Arizona is having a special election on May 18th. Only one issue is on the ballot -- Proposition 100. The proposition is to add on a 1% sales tax to the current amount. Why? Well, according to the proponents, "Vote YES ON 100. Protect education, public safety and health care." That's right. The threat is that if we don't increase the amount of taxes we pay, we stand to lose out on education, public safety, and health care.
Now, I have to admit that I'm confused about this. You see, as far as I can tell, the primary function of government is to protect its citizens. Now, we can argue about the limits and nuances of such protection, but it would seem quite obvious that it would start with "public safety". So ... if the first job of government is public safety, where are they spending their money today that would require us to pay in more for that first priority?
Let's see what the official 2010 budget says. Hmm. Well, they'll be paying back $50 million in Federal Stimulus money. Odd. There is a line item for an additional $40 million in "new private prison beds". Right ... so our criminals are more comfortable. Got it. Interesting. There is a "Department of Racing". Apparently the Department of Racing regulates the Arizona parimutuel horse and greyhound racing industry. Oh, now this is funny. The Department of Economic Security has a budget of $546 million. Perhaps we ought to fire them, eh? While we're at it, perhaps we ought to take a real hard look at the Governorʹs Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting and their $2 million. I'm thinking they're not doing their job. Oh, I suppose there is no way around the $2 million we're spending on the Board of Cosmetology. I mean, what could be more important to Arizonans than beauty treatments. Oh, yeah, we have to regulate that carefully. There's another $4 million on a "Telecom for the Deaf Fund". I know ... that's a good thing ... but is it more important than public safety? Is that really the job of the government? And the fact that we're spending more than $13 million on a "Department of Gaming" (with another $74 million to the Arizona State Lottery Commission) is troubling to me all on its own.
Allegedly something around 60% of our budget is already spent on schools and public safety and health care. Fine. But is anyone looking at what that money is going toward and how to cut waste? Trust me. There is lots of waste. Take, for instance, the salaries of the football and basketball coaches. The combined income of the head men's football coaches and head men's basketball coaches at ASU and U of A adds up to more than $3 million dollars. And that's just four men. That's not counting their interim heads and their head assistants and so on. Hey, the combined total of the three major state university presidents is slightly more than $1 million. Says something about what we prize, doesn't it?
Don't misunderstand. I'm not opposed to "education, public safety and health care". And I understand that Arizona's revenue has really dropped. I get it. But I have to wonder where our priorities lie when we need to extort more money from our citizens to provide the very basic things that the government should have already been providing. ("Now, Stan, is 'extort' a fair word?" Yes, it is, when they tell us, "If you don't vote for this you'll lose your education, public safety, and health care funds.") Is that right? Is it really a lack of funds, or is it more likely a case of exorbitant government waste and screwy priorities? I wonder.
48 comments:
Stan,
I wonder, in the Arizona state constitution is there a "general welfare" clause? That seems to be the big pot when federal monies for much of what you listed would be filed under. I mean, what is comfort for prisoners, horse and greyhound racing, beauty treatments and college sports except if not the general welfare of Arizonians?
Not that I can find, but there is a worse one. It is called a "public purpose" clause.
Stan said...
the primary function of government is to protect its citizens... it would seem quite obvious that it would start with "public safety". So ... if the first job of government is public safety...
May I ask, where do you get the notion that public safety is the "primary" job of gov't?
The Preamble of the Constitution says...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I see several ideals listed there, none of which are given "primary" status in the preamble. I see responsibilities including...
1. establish Justice,
2. insure domestic Tranquility,
3. provide for the common defence,
4. promote the general Welfare, and
5. secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
As I understand the Constitution, these are the responsibilities of gov't. ALL of these, not one to the exclusion of the other. Do you have some reason to presume "public safety" is the "primary" job of gov't?
Also, don't you think that the roles are sort of overlapping and reinforcing? If in promoting the "general welfare," we the people decide that education is also a primary role of gov't, could it not also be part of "public safety" (because a more educated people are less likely to get involved in crime, thus promoting public safety)?
Just wondering.
Is it your understanding that the primary function of government should be defined by the government? The people? My "public safety" position was simply a paraphrase of Paul's position that the function of government is to protect good and punish evil.
However, what you've done here is lapse into "the limits and nuances of such protection" that I referenced. What is required, in this case, is essentially an infinite supply of cash because "promote the general Welfare" could easily include handing out money to whomever wants it when they want it, supplying health care to all citizens free of charge, strictly controlling all employment so that everyone has a job and no one is unemployed, controlling all prices so that people can afford to buy what they want and so on. I am not saying these things are true. I'm saying that the argument can be made that these "promote the general Welfare". My point was, regardless of the nuances, protecting our citizenry ought to obviously be at the top of the list.
