I thought they might not post a static list, since you can get it live, but they did, and it’s here. There are also a couple of notes on developing the library:
A few weeks ago I saw a political ad supporting the budget proposal by Congressman Ryan. One of the points made in support of his plan in that ad was simply that nobody eligible for Medicare now, or if I remember correctly, becoming eligible in the next ten years, would be impacted by the plan. (I may remember the number of years incorrectly.) My point is not to gang up on the Ryan plan, but rather to point out a basic problem with all our attempts to deal with budget issues: They all leave the actual solutions to the future.
If it’s a good idea, it’s most likely a good idea now as well as in the future. If I personally support, or would support, someone who would replace Medicare with a subsidy program, I should be willing to apply that solution to myself. But the method used in Washington is to put forward resolutions mapping out a future course over a period of years that may or may not (generally not) be followed by those future congresses. A similar approach was used in much of the health care reform bill. It phases in the unpopular parts over a period of time.
Recently I read a quote from Joseph Singer in which he suggested that Americans are ambivalent about government. I wouldn’t use that term. I find nothing surprising about it. It’s very human. Yes, it has distinctively American details, but at root it’s very simple. We want to get benefits, but we don’t want to pay for them. We want privacy in our own homes, but we want to make sure that the police can spy on people enough to catch terrorists (lacking, of course, any real idea of how much that might be). We want our social security to be secure, but we don’t want to pay enough to make it so.
And we have politicians who are willing to pretend. This pretense, in my view, is not limited by party. Each party has elements of the budget that must be protected, while there are other items that just must be cut because we don’t have the money to pay for them. Members of either party are willing to promise economic benefits without requiring their constituents to pay the cost. There are many ways to avoid requiring that the cost be paid. It can be done by borrowing, thus requiring that the constituents’ children pay the cost. It might be that a poorer district gets the money from the federal government, which moves money from a richer district in order to pay. It might even be that the cost is concealed. But the cost exists and must be paid sometime.
I entered politics by working as a precinct worker in the 1976 Republican primary in Maryland. I was just 18. What attracted me to Ronald Reagan was his $90 billion plan to eliminate the budget deficit. I support Reagan again in 1980. By 1984 I was no longer a registered Republican. I found that Republicans did not really believe in a balanced budget. Supply side economics took over.
Now there is a point to supply side economics. Lower taxes can increase productivity and thus revenues. But it is not a magical formula that allows you to buy anything you want, and expect lowered taxes to resolve the difference. At this point, I find the Democrats to be the best argument for voting Republican, and the Republicans the best argument for voting Democrat. And I do vote–every time in every race and on every issue.
So now we come to the current debt deal. When it was announced, I turned to my wife and said, “All that and we only got $1 trillion (Ah for 1976 and a $90 billion plan!). Remember that further cuts are for the future, no matter what triggers we have in place to force them. In fact, I would suggest the triggers will simply make the political waters muddier when the time comes.
I view economics practically. I run a small business, and while I haven’t gotten rich, and have had many, many very difficult seasons, I’m still in business. My computer support business has been going since 1997 (though it’s only part time), and my publishing business has been going since 2004. When economic times get tough there are several things I can do.
I’ve done all of those things during the previous recession, and I’m still here. I’m a practical economist. I hear about these people who understand what’s going on, and I’m sorry, but they don’t sound so much like they understand and their results aren’t that good. Recent experience with the banking industry makes me question either their motivations and goals on the one hand, or their competence on the other. Perhaps it’s both.
It’s fairly humorous to see the banking industry, regulated largely by its own, about to reduce the credit rating on the government that failed to keep them in line. But that’s another story.
So what I ask in a plan like this is just what it’s going to accomplish. What’s the end game? Who enforces the rules that are laid down? What happens that brings us out of this mess?
And the answer to all of those questions is: Nobody knows. We’re making a plan that reduces a $10 trillion or so deficit over the next ten years by, at the most, $2.4 trillion. What’s more, we haven’t asked fully what our priorities are. In business, I might borrow money to launch a new product. When I do so, we assume that a certain period of time after that product launches, it is expected to pay back the result.
Translated to the government’s activities, that would mean we need to ask what in the current government plan is going to result in new production on which taxes will be paid (at whatever rate), to increase the money going into the treasury and eventually reduce the debt. The answer is that this isn’t really a consideration. This is one of those survival plans. It keeps things going for between a few months and a couple of years, but it doesn’t do anything about how we’re going to get to a better place.
