My fellow citizens:
I address you today, not as a leader, but instead as a servant. This will not be the most eloquent or charismatic speech you have ever read, but I feel that it is necessary to speak candidly to you from my heart. I am merely seeking your consideration, not in regard to me personally, but as to my proposals, challenges, and concepts that I present to you.
I told you that I speak to you as a servant -- I am a servant of Christ and of people. Now, yes, I try to live my life like Christ, but I often find myself unsuccessful. I make mistakes because I am imperfect. But that's what being a Christian is about: trying, trying, and trying again, and living in a state that we know that we are forgiven by God's grace. We as Christians try to better ourselves constantly. We have been instructed to examine ourselves and clean ourselves from the inside, so that we can realize our mistakes, learn from them, and teach others.
Now, I also said that I'm not speaking to you as a leader -- I am not claiming to know everything there is to know about everything. I don't. But I do understand that's we want that from the person we elect to be the leader of our country, because not everyone can do it, and we hope for some intellectual giant and flawless decision-maker to lead us to what is best. Nevertheless, as I proposed before, I only ask that you consider the concepts I present to you.
It must first be noted that we, as Americans, want what is best; I think it is fair to say, generally, that we all are genuinely interested in what is best for all. I use the term "America" not as a piece of land, not as a set of documents, but as a collection of individuals who, throughout history, have yearned for the best and what is right. And Americans are do-ers. When something isn't isn't right, Americans do something about it. I truly believe that at the root of the two dominant political parties lies a genuine interest for the best of everyone. However, I have learned that the two parties differ as to how that is to be achieved.
For instance, at this country's inception, we fled England for reasons including that we didn't want to be told who or what to worship and we didn't appreciate the idea of concrete social classes in which nobody could escape or make of themselves what they wished. So, we did something about it and changed it. Our ancestors set up a system that they believed would truly benefit everyone and to give them the best there was to offer. True, there were flaws in that system that we learned from and adapted to correct, such as slavery. And we did something to correct that problem and eradicate it. We continue to face flaws today 236 years later. And we're still learning and engaging in much discussion as to how to correct the imperfections. That's great news.
So, as to how we all feel that we want what is best, I don't subscribe to the idea that, generally speaking (emphasis added), people want to accumulate all the financial wealth for themselves and purposefully leave others in their dust. Nor do I subscribe to the idea that people, generally speaking, want to strip everything that the single richest man or woman in America has and give it all to the 150,000 poorest people. Give me a little leeway on that. Deep down, I don't believe that we wish ill on someone else, as both of those scenarios depict. However, I do think that we don't want to see people suffering, no matter the circumstance. We don't like seeing disparity and injustice -- and that's the main problem we're trying to solve. And that's something that I see from both political parties. Again, both sides believe in the well-being of all, just disagree as to how to get there.
We disagree on things like "Who should bear the heavier tax burden," and how we can help the economically disadvantaged. We all have our different ideas for those. Here is my first proposal that I would give a left arm to hear from a politician: There would be less of a problem if people willingly gave more. And I'm not exclusively speaking in financial terms. I personally think that this could be a viable solution. Unfortunately, theory differs from reality.
I believe that where our two political parties branch off and differ is directed at how genuine people can be. Again, they differ in what one sees as theory and another sees as potential reality. Let me explain: (First off, please don't take these next statements too personally. They are intended to be very general and may not even apply to you, but please hear me out.)
Those aligned on the left (Democrats/Liberals/other terms) have somewhat lost hope in the benevolence of people. Through my many discussions with others, I have summarized that they believe "benevolence" is a somewhat mythical theory that won't carry the people as far as you can throw them and is therefore not dependable. And it's somewhat true. People certainly don't give as much as they should. And I'll be the first to admit that I should give more, not to say that I don't give my time and money to others. But it's because of this lack of trust that we have come to rely more heavily on the government. They see that the government has a responsibility to provide for and take care of everybody. And so we come to the conclusion that I initially drew here -- that everyone should be taken care of!