Apparently, then, you would argue that these things ought to be in the same priority plane as police, fire, and education?
The only disagreement I might have is with the coaches salaries...wacky as it sounds, the salary they receive might be justified because the sports programs likely bring a lot of revenue to the school, mainly through television broadcasts... they pay competitive salaries because sports programs bring in a lot of cash. Sadly, it's because we worship our athletes in this country...
I reckon I'd say "promote the general welfare" would be at the top of the list, if I were trying to prioritize things, as providing public safety DOES promote the general welfare.
As I said, it would seem to me that these things are interlinked. When one promotes the general welfare (in good ways, not merely handing out money - which certainly would NOT promote the general welfare, whether the money was being handed out to the rich [as it often is] or to the poor) one increases public safety.
When one provides for public safety (in reasonable ways, of course, ie, not merely locking up anyone who smokes cigarettes or farts out loud or whatever), one benefits the public welfare.
So, I don't know about "obviously," I guess obviously to you, public safety ought to be a primary role and you're welcome to that opinion. I'm just not thinking the Bible or the Constitution ever says that.
You asked me...
you would argue that these things ought to be in the same priority plane as police, fire, and education?
I'm not sure what things ("these things") you're talking about? Handing out "free money?" No, I would be opposed to that. It's rather a goofy idea and I know of no one who seriously would advocate that.
I would argue what I would call promoting the general welfare ought to include, for instance, education and regulations protecting the environment, and I would put these on the same priority plane with police and defense.
starflyer: "they pay competitive salaries because sports programs bring in a lot of cash."
Which is exactly why I said, "Says something about what we prize, doesn't it?"
Dan Trabue: "I know of no one who seriously would advocate that."
Try France. Guaranteed jobs, that kind of thing. I was obviously overstating things, but it could be argued that they "promote the general Welfare".
So, you (the government) have limited resources (as all governments do) and you would find a Department of Cosmetology and a Department of Racing just as essential (in your limited resources) as education and police/fire?
I would not think that bodies that oversee regulations about health and safety (cosmetology) are inessential. They may not be AS important at the state level as a police department or our public schools, but I don't know that would mean that they are not worth funding.
Obviously, there would be SOME departments that I think not worthy of funding or of funding much, I'm not arguing in favor of EVERY gov't program at all. But we'll all disagree on some programs.
I have no idea what a department of racing does, but someone whose life is impacted by racing (horse racing? car racing??) might know why it IS important to have one.
Mainly, I was just wondering where you got the notion of "primary" functions of gov't. I reckon we all have those areas we'd like to see funded more or less or not at all.
Don't get me started, for instance, on the road paving and motorist subsidy racketeering done by most states. But that does not mean I think because other areas might be MORE important, that I think this particular area ought to go wholly unfunded.
Yes, you did say that...but you also had coaches salaries under your "lots of waste" paragraph...and I'm saying that it isn't waste if it contributes a positive number to the budget, which I think coaches salaries do. But I agree with you that it is sad, the things we prize...
Dan,
You said:
"I reckon I'd say "promote the general welfare" would be at the top of the list, if I were trying to prioritize things, as providing public safety DOES promote the general welfare."
The problem I have with the "general welfare" terminology is that there seems to be no regard for how the writers of that clause intended it to be used. James Madison was also concerned about this mis-use of the term as he wrote the following:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the “general welfare,” and are the sole and supreme judges of the “general welfare,” [then Congress might] take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than [the] post-roads; in short, everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of [the federal] Congress." (As discussed by Madison in debates relative to the adoption of the constitution).
I don't want to put words in Stan's mouth as he is quite adept at speaking for himself, but I would wager that is his concern as well. Are there limits on what constitutes "general welfare", and more importantly who decides those limits? I don't have my other resources with me, so i'll have to wait to comment on what the "general welfare" was intended to mean when I have those available, unless someone else has a relavent quotation by one of the nation's founders.
What seems obvious from Madison's writing is that things like education, provision for the poor, a Department of Cosmetology or Racing, etc. from the highest to the lowest concern of states would become a federal matter, which it was never intended to be. You are positioning your responses as if you believe these matters are a federal matter, in which case you would have to give some other quotation from a founding father that would refute Madison's fairly plain refutation of that position.
Starflyer,
This is just an opinion question. Not being a sports fan, I wouldn't know. Do you think that good coaches that would bring in revenue via ball games cannot be found without spending millions of dollars?
