Ann Romney Asks the Right Question
When Hillary Rosen said that Ann Romney had "never worked a day in her life," it was among the better days of the Romney campaign.
For Rosen—present whereabouts unknown—both revealed the feminist mindset about women who choose to become wives and mothers and brought Ann Romney center stage.
Before a Connecticut audience recently, Mrs. Romney spoke of her reluctance to see her husband pursue the presidency a second time and said she resisted, until she got an answer to one critical question.
"Can you fix it?" she asked Mitt. "I need to know. Is it too late?"
Mitt Romney replied, "No, it's getting late, but it's not too late."
Yet Ann's question lingers. Is it still possible to turn this country around? Or has a fate like that of Europe become inevitable?
If one focuses on the deficit-debt crisis, and what a president can do, the temptation is to succumb to despair.
Consider. The U.S. government spends a peacetime record 24 to 25 percent of gross domestic product. Most of that is expended on five accounts: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other Great Society programs, interest on the national debt, war and defense.
Now assume the best of all worlds for the GOP. Mitt wins, and the party captures the Senate and holds the House.
Would that assure a rollback of the federal budget? And, if so, how?
As Romney is committed to expanding the armed forces by 100,000 personnel, to growing the Navy by 15 ships a year, from today's nine, to raising defense spending to 4 percent of GDP from the present 3.8 percent, defense spending would not be going down but up.
What about interest expense?
Given the Federal Reserve's present policy of holding interest rates near zero, the only way interest on the debt can go—is up.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Great Society would have to sustain almost all of the cuts if the budget is to move toward balance.
But if the Republicans cut current benefits, they would antagonize 50 million seniors already on Social Security and Medicare.
If they cut future benefits, they will anger the baby boomers who are reaching eligibility for these retirement programs at a rate of 300,000 a month, 10,000 a day, and will continue to retire at that pace until 2030.
Would a President Romney and Republican Congress roll back benefits for scores of millions of seniors, raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare, reduce funds for Medicaid, Head Start, Pell grants, student loans, primary and secondary education, and shed federal employees by the tens of thousands?
Republicans argue that the corporate tax rate of 35 percent, highest among advanced nations, and the personal rate of 35 percent should be cut. The other piece of tax reform is the elimination of deductions and credits so a lower rate on a broader tax base will yield the same or additional revenue.
Looks good on paper.
But today 50 percent of all U.S. wage-earners pay zero income tax. Will that half of a nation reward a party that ensures that many of them, too, contribute? Free-riders on the federal tax code are voters, too.
Again, the crucial question: Does the Romney Republican Party have the courage of its convictions—to carry out a fiscal program consistent with its conservative philosophy?
For when, ever, has the modern GOP done that?
Richard Nixon funded the Great Society. Gerald Ford bailed out the Big Apple. George H.W. Bush increased spending and raised taxes. George W. Bush gave us No Child Left Behind, free prescription drugs for seniors, two wars, tax cuts and the largest increase in domestic spending since LBJ.
Even Ronald Reagan ruefully conceded that he failed to do what he had set out to do in cutting federal spending.
Now, we are assured that this generation of Republicans has come home to the church and confessed its sins, and is prepared to face martyrdom in the name of fiscal responsibility.
Well, perhaps.
Yet, if it is difficult to see how the GOP advances toward a balanced budget, it is impossible to see how President Obama does.
Would the party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, triumphant, scale back programs that are the pride of their party—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Would Pelosi, Reid and Obama cut the number of bureaucrats and beneficiaries of federal programs, thereby demobilizing the unionized armies on which they depend at election time?
When FDR came to power in 1933, after his running mate, "Cactus Jack" Garner, accused Herbert Hoover of taking us "down the road to socialism," the Federal government was spending 4 percent of GDP.
Today, it spends 24 percent. Under both parties, under every president since FDR, domestic spending has moved in one direction.
Ann Romney's question remains relevant.
Is the trend inexorable? Is there any turning back? Is it too late?
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
"Can you fix it?" I need to know. Is it too late?"
No. Its at least 50 years too late.
"today 50 percent of all U.S. wage-earners pay zero income tax."
OK, I don't pay a lot of attention, I know, but who are the 50 percent Mr. Buchanan is talking about? Are that many wage-earners earning so little that they aren't obliged to pay? If so, then the U.S. either has a poverty problem much larger than anybody thought was possible, or the so-called poverty line is placed 'way too high.