Those aligned on the right (Republicans/Conservatives/other labels) still see that folks can and should be benevolent. They believe these things because of what has been done to contribute to their own successes. They want others to thrive as well, and that's where business comes in -- those on the right see the rewards of their hard work, and they genuinely want others and everyone else to experience the same... generally speaking.
But financial security is just one example of how both sides generally want the best for everyone. I personally want the same, but I don't think that we should have to rely on the government to take care of us. We would all be better off if we had a stronger consideration of others. I can see how we do rely on Uncle Sam. Our trust in the human spirit has been lost, and when something we trust lets us down, it's disappointing. So, we have turned to the government to be the net beneath us.
I know it's somewhat theory to increase reliance on our neighbor, but I know it has worked before. Take the Great Depression. (Now is that time when fact-checkers become busy.) People then lost their trust in third parties, e.g., the stock market, to take care of them. And the government failed them temporarily too. Banks shut down, personal investments literally disappeared, loans were scarcely given, and healthcare was largely unaffordable. So, when America couldn't rely on help from the big wigs and higher-ups, they turned within and next door for help. Farmers lent each other tools and equipment and neighbors gave neighbors coffee and sugar, all the while asking nothing in return, because they knew they could rely on their neighbor to be their spotter in the tough times. I know that my grandparents relied heavily on their friends and neighbors during this time. Both of my grandfathers each grew up on farms with their two parents and ten siblings. "Affordability" was a far-off concept for both families. Daily meals consisted merely of two biscuits and some water. Both of my grandfathers were hard-working men, spending the greater part of 12 to 16 hours per day sweating, bleeding, and working in their teens so that their families could have it easier, both then and in the future. Coupled with new social policies from FDR that folks were largely eager to contribute to, America's benevolence led them to crawling out of its pit of Depression.
I personally believe that "change" is necessary at times. When something's not "broke", don't fix it, but when it is, do something about it. I don't believe, however, in change from the top down; I believe it starts from within and on the personal level. It starts with decision-making -- making the right decisions. And when you don't make a right decision, don't give up hope; make a good decision to get back on your feet and get it together. It's about making the decision to be an influence to someone else. It's about making the decision to pray with your wife and children. It's about making the decision to pass along wholesome values to your children and monitoring their activity to guide them to success and good decisions. It's about making the decisions to forego things that you know are likely to have undesirable consequences. It's about taking responsibility and being accountable for what you can control. It's about making the decision to provide financial assistance to organizations that genuinely provide services that those in poverty truly need, not merely handing out a dollar on the street. It's about making the decision to volunteer your time and energy to the canned food drive to benefit the Tarrant Area Food Bank. It's about making the decision to give some of your clothes away when you have shirts that you've outgrown or never wear anymore, rather than just sitting in your stuffed closet. It's about making the decision to volunteer your time and energy to coach your kid's soccer team and to make an impact on the children -- the future of America. It's about making the decision to visit your next door neighbor who has been undergoing chemotherapy treatments for the past three years. It's about making the decision to let the car in the next lane over in front of you, forgiving them for the possible mistake of not seeing the traffic jam ahead. It's about making the decision to forgive others who make mistakes, just like you do. THAT, my friends, is how true "change" comes about. THAT is how you turn America into a better place. And THAT is how you defeat concepts of entitlement, greed, and self-interests. Do something for somebody else and benefit your neighbor.
The second idea I present to you (that actually doesn't fit super-well in the theme of this whole speech, but what the heck) is that the folks who perform the jobs at the foundation of our society need to be compensated more. Again, theory differs from realistically achieving this. But why shouldn't teachers in public schools be provided more financial assistance? Think about where we would be standing without the love and guidance from our teachers. I think I can fairly state that the public school teachers, pre-k through 12th grade, don't go into the field because of the pay. And I suppose the same can be said about our emergency responders and military. They willingly perform their tasks because they understand the need for those roles in society. God bless them! Why aren't they rewarded more? I believe that better compensating and better encouraging and supporting those with these jobs will strengthen our country's foundation. It's about investing in our safety, or education, and our future.