Jeremy said...
What seems obvious from Madison's writing is that things like education, provision for the poor, a Department of Cosmetology or Racing, etc. from the highest to the lowest concern of states would become a federal matter, which it was never intended to be.
Apparently the nation's founders disagreed, not unlike we do today. Jefferson very much wanted to see public schooling to be provided for by tax dollars "from the rich," so that everyone could go to school for "free."
"People generally have more feeling for canals and roads than education. However, I hope we can advance them with equal pace."
"Although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it susceptible of much improvement, and most of all in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected."
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
~Thomas Jefferson
Obviously, we can disagree about what providing for the common welfare means and we can debate whether or not some programs are good at a national level, at a state/local level or not at all by gov't.
We the people may disagree on all this, but it's something we'll just have to work out the best we can. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we got and I trust we the people to do a reasonable, if not perfect, job. ESPECIALLY if we can work to keep moneyed interests from corrupting the process.
Jeremy said...
The problem I have with the "general welfare" terminology is that there seems to be no regard for how the writers of that clause intended it to be used.
Interestingly, that's exactly one of the problems I have with the "national defense" terminology. Our founders would (I suspect) be aghast and horrified at the size and breadth of our military.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
~Thomas Jefferson (striking against both standing armies AND banking institutions)
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
~James Madison
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
~George Washington
Stan, you asked "Do you think that good coaches that would bring in revenue via ball games cannot be found without spending millions of dollars?"
My opinion...unfortunately, no. The system is built on winning. Winning puts people in the stands and tuned in on TV. The first season this "underpaid" coach doesn't send them to the NCAA he'll be fired and they'll replace him with some one who can "win"...and it'll cost $2 million. It seems pretty messed up to me, but WE, the market, support it. That's why I tell my sons to beef up their playing skills because that is their only hope. They should forget about becoming doctors or whatever...and that part was a joke. You knew it, but your readers will think I'm a loon...
Starflyer
Can you help me understand why, if good coaches bring in lots of cash, that our taxes have to pay their salaries? I'm not disagreeing with you mind you, I'm for anyone making as much as the market will bear. But bilking tax payers for large salaries isn't consistent with free market principles. It seems instead to be more consistent with political principles, i.e. convincing the right people/person in the right place/es of power that a salary should be x amount, even if the funds have to be taken from the general population by decree because the service rendered is not valued sufficiently by the consumer to pay it.
Interesting question, Dan. I work for the university system, but my salary does not come out of the State system. Our group is profitable and pays for its own. So why not have the money from sports pay for the cost of sports (coaches' salaries)? Interesting idea.
I don't have an answer for that one...it SHOULD come out of the profits, not the taxes. Maybe I should have kept quiet! I guess when I said all that I was thinking of "budget" but not associating it with the people's taxes.
No, Starflyer, you shouldn't have kept quiet. Made me think, and that's a good thing, right?
Dan,
I really only saw where the last of the Jefferson quotes you provided actually pertained to the issue of general welfare and specifically that of education. The partial quote you presented was from a letter from Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko in 1811 and it seems from the quote that Jefferson is speaking of taxes levied on imports being the vehicle for paying for such things as paying the public debt, canals, roadways, education, etc. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to taxing imports to pay for these things, but it seems to me that is different than a general welfare tax on American citizens. Perhaps if you could reference the entire letter I could better see the specific reference to the "general welfare" topic.
I just don't know from the quotes you provided that I would agree that Jefferson and Madison disagreed on the specific point of the general welfare. This relavent Jefferson quote on the topic of the "general welfare" issue seems to support that:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but is restrained to those specifically enumerated, and . . . it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers." (excerpt from "The Writing of Thomas Jefferson").
I'm not really interested in getting into a historical debate on Jefferson, but I do think Jefferson and Madison were agreed that the "general welfare" language was never intended to be open-ended, but restrictive to only those provisions enumerated. There are eighteen clearly specified limiting provisions (commonly called the Enumerated Powers Doctrine) by which the "general welfare" terminology is bounded.
My point is simply that we should look to those eighteen enumerated provisions as the boundary to what can be considered part of the "general welfare" so that we won't be left with, as you put it "something we'll just have to work out the best we can". I think we can do a little homework, look at the eighteen provisions specifically limiting what constitutes the "general welfare" and not settle for, or leave ourselves to negotiate with ambiguity.
I believe, Jeremy, that historically and within the Court of the US, the question has been decided. It IS up to we, the people to decide what "provide for the general welfare" is to mean.