Of course war should go to zero and defense needs to come way down. I see a lot more seniors than defense workers and managers! And the interest on the debt needs to go to zero as well. The Congress needs to exercise its constitutional authority over the currency, issue it directly when it really needs to and use its authority to set all current interest rates on Federal bonds/notes etc. to zero. Anyone who wants to cash in their government securities should get their money back immediately.
According to the IRS tax brackets all wage earners have to pay at least 10% income tax. However, after deductions and stuff like the earned income tax credit, many people get their money back. It's a little alarming to hear that 50% number, but I think it's a bit misleading. Where it gets interesting is in the qualifying process for the multitude of state and federal programs. Some use the federal poverty guidelines, $11,170 for single person. But some programs allow benefits at much higher income levels. And this is where a ton of money goes. In my experience and after perusing a number of state and federal programs I am under the definite impression that many gainfully employed individuals collect tax funded benefits while many homeless and terminally unemployed folks, get passed over. Incredibly, some benefit programs REQUIRE an income in order to qualify. So, the penniless, and they do exist, cut bait.
Is the trend inexorable? Is there any turning back? Is it too late?
I would answer Pat that Yes the trend is inexorable, there will be No turning back but indeed it is not too late because humanity will survive in some form or fashion. Empires come and go, as do countries and even entire peoples. I was grateful for Chilton Williamson's insistence for this obvious fact in his recent article for Chronicles about marriage --- what it is, the limitations of its meaning and the range of its purpose for human beings. Words are symbols that reflect known or knowable realities. It is a kind of black magic and superstition to attempt to change words in hopes of changing the reality they represent.
"Can you fix it?" she asked Mitt. "I need to know. Is it too late?"
Mitt Romney replied, "No, it's getting late, but it's not too late."
For the "it"they are speaking about, only God knows but for the country Pat desires -- the country I suspect is of the scented Rose -- it is never too late.
Thank you, Mr. Taqiyya.
Ah, yes. What is the referent of "it" for Mrs. Romney? And what is the referent for "it" for Mr. Romney? Is the referent the same for both speakers of the word it?
As usual, Robert, you bring saving light to the matter at hand. Thanks, my friend.
Ray,
Thank you for the compliment. This is a tough crowd around here,so any compliment should be considered a good one. I do, however,regret being distracted from the good poetry thread you and Tom have going at the other end. I have always enjoyed poems and poetry since I was in seventh grade but have never learned as much about its technical side as I have recently from you and Tom. Keep up the good posts.
It’s an interesting lingering question; is it to late?
What makes it difficult to contemplate, is we’ve yet to hear even the Republicans even begin to address the problems in this nation. So how in the name of Hades can there be any expectation there is even something to correct?
Let’s begin with the obvious. Socials Security, which was never kept removed from the Federal Budget, has been spent by the government as soon as it arrived in the door. In its place, the funds were “monetized” under the “flim-flam” theft replacing them with worthless “T-bills” whose obligation is the same people who sent in the money in the first place.
Then the T-Bills were used as treasury collateral to conduct the least successful war ever attempted by this nation—“The War on Poverty”—which we either have lost, or are losing on some exponential scale unknown in the annals of human history.
Compounding this insanity, we as a nation created the greatest expansion of one races propagations by using federal tax dollars to make having more children, mostly out of wedlock—the means to increase family income. Resulting in today; we as a nation have third generations of certain parts of our society that have never worked a day in their lives. They accept that they are wards of the government, who believe that their “natural” rights are to be paid by the government to exist.
The result, today these same children, not of a family, but as feral children, are creating the reduction of our academic experience for all children, reducing the very foundation of the intellectual mean of our nations knowledge.
While we are producing those who are limited capable of working, our nation is driving the tasks those who are low skilled from this nation with government regulation. Making it impossible for them to find employment, or even enter the work force to gain the insights to employment.
No—I think Romney may be wrong; we have too many who can do nothing but be a burden to society—with no end in sight!
dear jesus, fix what? they just gave $13 trillion in a few months to welfare supported wall street, a comparitive few; while everyone in the entire country since the *ridiculous 'great society' for the passed 45 years in every social program combined has only gotten $17 trillion. when are you bleeding nancy-janes going to wake the hell up. it's YOUR currency. if the government prints it, they don't owe it to anyone. if the government for example gave $200 Billion tomorrow of YOUR currency to EACH State (god knows you're owed it), that's only $10 trillion to in effect 300 million people recession over alll debts also in the past. you haven't even kept your own currency, nancy-janes...