America once again faces an economic depression. Even though it has lasted now close to four years, it's not as serious as the one in the first half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, Americans are do-ers. Americans are working to do something about it in their different ways. Many blame politicians for not agreeing on a clear plan to turn this around and for keeping us in stalemate. But it's time we put away our fingers and quit playing the blame game, because pointing to the past as a reason for why something wasn't done will not resolve the problem for the future. That's not a plan. That's not going to get us out of the depression. This practice is destructive and only causes pointless disagreements. It's time that we stop being hateful and slanderous on our internet pages and cussing each other out. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with other people, but it's about the way we approach it. It's time that we stop flipping people off on the road. It's time that we stop accusing politicians of lying -- that solves nothing. It's time for CONstruction, rather than DEstruction. As I said before, be responsible for what you can. You may not have a direct say in who sits on the Supreme Court of the United States, but you do have the opportunity to be benevolent to someone on a personal level. Everyone does, no excuses. Give just a little more. It's time that we restore some faith in humanity. Are you building people up or tearing them down? Are you truly benefiting the society in which you live by your every word and action?
I'm aware that this does not solve the entire gamut of issues, but it's certainly a start. I know this is currently theory, but it's only theory if we don't put it into play and apply it. We can make this a reality. Because America is a country of do-ers. God bless you all.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Equality
My apologies for going off the grid for a few months. Now that I have taken the Texas Bar Exam (still awaiting results) and have graduated from law school, I seem to find a few minutes extra on my hands. Thanks to my readers for following and for your patience.
I have begun to cringe at a few certain buzz words that pervade society. Such words are "justice," "diversity," "tolerance," and "equality." These words used to be more pure and have a genuine meaning, but I fear that they have been misused to the point that they now represent words to compel a result or induce someone to be ok with a concept.
So, today's word, ladies and gentlemen, is "equality", brought to you by the letter E! In my mind, equality used to simply refer to pure concepts: God created all mean equal (Declaration of Independence), "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Today, my heart is saddened when the word "equality" is used as a trump card to justify actions that are contrary to what our gut tells us something isn't right per se. These words are used today to suggest that these are noble endeavors. The most prominent twisted example I can give is when our government plays the role of redistributing wealth or money. (My discussion today isn't meant to be exclusive.)
Let's be clear -- do I think that we should be equal, according to the eyes of God? Yes. Is that possible? Probably not; I think that full equality is something only God can control. Do I believe that people should be left to fend for themselves without any help from others? No way. Here is my quarrel: Whose job is it to be the enforcer of equality? (Let's also note that "equality" encompasses a much broader notion than simply economics or finances.)
Generally speaking, why can't we just issue scholarships based on merit (high school GPA and standardized test scores)? And sure, let's give a little latitude to financial need. I don't agree that race, sex, national origin or religion is sometimes considered in order to meet a quota.
Let's propose a hypothetical: Bob has two degrees and is a fairly capable person. He can walk, lift heavy-ish things, think, write, and communicate. Let's say that Bob chooses not to use the skills that God gave him and chooses not to find work -- it's just too hard; Bob has applied at three firms, but none have responded affirmatively, so Bob is giving up. Bob sits at home and, with a feeling of entitlement, awaits his check from Uncle Sam. After all, they owe him because he shouldn't be treated differently from anyone else. And look at ole' Richie Rich over there with his $200,000 a year income. Why should that guy be earning as much as he is, while Bob doesn't have a job? Despite what Obama thinks, Richie built his company on his own, taking out loan after loan, repaying each through many months, and working restless 80-hour work weeks for 8 years. Richie did this while supporting a wife and three children, and has just now started taking his cut/earnings from his company due to the fact that his company is just now beginning to turn quarterly profits. Moreover, he has a few dollars invested in hopes of someday helping his kids pay for college.