We have decided that it means that we aren't going to let people die on the streets, that some level of medical service to the indigent IS a responsibility of we, the people as a group and that has withstood the Court and the test of time. We have decided that we don't want our children starving and indigent/homeless/resourceless children CAN be provided for with gov't funds and this IS within the parameters of providing for the common good.
If people DON'T agree (and to be sure, some don't), then they can take it (and have taken it, I believe) to the Court. And when they did so, they lost. We have decided this is what we want our republic to look like. Would Jefferson or Madison like every program that we have created? I would have to guess no. As noted, they almost CERTAINLY would be horrified at the size and use of our military, for instance.
But this nation was built on these ideals to grow upon and grow, we have. I expect that at least Jefferson would be pleased to see public schools have made their way into our gov't. I expect that they would disagree with other things, but I don't know that any of us can know with certainty what they would prefer.
They created this great nation and turned it over to their children and to their children and to us. We are the ones responsible for it now.
Apparently most people today are satisfied with having a bloated military, even though Jefferson probably would disapprove. Most people today are comfortable with providing at least some aid to the indigent, whether or not Jefferson might approve. Most people today are comfortable with the notion of public funding for schools.
If that wasn't the case, then we the people would change things and the court would uphold it.
Dan,
You said: "They created this great nation and turned it over to their children and to their children and to us. We are the ones responsible for it now."
On this point, you and I are in complete agreement. Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Alexander and all the rest are long dead having put this nation into motion.
I suppose where you and I will be in continued disagreement is with the concept of maintaining the way it was established. Honoring the intent in which it was established. I don't see the fact that the courts have reversed many of the founding principles and intentions for the direction of this nation to be a justification for the changes. There is ample documentation to adequately ascertain the specific institutions first established and I believe that the responsibility of each succeeding generation is to hold fast to the intentions of the founders.
You and I will just disagree on this point, I know. Will the people of this nation continue to use the courts to directly oppose many of the ideals our founders so strongly fought to establish? No doubt this will continue to be the case. I consider that a travesty, and something to be lamented, not something to be celebrated.
Jeremy...
Will the people of this nation continue to use the courts to directly oppose many of the ideals our founders so strongly fought to establish? No doubt this will continue to be the case. I consider that a travesty, and something to be lamented, not something to be celebrated.
I wonder, Jeremy, do you also consider it a travesty that we have what the founders would consider (I believe) a monstrously bloated military?
Dan,
As an intrusion into a discussion in which I'm not actually participating, I note that you love this "monstrously bloated military" concept. Currently the military is required (as a bottom line) to defend borders the Founders never imagined. We have northern and southern borders as well as east coast (which they did have) and west coast (which was far from their thoughts) borders. The military is also often called upon to help out in other nations (you know, like Jefferson did in Tripoli) to help defend the welfare of allies. So here's my question. Since 1) the Founders never envisioned a nation of this size and 2) the military has so many obligations, what size military would you consider "right size" rather than "monstrously bloated". (From the perspective of a pacifist, I would expect the "right sized" military would be ... zero, but I'm wondering if that's your response.)
I was doing some research on Jefferson and his views "against a standing army". Turns out, it seems, that the quotes that are against it are taken out of context. For instance, Jefferson wrote, ""For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion ..." Odd. That's not opposition to a military. No, what Jefferson opposed was a military used by a government to subdue the citizenry. In the experience and history of the Founders, tyrants had used the military to keep the people in line. This was the danger Jefferson feared. He insisted that the military exist for defense, but that its control be under civilians to prevent using the military against the people of this country.
Dan,
That sounds like a monstrously bloated question (ha ha ha). To be serious, it did not go unnoticed that you dedicated an entire comment continuation on the military issue, and I specifically didn't respond because it didn't seem applicable to the general welfare issue at hand.
However, since you have asked specifically here, i'll be up front with you and tell you that I have not researched military matters enough to be able to provide you an intelligent (or at least well thought out) answer. There are many topics about which I do not have the time to investigate enough to comment on and this happens to be one of them.
In general I will say that I have pretty strong reservations about issuing strong disagreement on military matters. As i've said, I have not done the legwork in investigating the issue enough to speak on it, but also I will never be privy to the high security information needed to really have all the facts relative to troop levels, threat levels, amount of troops needed for efforts at home or abroad. This is one reason the military issue is not at the top of my list as far as research goes.
A President is elected and I don't care the party affiliation I do know that going to war is an unbelievably hard decision. Designating resources to ensure the defense of an entire nation has also got to be an unbelievably hard task. Millions of lives hang in the balance.