Ray asks the right question, "Who are that 50 per cent?" who dont pay taxes. An awful lot of them are people whose living has been outsourced or young people who have never been able to find a decent job. Rather than resenting them as non-taxpayers we ought to be gravely concerned at the proletarianisation of the American population. Mr. Buchanan notes only slightly what seems to me one of the greatest obstacles---the Great Society created hundreds of thousands of government employees and grant beneficiaries. The Great Society was never for the poor. It was to give well-paying, prestigious, nonworking positions to masses of petty liberals. That is the backbone of the Demo party and something the Republicans have never had the guts to touch. Those parasites will never go willingly.
Further, we must recognise that the problem of government debnt and spending is not an economic question---it is a moral question and related to defects of national character.
Would some of those 50% be middle class families who cleverly used all tax credits they could to reduce their tax liability to zero? If so, more power to them.
Dr. Wilson: "Further, we must recognise that the problem of government debnt and spending is not an economic question---it is a moral question and related to defects of national character."
Spot on! That many calling themselves "conservative" and Republican don't see that they're implicated in this massive looting is a huge nub of the problem.
Lord, have mercy for our thievery!
I second Mr. Smith and thank Dr. Wilson for bringing this discussion to the right point. Economics, like technology, is rightly understood as subordinate to morals.
Good points. I suppose it isn't a mystery to this group that so much of our taxes fund millions of counterproductive bureaucrats. What I found interesting in my cursory review of government programs, 'for the poor', was how many families earning 30 to 60 grand or more, qualified for full or partial benefits from an assortment of benefit programs. School lunch subsidies, etc. You are right, the bureaucrats eat up most of the money. But a lot also goes to folks who can fend for themselves. And to corporate entities and churches, I may as well add. And, as I mentioned above and you correctly mention here, the anti-poverty programs do very little for the poor. Sometimes, nothing at all.
I further suppose it's no mystery to this group that the path to perdition is a soft, easy path. I have found that it's almost always easier to do the wrong thing and most often more difficult to do the right thing. Extrapolating this aspect of human nature to society, adding the avaricious motivations of politicians who spend other people's money; we get what we got.
For what it's worth, great comments all around, as usual. I especially liked Robert's, 'of a scented Rose' well written and optimistic comment. He is right, something will survive this degraded republic, so we might as well hope for something good.
bravo sanjay. kudos to those 50%'s able to cleverly manipulate the system. let those 1040 schmucks bear the burden. april economics rightly understood trumps prosaic morals .more power to the clever.
If anyone wants to get their blood boiling this weekend, watch B. Morrison on C-Span2, Book TV, discuss her book, "Innocent: Confessions of a Welfare Mother.". Please hide your firearms from yourself before you watch it. Or, you will be strongly tempted to shoot your TV.
do you realize how expensive a box of 8mm"s are?
Well sir, I did once. But, after listening to Tavis Smiley for the last 20 minutes, my mind is mush and I know nothing. I'll be lucky to find the ice tray, so I can mix me a cool glass of repose.
Let me preface my remarks by saying I am in no way offended or upset by anything I've read here, nor am I trying to antagonize anyone. Honestly. However, I have questions for which I have not answers, and this seems like a topical time to present them.
For all that I know, I am not one of the "50 percent"; however, I am a Federal employee. I'm not going to argue about the value of what I actually do (I work on labor budgets) or if I am overpaid (I have no idea what a comparable position in the private sector would even look like), but I do work hard at my job and think that my position would have to exist since it is tied directly with managing salaries of employees (i.e. I don't think it's a bureaucratic nonsense job, although this is not the proper place to get into a lengthy discussion about government budgets - buy me a drink some time and we can talk). However, you could say that I am on the government dole since my livelihood is tied to the federal government.
Likewise, I qualify for exemptions on my income tax because I pay interest on my mortgage. I take the exemption. I qualify for exemptions for my four children. I take them. I installed a high efficiency fireplace in my house several years ago - and I took the tax credit that went with it. I take the government paid transit subsidy to help me pay for my vanpool that I take into work. I accept the generous health benefits that the government pays as part of my employment package.