Sure, the above situations are a bit extreme, and the general populous most likely doesn't fit the mold. Some do. And sometimes, these stories happen. But for purposes of "equality," why would it make sense for Richie to have the government strip a percentage of his income that could potentially pay for his kids' college education and redistribute it to Bob, thereby rewarding him for giving up and excusing him from paying income taxes? The government, in this scenario, punishes Richie for his hard work and for supporting his family and thinking of his family's future financial stability, in hopes that his kids don't have to incur the same hardships that he does. What boggles my mind is that some folks support this notion! And they further think that it's the government's job to play "income arbiter" and redistribute money based on a limited number represented by earnings or income. Where is the relief for those truly in need?
Sure, I might be limited in my perspective -- limited by my age and lack of experience. I haven't seen the full inner workings of the IRS. But I have had experience in paying taxes (and being taxed out the whazoo because I attempt to save a few bucks for the future. Apparently, that's a mistake for tax liability purposes). Further, I've heard the stories of friends and connections who have made sure that they pay for health insurance, but have been denied critical shots and medication because they were insured (yes, Obamacare made it impossible for the private clinics, most of which are the only healthcare providers in small Texas counties, to provide such shots to those who were insured). That's also a true story. I've engaged in numerous discussions about other folks' involvement in this messy web. And the more I hear, the deeper that rabbit hole goes and the more I disfavor government intervention into this area.
It SHOULD NOT be the government's job to forcibly redistribute people's earnings (and savings), much less anyone else's job to do so. The task involves peeking into people's private lives, speculating and scrutinizing earnings, evaluating many different degrees and levels of need (such as "does Bob really need this money to support himself, or can he really do something about it if he tried?"), sticking fingers into people's bank accounts, and ultimately becoming an arbiter of the populous on a personal level. There is no way to achieve true fairness or efficiency in this. Absolutely not. I'm not talking about theory - I'm speaking in terms of actuality. And if you think there is, get real. I'm sure some of you have had moments of discontent in this area.
So, if Mighty Uncle Sam doesn't do this as well as you'd like, Cody, whose job is it to try and achieve equality? Here is an idea: How about the Church? I'll explain more in a moment, but from what I've seen, the more and more dependent people grow on government, the less they depend (or have the opportunity to depend) on the Church. See, the Bible calls us to benevolence: "Each must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7. "Freely you have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8. (And there are many more verses in which God commands us to give.) Here is my point: it is not truly "benevolence" when you are forced to give to the U.S., knowing that they will inefficiently misallocate the revenue. Sure, some masochists ;-) might be happy to do so, and that's fine, but I have trouble seeing it as doing something out of love on a more personal level, because with those commands to give, I feel that God wants us to develop personal relationships with others. Can you be happy paying taxes? Sure, but while paying taxes is certainly something we should do, it doesn't hit the nail on the head. But the Church is better positioned to care for people.
Up-Sides to church/private intervention: (1) The Church, when gathering collection from its members, won't be in effect punishing those with a higher income by requiring a certain percentage of contribution. (2) The Church can better address those in true need. This means that they won't merely supply welfare checks or food stamps. Instead, the Church has the power to build homes, dig wells, supply food and clothing, give financial advice, develop personal relationships, and more -- all things that the government doesn't do, or at least doesn't do well or provide a direct benefit to people on a personal level. This leads to (#3): Efficiency -- more efficient allocation of goods and services in relation to the basis of need. If you don't agree with me on this point, take a look at and compare the financial statuses of Parkland Hospital, a guv'mint hospital vs. The Texas Scottish Rite, a private institution backed by the Masons, who is just now beginning to bill insurance companies after more than 100 years of existence (see hyperlink). By the way, one of the two is having to cut back almost to the point of closure (hint: it's not the private entity).