So, in short, I just don't have much to say on the issue because I don't know enough to give you a meaningful answer. Sorry.
Our budget for military related items is approaching $1 trillion/year, by the time you take into account the two wars we are currently fighting, payments to veterans and the military's portion of the debt interest we have incurred.
At wikipedia, you can see that the US budget in 2008 specifically for defense is $607 billion. The budget for THE WHOLE WORLD is $1.4 trillion. So, you can see we are spending nearly what the rest of the world COMBINED is spending.
(If you don't believe wikipedia, you can see similar reports here, here and here.
I consider that bloated and unreasonable. I believe, along with many conservatives, that if a gov't agency HAS money, it will SPEND that money in one way or the other. We spend way above and beyond what is reasonable for defense. Having such a bloated military budget, as President Washington said, is a danger to a republic.
What do I think is reasonable? Well, our largest "enemies" (China, N. Korea, Iran and, why not throw Russia in there, even though they're not really an active enemy any more) spend a total of somewhere between $100 and 150 billion, combined. What if we double that amount to, say, $300 billion. By spending $300 BILLION each and every year on defense, we'll be spending more than any potential enemies COMBINED by a significant amount and STILL be saving $400-700 billion A YEAR.
How about that, I just saved us half a trillion dollars! Why don't we take $30 billion of that and we could double what we spend on welfare (TANF - which has a budget of somewhere around $30 billion the last I saw it), then we could still return over $400 billion to taxpayers?
I'm small gov't that way. Anyone wish to join me and Washington in advocating a MUCH smaller military? In fact, in doing so, we could BEGIN to emulate Israel who was directed by God to trust in GOD for their defense, not a huge military.
Anyway, for Christian, as well as logical and moral reasons, I would think by cutting our military budget by at least HALF we would be doing a reasonable thing.
However, since you have asked specifically here, i'll be up front with you and tell you that I have not researched military matters enough to be able to provide you an intelligent (or at least well thought out) answer.
Thanks for the thoughts, Jeremy. A question, though:
Have you researched welfare issues enough to be able to give a well thought out response?
Interesting, Dan. So in your view the amount of money that the government spends on national defense ought to be largely determined by the amount of money other countries spend on their national defense ... because obviously a dollar of defense in America buys the same amount of defense in Russia. I don't know. Seems like "They don't spend that much" is the right measure.
But, leaving that alone, I'll use last year's numbers and do a quick calculation. Let's see ... we're cutting from $680 billion to $300 billion. Obviously the first thing we'll have to do is immediately pull out all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Those aren't included in that budget. Sorry, Iraq and Afghanistan. We planned to stick around and clean up our mess, but ... too bad. So just back home now, let's cut $380 billion from the budget (which is currently aiming at over $700 billion). Shouldn't be hard. Cut everything in half. Lay off half of the personnel. Eliminate family housing. Stop all but absolutely essential construction. Research isn't important. Yeah, yeah, they're already complaining about not having the equipment they need to do their job, but if we eliminate half of them it should be fine, right?
Seems easy to yank a round number out of the air. But then we're back to priorities, aren't we?
Dan Trabue: "Have you researched welfare issues enough to be able to give a well thought out response?"
Are you sure you want to go there?
Sorry, Iraq and Afghanistan. We planned to stick around and clean up our mess, but ... too bad. So just back home now, let's cut $380 billion from the budget (which is currently aiming at over $700 billion). Shouldn't be hard. Cut everything in half. Lay off half of the personnel. Eliminate family housing. Stop all but absolutely essential construction. Research isn't important. Yeah, yeah, they're already complaining about not having the equipment they need to do their job, but if we eliminate half of them it should be fine, right?
Seems easy to yank a round number out of the air. But then we're back to priorities, aren't we?
I'd be okay with doing it incrementally. But if we didn't have such a monstrously large budget in the first place, then we couldn't afford to go around invading other countries we should never have been in in the first place, right?
We CAN'T bomb and kill our way to a better world. We just can't. It's too expensive and it doesn't work all that well.
If it takes us a trillion plus dollars to placate Iraq and convert it to something more pleasing to us (and where we'd get the moral or legal authority to do so, I don't know) and even THEN we may or may not succeed at it in a nation that had NOTHING much in the way of self defense, are we going to then replicate that failure in Rwanda? In Cuba? In nation after nation that isn't a "good" nation according to us?
That's a crazy way to do "national defense," and I would suggest is precisely at least part of George Washington feared would be the problem with a large military. It IS "inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
We need a defense that is just large enough to defend ourselves from attack, not going around being the police force of the world.