Is that wrong? I have no idea how much I actually pay in taxes. I have the standard amount deducted from my paycheck, and when I use TurboTax to do my taxes I usually get a generous refund. My assumption is that I simply overpaid my taxes during the year and am getting a refund for what I didn't owe because of all of my exemptions, but am I in the wrong? I have had a not insignificant amount of stock losses, dating back for several years, and have used those losses to offset some of my taxes. Again, I took advantage of the system - was this wrong?
I bring up all of this because, well, I do not know if I have acted wrongly. I do not think I have acted wrongly. I certainly have not let any of this affect my opinion of the government or how I vote, not that I have any decent options when I vote. If I lost any of these benefits, I would not grovel on my hands and knees and kowtow to the shrine of the Great Society to get my benefits back. I would find some other way to cope. And I do not feel like I am actively trying to "game the system" but simply taking those advantages being offered to me.
I just finished "The Time It Never Rained" so I am perhaps oversensitive to this issue. Am I one of the foolish farmers that has bought into the government subsidy and made the world worse for it?
The other reason I bring this up is because while it is easy to identify those who are clearly in the wrong (e.g. the welfare "family" popping out babies to increase subsidies while they enjoy Direct TV and iPhone service in the housing projects) the line is not necessarily so clearly drawn. How many of us who are tax contributors still take the benefits wherever and whenever we can get them? Wouldn't we be crazy not to? The last thing I want to do is give the government any more of my money than I absolutely have to since I know, without doubt, that it will simply go to no good. If a government subsidy gives money to me, I know what I'll do with the money, which is better than what the government would do with it if I decline to take it.
Those are the thoughts that I'm pondering.
Mr. Cornell, we are all caught in the diabolical system in which we are at the same time taxpayers and tax consumers. It is the therapeutic and affirmative action aspects of the bureaucracy that I had in mind. Believe me I have seen what I describe. As I said, it is more a question of national character than of economics. The Yankee national character in my opinion. Of course, then, even more egregious are the inflated,dubiously competent military and needless wars.
Mr. Cornell, you have done all the right things.
If the alleged evil of government is that it unduly takes money from the hands of other people, then the logical thing to do is take money away from government. If you believe the former, then you are justified in the latter.
In the end, if you believe government makes bad use of money, then it is probably your duty to take that money from the government and make good use of it. The larger the volume of government transfers, the less power in the hands of the government.
I once quit a job where I was the highest-paid employee at the company (higher than my supervisor) and there were a number of reasons for doing so. Toward the end, I had come to suspect that I was not adding quite the economic value that I was taking out of the place, though I was coming to believe that of the company as a whole, and it was far from my most pressing reason for quitting.
Apart from that, when another company I worked for went under, I was the beneficiary of various devices in the French labor legislation and social security system that allowed me to receive my old salary, in full, for three and a half months after I had stopped working for that company, even though I had another job lined up right away and was never unemployed either de jure or de facto.
Mind you, I have not collected nearly what I have paid in, but one reason for the hefty social security charges is the comprehensive retirement scheme which I will not benefit from until at least age 62 (assuming it still exists). All the same, the fact that such a situation as I have just described could arise at all is quite preposterous on a number of fronts.
As I explained to my best friend from college on the phone, who is in a similar situation with respect to unemployment benefits in the D.C. area (hey, everyone goes through tough times!), I'm just enjoying it while it lasts. That is about the best advice I can give to anyone conscientious of the fact that the system is unjust and destructive, that there is nothing he can do to change it in the near term and that it just happens to be unjust in his favor.
At the same time, if you have more than passing reasons to suspect that your current position is indeed socially parasitic, you should also be aware that with the looming storm it may well be unsustainable, and to the extent that you are able (it is difficult enough without a wife and kids and I can only imagine how it must be with!) it would be wise not to put all the eggs of your livelihood into that basket.
As I said, it is more a question of national character than of economics.
A buddy of mine who works at a well-paying government job and works an average of 50 to 100 days per year quipped the other day that the French national sport is "attempting to get by while working as little as possible." It is true, and I added to his remark that if the French put the energy that they expend trying to get out of working into actually working, they would conquer the world.
Mind you, there are portions of French society (mostly the Catholic ones) that make excellent use of their time off (in terms of tending to family, patrimony and cultural pursuits), and I am of the opinion that five weeks of vacation is not at all unreasonable (there is a reason I will never again work for a U.S. company if I can help it)l. There are many others, however, especially the French versions of the drones, who could do with a great many more hours at work than 35 per week.