Parkland's financials: http://www.
parklandhospital.com/whoweare/
pdf/AR_financials.pdf vs. Scottish Rite's tax return: http://www.
dallasscottishrite.org/
Parkland is spending more than they are getting. (Note: whether or not they have to is not in discussion here.) Scottish Rite had an additional $54,000 they could have spent in 2010, yet they chose not to. Novel concept.
Down-Sides to church intervention: (1) Not everyone is comfortable with churches or the roles that they currently play. It would likely be tough for those to turn to the church in times of need. No blame imparted there, although I strongly encourage reconsideration, based on the above points. (2) This idea of "benevolence" - it gives humanity a very wide credit of trust and hope. (uh oh...buzz words!) A trust that folks can open their pocket books to give to the point that it meets the need. So is it a false or fruitless sense of hope in humanity? It's debatable. I'm not 100% sold. But think about how much more we would have available to toss in the church fund if we weren't coughing up roughly 28% to Uncle Sam. Now am I suggesting a complete cut-off of taxes? No way. That would be utterly foolish. And besides, what would we have to debate? ;-) Taxes are necessary, and I'm an advocate for flat tax (along the lines of achieving true "equality"), but that is also of a different, hairy discussion.
Equality is a much better goal for the Church and is not fit for the government. As I promised to continue earlier, I hope you'll stop to take notice that dependence on government and church/faith/religion/God, in general, are antithetical trade-offs -- more dependence on the U.S. to provide for our needs means "why do we need the church, or the body of our Christian brotherhood, to take care of us when we have Uncle Sam? Perhaps a goal of Obama's? Such a dependence kick-started the downfall of Cuba in the 1950s. Castro and his regime got the citizens to trade their dependence on religion and faith for a dependence on the Cuban gov't to take care of them. Worked out well (*facetious statement there). Alternatively, more dependence on Christ makes us realize that Christ gives us so much more, both now and eternally, than any government or political party could even promise or deliver.
To close out, I leave you with food for thought:
I have begun to cringe at a few certain buzz words that pervade society. Such words are "justice," "diversity," "tolerance," and "equality." These words used to be more pure and have a genuine meaning, but I fear that they have been misused to the point that they now represent words to compel a result or induce someone to be ok with a concept.
So, today's word, ladies and gentlemen, is "equality", brought to you by the letter E! In my mind, equality used to simply refer to pure concepts: God created all mean equal (Declaration of Independence), "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Today, my heart is saddened when the word "equality" is used as a trump card to justify actions that are contrary to what our gut tells us something isn't right per se. These words are used today to suggest that these are noble endeavors. The most prominent twisted example I can give is when our government plays the role of redistributing wealth or money. (My discussion today isn't meant to be exclusive.)
Let's be clear -- do I think that we should be equal, according to the eyes of God? Yes. Is that possible? Probably not; I think that full equality is something only God can control. Do I believe that people should be left to fend for themselves without any help from others? No way. Here is my quarrel: Whose job is it to be the enforcer of equality? (Let's also note that "equality" encompasses a much broader notion than simply economics or finances.)
Generally speaking, why can't we just issue scholarships based on merit (high school GPA and standardized test scores)? And sure, let's give a little latitude to financial need. I don't agree that race, sex, national origin or religion is sometimes considered in order to meet a quota.
Let's propose a hypothetical: Bob has two degrees and is a fairly capable person. He can walk, lift heavy-ish things, think, write, and communicate. Let's say that Bob chooses not to use the skills that God gave him and chooses not to find work -- it's just too hard; Bob has applied at three firms, but none have responded affirmatively, so Bob is giving up. Bob sits at home and, with a feeling of entitlement, awaits his check from Uncle Sam. After all, they owe him because he shouldn't be treated differently from anyone else. And look at ole' Richie Rich over there with his $200,000 a year income. Why should that guy be earning as much as he is, while Bob doesn't have a job? Despite what Obama thinks, Richie built his company on his own, taking out loan after loan, repaying each through many months, and working restless 80-hour work weeks for 8 years. Richie did this while supporting a wife and three children, and has just now started taking his cut/earnings from his company due to the fact that his company is just now beginning to turn quarterly profits. Moreover, he has a few dollars invested in hopes of someday helping his kids pay for college.