And, as I noted before, Washington is not the first person to suggest this. God did way back in 1 Samuel 8, when God said...
"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
I'll take my small gov't plan and reduce the size of our BIG gov't much faster than conservatives ever will by cutting back on the $30 billion we spend on TANF or by deregulating oil companies so they can spew their toxins into our waters, into GOD'S waters.
One man's opinion. Just my way of reducing gov't's size significantly while simultaneously boosting our security (again, I agree with George Washington on that point).
Sorry ... my bad. I neglected to take into account your biases. (If that sounds like an insult, it's not intended to. Everyone has biases -- preconceptions on the topic under discussion -- including me.) Since Iraq and Afghanistan can only be considered "invading other countries" in an attempt to "bomb and kill our way to a better world", my concern for the mess in those two countries that would remain when we withdrew is irrelevant. My mistake.
It appears that you believe (for reasons that elude me given your view of the Bible) that, when God allowed a king in Israel, He gave them evil. But that's a wholly different topic, isn't it?
Here's what I can't understand. How does a consistent pacifist allow for $300 billion to be spent on a military (let alone the current budget)? It would seem mandatory from where I sit that a pacifist would allow $0 for a military since a military by a pacifist definition is evil.
How does a consistent pacifist allow for $300 billion to be spent on a military (let alone the current budget)? It would seem mandatory from where I sit that a pacifist would allow $0 for a military since a military by a pacifist definition is evil.
I was allowing for the reality that not all the US are pacifists. That is a result of my faith tradition and not something that I expect every non-believer - or even every believer - to agree with or live up to.
IF I were the President in a nation of Anabaptists, I might well vote to legislate more pacifistic notions of defense. But I'm not and the US is not.
Similarly, I wouldn't try to legislate that everyone MUST honor the Sabbath or that everyone MUST believe in the Trinity. Some of our faith tradition beliefs are not necessarily something we should legislate.
I believe Christians ought to only work to legislate those rules that there are reasonable civic reasons to promote. I don't think we ought to legislate any rule simply because "Well, I think this is what the Bible says, therefore, let's make it law."
That's the difference. I'm not saying that I would be especially proud of a $300 billion defense budget based on war-to-peace ideals. I'm just saying that is at least more reasonable - and consistent with what I think our founders envisioned, by the way - than the monster military budget we currently have.
And that $300 billion is no magic number. I just grabbed it out of thin air. I don't know that there is a "right" amount to spend on a military. I just have the opinion that spending more than the rest of the world combined is grotesquely large and would tend to lead us in ways contrary to peacemaking and democratic ideals, as we can see HAS happened repeatedly in our history.
Stan...
from where I sit that a pacifist would allow $0 for a military since a military by a pacifist definition is evil.
It really is off topic, but I thought I'd point out that pacifists are a widely diverse group and that the notion of a military is not entirely contrary to every pacifist ideal. Pacifists, for instance, tend to have no problem with police forces.
I'll let it go at that. Just wanted to point out that there are whole libraries written on pacifistic ideals and just peacemaking ideals and that they don't always agree on every point, but at least the Christian pacifists DO tend to start from the notion of following and trusting God, walking in the steps of Jesus our Lord is our first priority and how we go from there, well, there's room for discussion within the body of Christ from that point.
Visit thirdway.com sometime to read up about all the many interesting and challenging ideals some mennonites have about the topic. Or check out some just peacemaking sites to read more about those ideals. There really are some very interesting and well-thought-out ideals out there if you have the time at some point.
Dan,
You ask: "Have you researched welfare issues enough to be able to give a well thought out response?"
I thought I had given a well thought out response just before you switched the discussion over to the military? What we are discussing here is what the founders intended to be considered a part of the "general welfare" as it appears in the Constitution. On this, I believe I have done enough research to be able to give an intelligent answer, and I provided you my thoughts along with supporting quotations and rebutted some of your listed quotes from Thomas Jefferson.
I don't want to get off of this point and onto where I presume (and this is only a guess on my part) you are going, which is to the current welfare system. Which I would be willing to discuss, but only after we settle this more foundational point first.
I had made an assumption last time and i'd like you to respond to that first and let me know if I was correct in my assumption. I said:
"I suppose where you and I will be in continued disagreement is with the concept of maintaining the way it was established. Honoring the intent in which it was established. I don't see the fact that the courts have reversed many of the founding principles and intentions for the direction of this nation to be a justification for the changes. There is ample documentation to adequately ascertain the specific institutions first established and I believe that the responsibility of each succeeding generation is to hold fast to the intentions of the founders."