This reminds me of an exchange Ron Paul had, I think on Meet the Press, four years ago with a member of the free media. He was cornered between his stance against government spending and the fact his own district had received several ear marked projects that he, himself, had written into "legislation".
He responded: It's not my constituents' fault that I follow my principles and am against government spending, and besides, they pay into the system as much as anyone, why shouldn't they have the same shot at getting that money back as anyone? I write ear marks for them into every bill I can, and I have voted against every single one, without exception. It's not my fault I am on the short side of the tally.
We are indeed all caught up in this web now, like it or not. The question is, will we continue to support the corrupt system simply for our benefit, or will we do what we can to cut it back or even eradicate it. For example, I'm currently returning to grad school under the Post 9/11 Veterans benefit, but I understand that at any time this could (and should!) end, given the coming economic woes. Given the choice between Candidate A, who promises to continue all my tax confiscated benefits and Candidate B (say, Ron Paul), who will work to eliminate all parts of government, including those that provide my benefits, that are unconstitutional, for whom will I vote?
I'm voting for Candidate B, hoping someday, after the economy has collapsed, we can live in a country again where I use my God-given liberty and keep the fruits of my labor in order to responsibly use my resources to take care of me and mine as I see fit, without the intervention of a tyrannical government in redistributing any of it.
Of course I'm not holding my breath in the short term that enough "Candidate B's" are going to win in order to make the needed changes, but I can support them and the First Principles that I pray will win the day eventually.
Thanks to all for the comments. I think that there is a difference between legally using a tax exception to keep the government from taking more of one's money than taking an actual welfare handout. However, in the cases of federal employees I guess the line is blurrier since my whole salary and all benefits come from tax dollars, although, again, it's not so much as a welfare handout as I am expected to provide my services in exchange for the benefits (that some, perhaps many, federal employees do not take this to heart is a different matter - if you want to hear stories about government workers, again, we'll need a few drinks and a few hours).
What Mr. Moses said, about my position being parasitical or not, is hard to say. If government policies weren't so insane and if the regulations governing the way funding is budgeted and executed so idiotic, than it wouldn't be that hard to do my job. Probably my entire shop could be reduced to just a few people. However, given that one must become a Zen master, honing his entire essence into nothingness, in order to grapple with the required regulations and restrictions and skyscrapers of paperwork without going stark-raving mad, I can honestly say that we're currently understaffed given our workload. Many smart certified accountants ace very course in their curriculum except for the one about government accounting, if that tells you anything.
I'm in the strange position of being thankful for my job and hoping, without much hope, mind you, that someday the government will be reduced to the point where my job ceases to be necessary.
If I had any marketable skills and the economy weren't in the toilet, then I might see what I could come up with somewhere out from under Uncle Sam's shadow. But having the family to support on one income, and having this albatross of a mortgage around my neck, has curtailed my risk-taking quite a bit.
One last thought I'd like to toss out, and it relates to Dr. Wilson's comment about the lack of national character. Nowhere, to me, is this more evident than in the Republicans clamoring to slap pay freezes on Federal employees or cut the workforce by 10% or some other arbitrary number. What dopes. What political nonsense. Freezing pay may be a fine idea, but it gets you pennies against trillions of debt and certainly does not fix the problem of government spending. And arbitrary reductions do nothing more than make the government workforce even more inefficient. If the GOP were in any remote rational sense serious about cutting the government, then they would REDUCE the MISSION! Like Ron Paul says, get rid of an entire branch or two of the government and the people that go with it. At the very least, reduce the number of data calls and reports and regulations. Reducing the people but NOT reducing the workload, which is all the arbitrary percent reductions do, just makes the problem that much worse, like kicking the tar baby you've already punched.
And none of it addresses the real government costs in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and foreign wars.
But our leaders have no plan or will, and none of our people believes anymore that there is anything the government should not, in some way, be responsible for or regulate. I just hope I'm at home when this crazy house of cards collapses.
Agreed totally, Mr. Cornell.
Actually, I am sometimes baffled by the criticisms of people who believe both of the following at the same time:
1) that government budgets are inflated
2) that government workers need to be downsized and paid less
The latter will worsen the former in many many cases.