Sure, the above situations are a bit extreme, and the general populous most likely doesn't fit the mold. Some do. And sometimes, these stories happen. But for purposes of "equality," why would it make sense for Richie to have the government strip a percentage of his income that could potentially pay for his kids' college education and redistribute it to Bob, thereby rewarding him for giving up and excusing him from paying income taxes? The government, in this scenario, punishes Richie for his hard work and for supporting his family and thinking of his family's future financial stability, in hopes that his kids don't have to incur the same hardships that he does. What boggles my mind is that some folks support this notion! And they further think that it's the government's job to play "income arbiter" and redistribute money based on a limited number represented by earnings or income. Where is the relief for those truly in need?
Sure, I might be limited in my perspective -- limited by my age and lack of experience. I haven't seen the full inner workings of the IRS. But I have had experience in paying taxes (and being taxed out the whazoo because I attempt to save a few bucks for the future. Apparently, that's a mistake for tax liability purposes). Further, I've heard the stories of friends and connections who have made sure that they pay for health insurance, but have been denied critical shots and medication because they were insured (yes, Obamacare made it impossible for the private clinics, most of which are the only healthcare providers in small Texas counties, to provide such shots to those who were insured). That's also a true story. I've engaged in numerous discussions about other folks' involvement in this messy web. And the more I hear, the deeper that rabbit hole goes and the more I disfavor government intervention into this area.
It SHOULD NOT be the government's job to forcibly redistribute people's earnings (and savings), much less anyone else's job to do so. The task involves peeking into people's private lives, speculating and scrutinizing earnings, evaluating many different degrees and levels of need (such as "does Bob really need this money to support himself, or can he really do something about it if he tried?"), sticking fingers into people's bank accounts, and ultimately becoming an arbiter of the populous on a personal level. There is no way to achieve true fairness or efficiency in this. Absolutely not. I'm not talking about theory - I'm speaking in terms of actuality. And if you think there is, get real. I'm sure some of you have had moments of discontent in this area.
So, if Mighty Uncle Sam doesn't do this as well as you'd like, Cody, whose job is it to try and achieve equality? Here is an idea: How about the Church? I'll explain more in a moment, but from what I've seen, the more and more dependent people grow on government, the less they depend (or have the opportunity to depend) on the Church. See, the Bible calls us to benevolence: "Each must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7. "Freely you have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8. (And there are many more verses in which God commands us to give.) Here is my point: it is not truly "benevolence" when you are forced to give to the U.S., knowing that they will inefficiently misallocate the revenue. Sure, some masochists ;-) might be happy to do so, and that's fine, but I have trouble seeing it as doing something out of love on a more personal level, because with those commands to give, I feel that God wants us to develop personal relationships with others. Can you be happy paying taxes? Sure, but while paying taxes is certainly something we should do, it doesn't hit the nail on the head. But the Church is better positioned to care for people.
Up-Sides to church/private intervention: (1) The Church, when gathering collection from its members, won't be in effect punishing those with a higher income by requiring a certain percentage of contribution. (2) The Church can better address those in true need. This means that they won't merely supply welfare checks or food stamps. Instead, the Church has the power to build homes, dig wells, supply food and clothing, give financial advice, develop personal relationships, and more -- all things that the government doesn't do, or at least doesn't do well or provide a direct benefit to people on a personal level. This leads to (#3): Efficiency -- more efficient allocation of goods and services in relation to the basis of need. If you don't agree with me on this point, take a look at and compare the financial statuses of Parkland Hospital, a guv'mint hospital vs. The Texas Scottish Rite, a private institution backed by the Masons, who is just now beginning to bill insurance companies after more than 100 years of existence (see hyperlink). By the way, one of the two is having to cut back almost to the point of closure (hint: it's not the private entity).