Do you believe (as your previous comments would indicate) that the founders left the nation in our responsible charge for us to change anything as we saw fit (justified by a court ruling) even if it was in direct contradiction with their established position?
Shouldn't we seek to look into what their intentions actually were, what the basis for their decisions were, and preserve what they established?
Dan Trabue: "I wouldn't try to legislate that everyone MUST honor the Sabbath ..."
Interesting (and way off topic by now). If I were king I'd legislate that the Sabbath be honored, that the civil laws matched what I believe are biblical requirements. I'd do that because I believe that biblical requirements are best for people. Of course, mandating that everyone believe x (whether it be the Trinity or whatever else you wish to mention) would be nonsense because you can't mandate that. I wouldn't mandate that everyone feel warmly toward me or everyone like my policies or ... because what you believe and what you feel cannot be legislated. All I'm saying is that since I believe that the moral virtues I find in Scripture are the best thing for humans, I would want to make them happen if I were king. If I believed that abortion was murder, for instance, I couldn't be consistent with that and at the same time say, "But, hey, I understand everyone is different so you guys go ahead" any more than I could if we were talking about any other homicide. If I believed that a standing army was detrimental to the liberty of my people, I couldn't hold that and have a standing army at the same time. I value consistency. The term is "integrity".
I, too, value integrity, Stan. And one of the foundational beliefs of the baptists and anabaptists is the priesthood of the believer. That is, we believe that each person is responsible for seeking and finding God's will for themselves. Beyond that, we believe (historically, anyway) in the Separation of Church and State. We don't want the state to dictate religious beliefs to a people. We believe that to be a wrong.
And so, in order to maintain our integrity, we allow that sometimes the people may honestly think a different way than we do and we allow for that. To try to dictate religious beliefs simply because we happen to believe they apply to us would contradict our belief system and thus, we could not do so in good conscience.
I guess that's another difference between the anabaptist types and the reform (or whatever faith tradition it is you align yourself with) types.
Dan Trabue: "We don't want the state to dictate religious beliefs to a people."
Well, either you don't read what I write, or there is a serious logical disconnect somewhere. I specifically said "mandating that everyone believe x (whether it be the Trinity or whatever else you wish to mention) would be nonsense" because "what you believe and what you feel cannot be legislated." So in what sense you think I would "dictate religious beliefs to a people" I don't know. If you understood that and yet feel that passing moral laws is "dictating religious beliefs" -- something you would never do -- then I cannot even fathom how you would have anything at all to say about, say, TANF. You say you'd mandate that greater public funds would be spent on TANF because you believe that this is a moral thing to do. How is that (as one example) not "dictating religious beliefs"?
then I cannot even fathom how you would have anything at all to say about, say, TANF. You say you'd mandate that greater public funds would be spent on TANF because you believe that this is a moral thing to do.
I believe this is logically sound. It's not dependent upon what I do or don't think the Bible says. I don't advocate providing, for instance, jail house training/education/rehabilitation because the Bible tells me to. I advocate it because studies show that those prisoners who receive such interventions are much less likely to go back to jail, much more likely to behave once out of jail. Thus, it is in our best interests as a society to do so.
Why do I believe in a day of rest? Well, because the Bible says so. I also happen to think it makes some sense from a civic point of view, but I don't know that I could give a sound civic reason for doing so. Mostly, I believe it because the Bible tells me so, ie, because of my faith tradition.
I believe I have pointed this out before, but the Catholic church, along with other faith traditions, believe that some rules/laws that we find in the Bible are universal in nature and can be reasonably argued for in a civil sectarian society. OTHERS of our beliefs about rules/laws are not universal in nature and are more directed specifically towards believers.
I believe pacifism/just peacemaking would fall under this category. I think the Catholic church thinks Sabbath rules fall under this category.
I support some money being spent on TANF as a CHRISTIAN because I have no problem assisting my neighbor. However, I support it as a citizen because I think it makes sound rational, fiscal, societal sense.
To be clear, I considered two possibilities to your previous comment. Either you misunderstood that I was opposed to forcing religious beliefs or you believe that to impose rules is to impose beliefs. It would appear that you believe the latter, and that there are beliefs you are willing to impose on others, just not "religious" ones. Your opinions, then, are viable to impose, but biblical convictions are not. (I know, I know, you're saying "I think it makes sound rational, fiscal, societal sense", but I already explained that I believe that God's moral values make sense for -- would benefit -- all society. You apparently disagree.)
