Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • On Cutting Spending and Investment

    Rand Paul campaigning in Kentucky.
    Image via Wikipedia

    Mark at Pseudo-Polymath links to this post on Rand Paul’s ideas for cutting the budget, using the line: “Someone is forgetting that the left prefers social entitlements to science programs.” I think Mark has a good point, but not the best point.

    This illustrates one of the reasons I oppose across-the-board spending cuts. Some argue–and I understand their point–that since we can’t seem to cut spending point by point, the only way to proceed is with a general spending freeze. I would suggest, rather, that a general spending freeze won’t solve the problem; it just lets us pretend, because after the freeze, we still won’t have the courage to go after the real spending problem, which needs to be done program by program. I don’t see the courage on either side of the aisle to accomplish that mission.

    There are things the government does well, and there are things better done privately. Of the things the government ought to be doing, there are better and worse ways to accomplish those goals. This includes military, security, and law enforcement spending, which Republicans often hold sacred. It includes choosing which moral issues deserve to be enshrined in law and just how much we want to spend enforcing those positions.

    On the other hand, it includes looking at social programs to determine which ones are actually accomplishing their stated goals, not to mention asking whether the stated goals are likely to be accomplished at all.

    Science spending, in the right areas, is particularly important for our future, as is education spending. We could save huge amounts in social spending if we had a better educational system. How much of reforming our educational system involves spending more money, versus changing the structure or spending our money more intelligently, is another issue.

    Right now I’d merely like to suggest that if we want to both shrink the deficit and grow the economy we will need to look carefully at spending point by point. A freeze, unless it is immediately followed by such a reevaluation won’t do the job. And people on all sides of the aisle will need to be prepared to sacrifice things they love, especially if careful evaluation shows their favorite programs aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing.

    I like to suggest specifics, which the politicians rarely do. I’d also like to congratulate Rand Paul on giving specifics, even though I disagree with some of them, for the same reason. Amongst the things we need to ditch I would include almost all of public campaign financing. I don’t think it has made politics any cleaner. It certainly hasn’t made it more civil. It has only made it more costly. Add that to the suggestions I made earlier. There are more!

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Sabre-Tooth Campaign Finance Laws

    I think this is an excellent example of laws addressing problems that are out of date in ways that make little sense. (With due apologies to the book The Saber-Tooth Curriculum, which is old, but an excellent read.)

  • Should We Evangelize Uncontacted Indigenous Tribes?

    I couldn’t think of a better headline than the one Allan Bevere used in his post asking this question. I think it’s a good question. I’m closing comments here. Comment there, or on your own blog with a link.

  • The Wrong Reason for Church Growth – Quote of the Day

    From Allan Bevere:

    And one more thing– as long as the church wants to grow only in order to pay the bills; if we see new people not as persons made in the image of God who need God’s transforming grace as much as the rest of us; if we only see them as instruments by which to meet the general budget, then we will have really lost what it means to be the church in the world.

    This comes from a post titled The Church Has an Edifice Complex. You should read the whole thing.

    I’d link this to the numerous times I’m aware of in which a church has forced some ministry off church property because the people served weren’t those who attended church. These include a Wednesday night program for community youth whose parents weren’t church members and a young adult class whose members weren’t attending the church service.

    Is church attendance desirable? Yes. But if you do ministry only to those who are already doing so, where’s the outreach?

     

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Two Bible Reading Plans Compared

    How’s that for a boring headline?

    I mentioned in an earlier post that I was trying a new reading plan by Robert Murray McCheyne. I don’t usually like Bible years, and I still have some problems with this one, but I still plan to use it through the year. I’ve made this my evening Bible reading.

    I didn’t use to have an evening reading plan, but the nature of my work tends to make for interrupted mornings. I’m a publisher, which usually provides for a flexible schedule, but I’m still supplementing that income with computer support work, and that often brings calls fairly early in the morning. So to steady things out, I started to divide my reading time and do part of it at bed time.

    In the morning I read a daily lectionary. Right now I’m following the daily readings from CRI Voice. Daily lectionary readings have the advantage of being relatively short, and sometimes topically related. Since I also read the weekly lectionary passages several times during the week, I find that the two reading plans combine well.

    This morning, the scriptures from the daily lectionary were Psalms 61, 62, and 68 (I combine morning and evening readings), Isaiah 52:1-12, Galatians 4:12-20, and Mark 8:1-10. Each passage is short and they are topically coherent.