A government needs intelligent, competent people to manage its budgetary control and expenditures, and it needs to pay them well in order to retain them. It also can not afford to be understaffed, as all people are prone to errors, and one person's error could be millions of dollars wasted. As you rightly mention, you work in an understaffed office with many underpaid people, and that's part of what constitutes government waste.
These wrongful sort of criticisms of government involve saving pennies where dollars are at stake. They go against basic mathematical sense.
What Mr. Moses said, about my position being parasitical or not, is hard to say. If government policies weren't so insane and if the regulations governing the way funding is budgeted and executed so idiotic, than it wouldn't be that hard to do my job. Probably my entire shop could be reduced to just a few people.
It is hard to say and, lest I be misunderstood or seen as insensitive, it is not incumbent on you to determine such a complex question. As in the case of an unjustly waged war, the responsibility for the bloodshed tends to lie with the people who sent the soldier there.
I'm in the strange position of being thankful for my job and hoping, without much hope, mind you, that someday the government will be reduced to the point where my job ceases to be necessary.
You should, of course, be thankful for your livelihood, and take pride in the work that you do. The bureaucratic monstrosity that was set up was not of your doing; after all, once they were determined to make it happen, they threw out the cash and those who needed it caught it. Perfectly natural. Government work is just an extreme example of a case where employees are bound to a protocol not of their choosing; this happens at the bottom of the corporate food chain all the time and it can make for some highly awkward job routines ("I can't do x until y happens; meantime..." though it sounds as though you have the opposite problem).
Mr. Cornell, the short answer to your question is yes. That is, it is yes if you believe the US government conducts itself immorally, not just accidentally, but as a matter of affirmative policy. If so, as a federal employee, you are aiding and abetting those wrongful policies and practices. Don't take offense, we all aid and abet the immoral policies of the US government. That doesn't make our doing so less wrong, but I think we should at least acknowledge our individual and collective responsibility. Pay taxes? You are subsidizing those policies. Do you refuse to pay federal taxes? Then you subsidize by purchasing gasoline or that nice single malt scotch. Yes, Mr. Cornell, you are part of the problem and you wear an albatross around your neck. We all do. This goes beyond the scope of a discussion about overspending or overtaxing. Neither is it just about saving a few dollars here and there or improper redistribution to unproductive or undeserving entities. Your question is about the fact that we all subsidize evil. We can start with the estimated 50 million dead babies and move right down the list from there.
So, will I judge you or pass out demerits? No, I'm not Jesus. Not even close. However, there are ways to reduce your subsidizing footprint. There is an active and growing 'gray' market in this country. Bartering for example. Hey, the Soviet economy, as in the only part that functioned at the end of their run was almost entirely of the 'black' variety. The same trend will take hold here as the government suppresses economic activity. It will go underground. As the churches continue to fester and die, we will see more home bible study groups. There are already many. People adjust and find creative ways to survive. The question is, if we share collective responsibility, will we all share collective punishment? Well, the entire crew in the poem about the ancient mariner did. The residents of Nineveh and of Sodom and Gomorrah did too. It was even taken for granted that all Germans shared responsibility for Hitler. At least for a while. And Hitler didn't even kill 50 million babies...
I thought this line I found on another post was somehow appropriate. Ayn Rand, in her novel “Atlas Shrugged,” reminded us that “when you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.”
Well, Mr. Taqiyya, once you sink yourself fully into the barter economy, I hope you don't mind giving me all your dollars.
Meanwhile, I hope you realize that under most tax laws, ANY transaction for ANY consideration is taxed; even those which are NOT for monetary consideration. So the feds will tax you for all the bottle cap currency you might be using, and expect you to sell them to pay them in dollars.
Mr. Taqiyya,
Your comment took things in a different direction. Here’s my attempt at a thoughtful response.
First off, I don’t agree with Ms. Rand, at least not in this context. I don’t believe the “means of existence” are evil. Likewise, I think there is a line between individual culpability and collective culpability. Was every single German responsible for Nazi Germany and its atrocities? No. The current Pope, I think, would agree with me. Neither was St. Paul, who encouraged us to pay our taxes, responsible for the atrocities of Nero. We, as citizens, have obligations to the government, namely paying a just tax. The “just” part of the tax refers to the amount they take, not what the government does with the money. I have no obligation to pay a tax that renders me incapable of supporting myself or my family (and, all complaining aside, we’re nowhere near that level hear in America, at least not yet), but I do have an obligation as a citizen to pay my taxes even if I know the government is going to use the money to bribe other citizens for their vote or to pay for abortions . . .etc.
