, as in the dust bowl migration of the 30s. Also, even to the extent that the safety net you describe actually functioned, it certainly would not function the same way today. We are a much more mobile society, and any more the extended family that all live close by is the exception, not the rule.
In addition, people simply face different challenges than they did in the past. We have a different kind of society. You can take grandma in to live with you, but you’re not going to be able to pay for grandma’s coronary bypass or dialysis.
Fifty years ago someone with some high school education had everything he needed for a career and a family. Today family-wage jobs typically require much more training, often a gradute degree or other kinds of technical training. Most students need grants and loans just to get in the door of a college. In the late 70s and early 80s I worked my way through college as a blast freezer operator in a cannery. My wage then expressed in 2005 dollars was about $20 per hour. Today those jobs are gone, and college students are working for $8 per hour at Blockbuster Video.
Personally, I have no interest in the growth of government per se. I pay taxes just like everyone else, more than I care to think about. But my concern is what kind of society we want to have. I like the idea that poor people can still get medical care. I like the fact that we don’t have crippled people begging in the streets. And so on. This seems to me to be entirely consistent with the Gospel. Two thousand years ago, had the Roman government decided to implement a food assistance program in occupied Israel, I can’t imagine Jesus saying “Stop that! It’s not the role of the government to help poor people!”
Most scholars believe that in his early years Jesus was a carpenter, since Joseph was a carpenter. Today we think of carpenters as well-paid craftsmen. But two thousand years ago a carpenter was less than a dirt farmer, essentially a landless peasant, always on the edge of survival. Had Jesus arrived today he would have been a landscaper, or a fry cook. The Apostle says that “he became poor, that you through his poverty might be rich.” Had Jesus been around today, his perspective would not have been that of the executive or the professor, or even the technician. His perspective would have been that of the janitor.
The same epistle talks about giving: “For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality: As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.”
Some would point out, and rightly so, that the above was spoken to the church, not the government. But I believe the words of the Apostle go beyond even the church. He offers a miraculous and spiritual story that occurred eons earlier, somewhere in a desert in the ancient Near East, and gives it a profoundly moral interpretation that surpasses any particular group or identity.
To the extent that we Americans aspire to be a Christian people, I think the above words are something that we should seek to instantiate as much as we can, whether in our personal lives, or in our collective lives as a nation. Those of us who have “gathered much,” need to make sure that those who “gather little” are not left behind. That doesn’t mean that we waste money on ineffective or destructive programs, but it does mean that our PRIMARY concern has to be for others, not for ourselves. When this concern is expressed in our collective governmental programs, I see that as a good thing.
Oh get real Jim. Democrats used excess Social Security funds as a slush bucket to fund wars and other programs. The Republicans have done the same thing. If neither party can be trusted to not use this money in nefarious ways, then what do you propose? How are you supposed to exercise control or oversight over the Federal Government NOW when no one has managed it in the past?
Medicare is on track for bankruptcy in 2019. Social Security will be there by mid-21st Century. Every single advanced welfare state is in a state of decay, including our own.
Now, granted, I’d rather spend money on Grannies than on the Pentagon. (Don’t get me started on waste, fraud and abuse in that pit.) But the fact is, spinning money through Washington only results in massive waste and fraud, even in the best of cases. Look at the ‘bridges to nowhere’ in Alaska, which are being built only because a powerful Republican congressman has the pull to get the money. This problem is pandemic.
We spend tax money on bio-hazard suites for Montana, even though terrorists can’t even find the state on a map. Welfare and educational programs in vote-rich areas get large budgets, the rural poor get shafted. Try talking to trailer-park dwellers in rural America about the joys of the current WIC system.
Oh, by the way, most of my family lives below poverty. I’m the first college graduate in at least 100 years. I have some experience with this topic. I grew up in a wood frame house in South Georgia with no air conditioning. My parents eventually bought a double wide and are now living in the best conditions of their lives – with an A/C unit that most people today take for granted. I know what scraping feels like, and I also know what it means to struggling families, only just above the poverty line, to have some much of their earnings sucked up in sales taxes, Social Security taxes, property taxes, ad velorum taxes, and income taxes.
In trying to help the poor, you dogpile the lower middle class. Trust me, been there, and it sucks.
If all massive, welfare states misuse money and are bordering on bankruptcy, then don’t you think there is a problem here? A really, really big one?
Look – my basic premise is that you can’t trust politicians, especially remote and unaccountable ones. Are you saying I’m too cynical? That we should trust George Bush or Harry Reid to do the right thing with billions of dollars? Remember Haliburton – that is a bi-partisan problem since as many Democrats benefitted from Balkans contracts as Republicans have from Iraqi ones.
You make some good points. We do need to take care of the poor and the elderly. That is an obligation I am willing to undertake. But there has to a be a better way. HUD can’t be the best idea going, for example. Ever visit a public housing project? Social Security isn’t so hot either.
Come on, Jim. Think. Massive, money wasting bureaucracies that encourage rent-seeking behavior on the part of greedy business men and spawn massive lobbying industries CAN NOT be the best way that you can think of to help our fellow man. If they are, then we are really just in a world of hurt.
Glen – You describe two big government models which are both corrupt and corrosive to our democracy, but which are also fundamentally different in their objectives and should be thought of as distinct.