    On the other hand, my McCheyne reading plan had me reading Genesis 32, Mark 3, Esther 8, and Romans 3. It’s sort of like reading the Bible through four times at once without bothering to coordinate any of it. I felt like finishing the story when I read Genesis and Esther. The actual plan is to read the Old Testament once and the New Testament and Psalms twice during the course of one year.

    Overall, I have the same problem with the daily lectionary, except for the fact that it doesn’t even pretend that I’m reading the whole of a particular topic.

    I must confess that I’ve been happier with reading the Bible through, but I think the discipline of following these plans that don’t seem to suit me as well is worthwhile in itself. The daily lectionary is growing on me. Determination is keeping me involved in the McCheyne plan.

  • More About Harder (to Read)!

    Bible Gateway blog has picked up the topic of making the Bible harder to read. Join the discussion.

  • Biblioblog Top 50 and Carnival

    The top 50 is up, and Jim West is hosting the carnival with his usual snark. I’m #25 in the former, and not present in the latter. Enjoy!

  • Michele Bachmann Wants to Cut Veterans Benefits

    Just in case you thought liberals were the only ones who wanted programs, but didn’t want to pay for them, consider this story from the Air Force Times (HT: Dispatches) regarding Michele Bachmann‘s suggested budget cuts.

    What I mean by wanting a program, in this case, is wanting the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet not wanting to take care of the people who have to carry out those missions. I will note my own biases: I’m a veteran myself. But I didn’t come back wounded, and obviously I did not die and leave survivors requiring care and support. Those who do make those sacrifices deserve our support. Even a cynical, calculating approach would suggest the need to support those who actually do the work.

    Veterans benefits are not like welfare. Veterans earn this support. In a moral sense, they are entitled to it. Those benefits are part of the cost of paying for taking military action around the world. If we don’t want the costs, we should take action to make less demands on our military people.

    Now I support reducing the deficit, so I feel obligated to suggest other ways in which the budget might be cut. I would include cuts in some spending for military equipment. Every year there are projects started or perpetuated by politicians who see it as a safe way to get government spending for their constituents. Many of these projects are opposed by the people who actually have to use the equipment or bases in question. That’s a good start for ways to reduce spending.

    We might continue by planning a strategy to fight terrorism that doesn’t involve invading and occupying countries that sponsor terrorism. Improving intelligence gathering (spend more there) and improving our ability to carry out surgical strikes should help.

    I’d also suggest we find a different approach to drugs. Not incarcerating people simply for possession would certainly save a bit of money.

    My point is not to suggest that I have balanced the budget with these suggestions. I’ve worked with some of the numbers, and what I’ve just suggested isn’t enough. But I think it will offset the amount I’m suggesting Bachmann should not be cutting.

    I won’t go into further detail here, but I have previously suggested that Social Security will need serious changes, including raising the retirement age. Though I believe that money should not be part of the general budget, at the moment, it’s being treated that way.

    The idea of general freezes is, in my view, just another way in which politicians try to avoid the need to behave responsibly. What they need to do is identify programs that work and those that don’t, and cut the ones that don’t. Once they’ve done that, they can start making hard choices regarding things we want but can’t afford.

    I do congratulate Bachmann (whom I generally dislike) on one major point: She’s point some specifics out there. It was a plan to balance the budget that got me on the Ronald Reagan bandwagon in 1976. As I recall, the amount was $90 billion at the time. Unfortunately, I found out over time that Reagan was less concerned with balanced budgets than I was.

     

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Troy Britain Tours Young Earth Creationist Dinosaur Park

    He doesn’t like what he sees.

  • Grow a Scriptural Faith – For Your Kids

    The joint blog through the book Almost Christian by John Meunier and his daughter continues with Parents Matter Most. I must recommend this series again, because both participants are making excellent points and being quite open about spirituality. You can follow the links in the various posts.

    A key takeaway line this time:

    Neither grows a scriptural teen faith. Because the solution isn’t to barricade kids or to throw them to the sharks. It’s for the adults to grow a scriptural faith, too [emphasis mine].

    Who knew? 🙂

    I don’t think the problems with Christianity are hard to find. We have students who want to learn to understand their Bibles but don’t want to be bothered reading them during the week, people who want active prayer lives, provided they don’t have to pray, and parents who want their children to be in church, but who don’t want to model spirituality for them. I must confess to weakness in the latter two items as well, and on occasion in the first! This isn’t a rant in which I can point fingers.

    I point again to Psalm 78, especially verses 5-8. The scriptural pattern is there. Why not follow it?

    Enhanced by Zemanta