Not all slave owners in the south were good to their slaves, but a few were. Those particular slaves experienced cradle to grave security for a price... liberty.
Perhaps that's what is in order; the masses work-kind of like on a plantation or whatever-and the masters decide how the return on that work is best disbursed for the best interest of the masses. This way there could never be one of those nasty tax liberation days that delineate the day in the year at which you are no longer working to support all the stuff the appointed benevolents think is best, and are now keeping the fruit of the sweat of your brow to do with what you wish.
As a tiny part of the whole there would be no connection between your contribution and your standard of living, you know, complete egalitarianism; free of the sin of envy. This would be the ultimate fulfilment of the "welfare of the masses", would it not?. Also, the masses would finally get to live in peace, free at last from the sanctimonious accusations by those who gleefully spend the fruit of the their labor in the endless pursuits of a Utopian paradise that they are not contributing enough.
But then again who knows, perhaps the masters will still come up with other ways of increasing "contributions" ... whips!
Hmmm ... slavery ... I like it! No one would be unemployed. Both "rich" and "poor" are eliminated. Greed is gone. Ambition is eliminated. And it's biblical! Good stuff!
(All tongue in cheek.)
"Rich and Poor are eliminated"
If only this were true it might work. But, as you know, every effort at the Utopian system inevitable only ends up exchanging one so called socially unjust system for another. The only things that change are the names and titles of those who fuel that ever motivating and ultimately greedy sin of envy.
If "Rich and Poor are eliminated" was the only wrong thing you saw, you weren't paying attention. Unemployment, greed, and ambition don't go away. Oh, and American slavery is not in the Bible. In other words, it was all tongue in cheek.
(Interestingly, there was a case of successful communism. We refer to it as "the first Church".)
Stan...
Interestingly, there was a case of successful communism. We refer to it as "the first Church".
There are also the Hutterites and others who've fairly successfully practiced some form of communism for hundreds of years. The same might be said for the Amish and to even a lesser degree, some Mennonites, but theirs is less "communisty" than the Hutterites.
And, as that article notes, there are others.
Was the point missed? The wonderful "Let's just share all things in common and get along" sounds great, but doesn't work in the world. It never can. It never will. The only way it can work is when God changes hearts. That's because (as Danny and I were saying) common obstacles like greed, ambition, and envy aren't solved by mandating a utopia, but by God changing hearts.
The wonderful "Let's just share all things in common and get along" sounds great, but doesn't work in the world. It never can. It never will.
To be sure, I am of the opinion that the best chance one can have of having a successful community is to do it with a group of believers in the same faith tradition. History is littered with those who have attempted to live communally whose communes eventually fall apart.
I just thought you were suggesting that the only example was in the early church (which, interesting, may not really count as a successful community, as it appears that there was much dissension and that it eventually gave up living communally - they did not last as long in community as the Hutterites, for instance).
The Kibbutz movement would be an example of a non-Christian faith community doing the same thing, though, so I don't think successful communities are limited to Christian believers.
The truth is, we are flawed people in an imperfect world. EVERY system of living together fails in some ways - some more spectacularly than others. Capitalistic Democracies have failed eventually. Totalitarian gov'ts fail eventually. Personality-driven communities fail eventually. We all fail in large and small ways eventually.
Which is not to say that attempts at living in community are exceptional in their failures, just perhaps sometimes the degree of failure. But then, any society that can manage to spoil a whole GULF can't be said to be fully functional, either, eh?
My points, then, are NOTHING fully works in the world. "let's share things in common and get along" doesn't fully work. "Every man for himself" doesn't fully work. "Let's let a Big Chief make all the decisions and we'll do whatever he says" doesn't fully work. "Let's let the rich and powerful make our decisions for us" does not fully work.
Having said that, attempts at living in community based upon shared values can and has worked as well if not better than other systems and I can't knock those who try it. They should just go into it with their eyes open aware of the difficulties associated with it.
Here is a source of I believe mostly secular communes who have been relatively successful for years, if not generations. Most are too young to tell if they will be long-lasting, but they are certainly interesting for what they're doing now.
Just noting...
An egalitarian community living in a commensal relationship with a non egalitarian society does not a case for a egalitarian society make. Sorry.
It is however good to know that there's a place for the communist to go to live out their idea of Utopia. But shouldn't advocacy for this egalitarian communalism be made from inside the commune? Isn't that a little hypocritical? Unless I suppose the advocate has no intentions of being part of the "equality" in the outcome and will instead be part of the smaller group flying all over the world having the time of his life off the sweat of his subject's brows.
Post a Comment