The first big government model is the old liberal welfare state that saw more government spending as the the solution to every social problem. While there may have been an initial need for government assistance, no effort was made to promote personal responsibility and self reliance in recipients of government programs or wean them away from dependency on public aid. Many of these programs suffered from waste, inefficiency and a lack of accountability. Public employee unions were allowed to exercise excessive influence and played a role in hindering greater efficiency.
The second big government model is the one we have now, is the “pay to play” model, in which government serves as the tool of powerful economic interests. In this model government continues to spend money in a grossly inefficient and unaccountable manner, but the beneficiaries are not unions or the poor, but corporation who, through the influence of their money and influence on Capitol Hill, are able to recieve special government subsidies, tax breaks, lucrative no bid contracts, and other forms of consideration. A perfect example was the Medicare Drug bill where government was specifically prohibited from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. Former representative Billly Tauzin (LA-R), who wrote the bill, immediately left Congress after it passed and took a job with a seven figure salary wotking for a Pharmaceutical trade organization.
Glen writes: “But the fact is, spinning money through Washington only results in massive waste and fraud, even in the best of cases.”
All things considered, I think having the Social Security program is far better than not having it. I’m not sure that you would see anything different were it farmed out to the individual states. And if you completely privatize retirement, you run the risk of millions of people ending up destitute through a drop in the stock market, fraud, etc.
That said, I’m not a die-hard Social Security fan. If a better idea comes along, I’m all for it. I just don’t see privatizing everything as a superior idea. Especially not during the Shrub administration. Whenever Shrub does anything, you know that his friends and cronies will benefit most of all.
Glen: “Look at the ‘bridges to nowhere’ in Alaska, which are being built only because a powerful Republican congressman has the pull to get the money.”
And then the Democrats vote for it. . . . I already sent a note to my Democratic senator and told him that I won’t be voting for him this time. Not that he cares. But there are limits, and this thing pegged the needle on the stupidity meter, even without the war, the deficit, Katrina, etc.
Glen: “Look – my basic premise is that you can’t trust politicians, especially remote and unaccountable ones.”
Well, I have liberal friends who gnash their teeth and rend their garments over this stuff too, who would be happy if the Bridge to Nowhere were built and then decorated with the dead bodies of everyone who voted for it. But this stuff cuts across everything, not just social programs. It cuts across liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat. When Ted Stevens said he would resign from the senate if the Bridge to Nowhere money were taken away I could only think “one down, ninety-nine to go.”
Glen: “But there has to a be a better way.”
I’m all ears. I just don’t think that we can pull the plug on all these programs until the better idea comes along. And we can’t lump all social programs together. Some are very effective, some aren’t.
President Bush makes me nervous, of course. That being said, I don’t think either side of the aisle does a particularly good job managing money, though the Dems seem to slightly less rapacious as of late.
Another problem with federal spending isn’t that it simply redistributes wealth (after taking a huge cut off the top to pay for federal employees) between classes. It also redistributes between states:
“During fiscal 1999, taxpayers in New Mexico benefited the most from the give and take with Uncle Sam. New Mexico residents received $1.97 in federal outlays for every $1.00 they paid in federal taxes. In effect, federal benefits almost doubled the state’s tax payment. Other states with high federal spending-to-tax ratios include Montana ($1.73), West Virginia ($1.72), Mississippi ($1.69), and North Dakota ($1.65). Though not comparable as a state, the District of Columbia is by far the biggest winner: in 1999 it received $6.71 in federal outlays for every dollar its taxpayers sent to the U.S. Treasury.”
The current system sucks money out of states like NY and Connecticut, sends it Washington, takes a chunk off the top to pay for a bloated bureaucracy, and then sends it back to states, with some winning the lottery and others getting pegged to the wall.
The system by which this happens is inherently politically driven. Poor people in Connecticut are just as needy as those in Tupelo, Miss., but their aren’t enough federal dollars to go around. So some will win, others will lose. Some states will have to bear a higher burden than others for social programs.
Ironically, the highest burden tends to fall on ‘blue states’ who are usually net contributors of tax dollars, that are then spent in ‘red states’ who are committed to ‘limited government.’ Consider it, if you will, ‘foreign assistance.’
Anyway, I think we have beat this whole thing to death. The fact is, that I think we would all agree that the current highly politicized environment is not conducive to running anything out of Washington in a logical fashion. Not that, I think, it was ever really any better. After all, they don’t call Robert Byrd ‘Senator Pothole’ for nothing, and he has been at this game a long, long time.
I think it is time to look for better solutions. But that isn’t what is happening right now, especially with Bush in office. Too many marriages end in divorce? Bush wanted federal sponsored marriage counseling. Too many new cases of AIDS? Yep, Bush wanted a new federal program. New Orleans got creamed by a hurricane? Bush wanted to spend hundreds of billions to rebuild it under federal oversight. Take a look at Washington if you think the Federal government can build a city.
So there won’t be any bold new insights from the President. His idea is to federalize everything, and run the whole enterprise into the dirt. That’s why I keep hoping that liberals, fed up with a Republican-run Congress and White House, will get creative at a state level and come up with some cool new stuff.
I’m still waiting, though.
Great article on the problems in Germany today at Lew Rockwell’s site. The article is written by a German consultant, and is quite eye opening.
Having lived in Poland, a land of high taxes and socialized medicine, I concur with this article’s diagnosis of German problems.
Sorry, forgot to post the link: lewrockwell.com