Think of a soldier in an unjust war. The soldier took an oath to defend his country and follow the lawful orders of his superiors. Like the scene before Agincourt in Henry V, it is the King who will bear the burden of whether or not the war is just, not his soldiers. The soldier is only responsible for his own actions within that war (i.e. he may not knowingly commit any immoral act like attacking civilians . . .etc.).
It’s different, and admittedly more blurry, when looking at the Private Sector. Am I obligated to boycott companies that openly support evil? If it’s the primary purpose of the company, like Planned Parenthood, then the obvious answer is “Yes.” If it’s a separate decision of the company, like Home Depot sponsoring a Rainbow Parade or some other such thing, then I don’t think it’s a necessary obligation although one can be encouraged to seek alternatives where possible (if Home Depot happens to be the only hardware store within 100 miles of you, I don’t think it’s a sin to buy your hammer and nails there – you choose to buy a hammer and nails and are not responsible for what the company then chooses to do with your money). I mean, most actors, not just now but since the beginning of cinema, from Charlie Chaplin through Mel Gibson, use the money they make for evil purposes and scandalous lives – does that make it immoral to see a movie they’ve made (assuming the movie itself is not immoral)? I don’t think so. The same can apply to books, music, painting . . . etc. Just because Dickens was a Unitarian and Wagner a nut doesn’t mean you don’t study “David Copperfield” or enjoy “The Flying Dutchman”.
Investing, I think, is something completely different. When you actually buy stock in a company you make yourself a part of that company. Since I am unsure of the moral rules surrounding investments and since I trust the stock market like I trust the Roulette Wheel, I choose to simply not invest.
The other part of this is collective consequences. I may not be culpable for the actions of my government, but I will share in the consequences that result. Likewise, a child may not be culpable for his father’s addiction to gambling, but he will suffer the consequences along with the father. This is what makes a great tragedy – the entire kingdom will suffer because of the actions of a Claudius, a Hamlet, or a Lear. This goes back to the Garden itself, although the stain we inherited from our first parents is much deeper than anything the government can inflict upon me no matter how high they pile the debt.
Regarding my own case as an actual federal employee, I admit it’s something I’m not sure of myself. On the one hand I am a part of “the system” although there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the actual job I do (making up inaccurate numbers for a less than meaningful budget may come close to stretching the truth, but I don’t believe it counts as an outright case of bearing false witness). On the other hand, I look at the Christians of antiquity who, so long as there was not an active persecution going on, held government jobs in Rome and even served as soldiers in the Imperial Army. I did not actively pursue the job I’m in, it more or less found me, and I am thankful because the meager skills I have work well in this position and supports my family enough that I can keep the kids out of public school and the Misses doesn’t have to work. This is a rare blessing today, and I’d be a fool not to be thankful for it. However, if a viable alternative appears, I’m not saying I wouldn’t pursue it. Hey, at least I’m not a lawyer/real estate agent/insurance salesman!
And as far as a barter system goes, sounds good to me. The only catch is having something to actually barter with. Even if you makes clothes or are a carpenter, how does one get the raw materials except by buying them. Perhaps I should break out that wine making kit I’ve got in the shed; although, if my luck growing grapes is the same as my luck growing peaches (which have fattened many a squirrel and nary a Cornell), I may still be up a creek.
I think the only thing I actually disagree with you on is that churhces dying and coming back as "home Bible study groups" is a good thing. I've participated in too many "home Bible study groups" not to know better. But that's a different topic for a different time!
One of the first principles to keep in mind is that the choices we are given today in politics can never help with a solution. They are both bad choices, stupid choices and evil choices. It is like fighting a forest fire with gasoline. "that whereas formerly 'the market' was a very limited undertaking, deeply embedded in a culture (and held, say, only once a week at a designated place maybe twice never on the Day of Rest), now under capitalism the terms are reversed, and culture is embedded in, or subordinate to, the market.
Everything is reduced to "the economy stupid"
We need to reverse those terms, so that markets are once again subordinate to the good of society. Ownership is a large portion of independence and independence has nothing to do with libertine freedom as we know and defend it anymore than ownership has anything to do with a thirty year mortgage payment for a home. Both parties are leading what is left of our beloved country towards the restoration of the oldest institutions known to man, servitude and slavery. As long as we keep this in mind, we can keep politics and economics as practiced today in the proper perspective.