This is why I oppose across the board cuts and absolute limits such as “no new taxes.” We need to not only reduce spending; we need to make spending more intelligent. “No new taxes” might be fine with me, but when it makes it more difficult enact needed reforms to the tax system, then I think it gets in the way. Such solutions are ways of avoiding making difficult decisions and taking responsibility for those decisions.
I recognize that the final blame belongs to voters. We are the ones who send politicians to Washington who promise us things they, and we, can’t pay for. We’re the ones who keep sending them back when they fail. As much as I disapprove of many of the social policy goals represented by Tea Party candidates, on one thing I can definitely commend them. As a general rule they are doing what they said they’d do. Another voter habit is being shocked when politicians do what it was obvious they were planning to do. Of course, when they do what they say, we have some cause for surprise.
So what would I prefer? Considerations of electability aside (mine would be 0%), I would suggest:
These are ambitious goals, but I don’t think our problems can be solved without looking at all these options. I may well be wrong on what can be saved through some of these options. I’m suggesting putting them on the table. And yes, entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security need to be there as well. I just have fewer ideas about what to do with them.
I just put an extract from Dave Black Online on The Jesus Paradigm. (I have permission to do this.) Unfortunately, Dave’s blog doesn’t allow linking to a specific entry, so I’m linking to the extract. All I want to say here is “Amen!”
I loved this snippet from an interview with Speaker Boehner. In particular, this line stood out:
J. BOEHNER: When you say the — when you say the word “compromise”…
STAHL: Yeah?
J. BOEHNER: … a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh-oh, they’re going to sell me out.” And so finding common ground I think makes more sense.
So if we have to do something, but people don’t like it, let’s just rename it. Now I happen to think compromise can be a good thing, so long as it’s not on an essential principle. But “finding common ground” is rather similar. When you find common ground you have necessarily passed by not-common ground. If you do the things you can get together on and not those you can’t, well, you have compromised.
But whatever works!
My wife said some important things in her devotional yesterday, First Century Church Wanted. If I might summarize, many of us want what the early church had, but we don’t want to do what the early church did.
The Christian Post has a headline that reads Apologist Josh McDowell: Internet the Greatest Threat to Christians. Now if you read the article, you’ll realize the biggest problem here is headline writing rather than what Josh McDowell had to say. In the end he concludes that Christian parents need to be knowledgeable. I’d have a hard time arguing against that.
At the same time, I have to ask just why the availability of knowledge about atheism is such a serious threat to Christianity. In my view, we should be reading and discussing those arguments fairly early in our children’s lives.
Holding a position or belonging to a group because you don’t know any better is not a particularly valid choice. If the only way we can keep members is by limiting knowledge, then we deserve our fate.
McDowell is arguing for more knowledge. (For what it’s worth, I don’t really find his books very helpful in that regard, but that’s beside the point.) The problem is that I frequently hear Christians speak as though the best thing would be if we could restrict the availability of the knowledge.
That ship has already sailed, and it was a leaky one at that.
From the forthcoming participatory study guide to Philippians, by Bruce Epperly:
The way of Christ differs markedly from the way of Caesar, who was also worshipped as a deity. Christ’s peace is based on non-violence and inclusion, while Caesar’s peace is based on the sword and subjugation.
(Used by permission.)
The Christian Post has an article on depression amongst pastors and ministry leaders, which, in turn, links to an article at The Gospel Coalition. Now the Gospel Coalition article is part one of a five part series, so I’m not going to comment on how far they will go before they are done, but I think they could expand on their first item: Unrealistic expectations.
Not only are our expectations of pastors unrealistic, but they are sinful, and our descriptions of them are deceitful. The surprising thing is not that there are depressed pastors and ministry leaders. The surprising thing is that we have any functional leaders at all! I have long believed that if we described what we want in a pastor in a job description, nobody would be able to fulfill the role.
What we want, I believe, are Christ figures, who, rather than leading the church, will be the church, and will eventually sacrifice themselves, and probably also their families on behalf of a local church. That local “church” is only a church in name, because they are not behaving as the body of Christ, but rather delegating that task to a paid professional. Visiting the sick and shut-ins, serving in the community, spreading the gospel message, giving, and study of the Word are all functions of everyone, not just one ordained person.
Just leading the teaching ministry of a mid-sized congregation would be a solid, full-time job for one person, and that only if he or she spends most of the available time equipping other teachers in the church.
As long as we have unrealistic–yes, sinful!–expectations enshrined in our church organization, we’re going to have leadership problems, not to mention plain old “living the good news” problems.