Mr. Reavis: ". . . that whereas formerly 'the market' was a very limited undertaking, deeply embedded in a culture (and held, say, only once a week at a designated place maybe twice never on the Day of Rest), now under capitalism the terms are reversed, and culture is embedded in, or subordinate to, the market.
Everything is reduced to "the economy stupid"
So well said, Mr. Reavis! Thank you! Put another way, does the economy serve us, or do we serve the economy? As a Southerner, I see the signs welcoming visitors to Clarksville, "Gateway to the New South". As I've noted before, the chamber of commerce cares nothing for my culture that was nurtured here for a long time before they ever arrived. It is only allowed and tolerated in caricature, and only insofar as it serves the bottom line. We then receive our identity, not from God, not from our culture, family, and kin, but from the marketplace we are expected to serve.
Evil!
It is only allowed and tolerated in caricature, and only insofar as it serves the bottom line. We then receive our identity, not from God, not from our culture, family, and kin, but from the marketplace we are expected to serve.
Mr. Smith,
Yes, precisely the point. Thank you for your response, it is rare that anyone understands this difference. I often use the following example but yours is much better.
'What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?' For an economist, the correct way to answer this question would be to calculate the revenues received from gaining the whole world and subtract the costs incurred by losing one's soul. If the difference (known as 'the bottom line') is a positive number, you have a profit."
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq:" We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
There are thousands of such examples to illustrate the depravity of socialists and libertarians and the duopoly they represent but for a Southerner such as yourself , one with a memory, it is not necessary. Thank you again for your remarks.
Prateek, my practical minded friend. I would be happy to sell you currency, if only I knew you better and you promised not to tell the IRS. But first, I have to say I find it incredible that you exist in a bubble and know nothing about the 'underground' economy. Currency does not go away, it is part and parcel. Please travel overseas and discover the difference between the 'official' exchange rate and the black market exchange rate for currency. Bottle caps indeed. Do you think all the doctors who refuse to treat patients on Medicare or Obamacare just disappear? Nope. For the nickel tour, I charge nothing. For an education, I'm afraid I would have to charge a fee. I can take that in cattle, crops, services or cash. Every transaction? Legalities? Are you serious? There is 'legal' and there is right and wrong. Legal - means nothing. So, keep your bottle caps and delusions that everything moving through Hunt's Point, or anyplace else, gets taxed. Oh, I do like your sense of humor though and I don't mind a well timed slap down from time to time. I deserve it.
With apologies sir, my 'different direction' was in response to your use of the word, wrong. As for Ayn Rand, I'm not even certain that quote is applicable, I just grabbed it because it looked good. I also don't have a lot to add about the difference or significance between individual and collective responsibility. I mean, I could add more but it would be a lot of work. Of course they are different, the question is, does the concept apply to us in our workaday lives? And if so, how? Anyway, I presented a thumbnail argument with the authoritative support it took a few minutes to cobble together. Disagreement was hoped for. I thought it was a nice touch to add the poetic reference. Some of these guys like poetry and my contribution to those conversations is zero. I also made the Nazi reference on purpose. While you reject the idea of German collective responsibility, and I have my doubts, lots of other people would add the Catholic Church and others to that stew pot. While faded a bit around the edges, collective responsibility is still a very potent idea.
As for Paul's taxes, it does seem paradoxical to render unto Caesar on the one hand and to be in the world yet not of it, on the other. I also agree with you that the boundaries of responsibility are very difficult to define. Old testament accounts are very rough indeed. Basically, everyone dies. Sometimes several generations worth. Jeremiah was a very bold fellow indeed for even lamenting. The New Testament, of course, has a different take. A more forgiving take but not exactly responsibility free either.
I suppose we are both asking the right kinds of questions. So, while personal responsibility for directly aiding an entity engaged in wrongdoing seems logically inescapable and correct; it also seems to be a very harsh standard under the realities we live with. But, knowing the fruit of our labor assists in wrongdoing cannot be lightly dismissed either. So, do we move into a cave? It's funny, but some of the early Christians did wacky things like that so they could live pure lives. But those sects didn't last too long. Quite the conundrum. Thanks for your thoughtful reply Mr. Cornell. As for me, it's off to the nunnery, I hear them gals need supervising.