Parkland's financials: http://www.
parklandhospital.com/whoweare/
pdf/AR_financials.pdf vs. Scottish Rite's tax return: http://www.
dallasscottishrite.org/
Parkland is spending more than they are getting. (Note: whether or not they have to is not in discussion here.) Scottish Rite had an additional $54,000 they could have spent in 2010, yet they chose not to. Novel concept.
Down-Sides to church intervention: (1) Not everyone is comfortable with churches or the roles that they currently play. It would likely be tough for those to turn to the church in times of need. No blame imparted there, although I strongly encourage reconsideration, based on the above points. (2) This idea of "benevolence" - it gives humanity a very wide credit of trust and hope. (uh oh...buzz words!) A trust that folks can open their pocket books to give to the point that it meets the need. So is it a false or fruitless sense of hope in humanity? It's debatable. I'm not 100% sold. But think about how much more we would have available to toss in the church fund if we weren't coughing up roughly 28% to Uncle Sam. Now am I suggesting a complete cut-off of taxes? No way. That would be utterly foolish. And besides, what would we have to debate? ;-) Taxes are necessary, and I'm an advocate for flat tax (along the lines of achieving true "equality"), but that is also of a different, hairy discussion.
Equality is a much better goal for the Church and is not fit for the government. As I promised to continue earlier, I hope you'll stop to take notice that dependence on government and church/faith/religion/God, in general, are antithetical trade-offs -- more dependence on the U.S. to provide for our needs means "why do we need the church, or the body of our Christian brotherhood, to take care of us when we have Uncle Sam? Perhaps a goal of Obama's? Such a dependence kick-started the downfall of Cuba in the 1950s. Castro and his regime got the citizens to trade their dependence on religion and faith for a dependence on the Cuban gov't to take care of them. Worked out well (*facetious statement there). Alternatively, more dependence on Christ makes us realize that Christ gives us so much more, both now and eternally, than any government or political party could even promise or deliver.
To close out, I leave you with food for thought:
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Rick Santorum and Contraception
I like Rick Santorum, and I'm voting for him in this election. It's only my personal belief. I just think that Santorum has his priorities right - focus on social issues first and economic policies after that. "Ultimately," said Santorum at a local rally I attended recently, "America's identity boils down to its rights. It is these rights that distinguish America from the rest of the world, and we must fight together to protect those rights. If we lose our inalienable rights, we have lost our identity." Couldn't agree more. In the big picture, our identity is not based on the amount of dollars our country has (or doesn't have) in its pocket.
Sadly, many are deterred from Santorum based on a misperception that once in office, he will regulate, and perhaps ban, contraceptions (or birth control). I hope you're not one of the people that have bought into this idea. Where do these people come up with that idea? I bet they have been duped by believing the media (oh boy, there's a can of worms). Liberal media wants to present this as an issue to deter folks from voting for this conservative candidate.
Let's not be fooled. Check out his statement on CNN (The Communist News Network, haha). He states that birth control should be available. And check out his voting record. Where has he voted to regulate contraception? Pray tell.
To clarify, abortion is an entirely separate issue from contraception. I can't say that he personally believes the two are different, but he has made it very clear that his personal beliefs are not, and should not be, imposed on the rest of society. God bless him for that. It is true that Santorum consistently votes pro-life (anti-abortion). God bless him for that, too.
And that's the #1 reason I like Santorum. He defers to God's instruction when deciding his stance on issues. I will never vote for a candidate who takes the position that it is acceptable to willingly take the life of an innocent child without danger to both the child and mother's health. That is inconsistent with my view of God's will.
Sadly, many are deterred from Santorum based on a misperception that once in office, he will regulate, and perhaps ban, contraceptions (or birth control). I hope you're not one of the people that have bought into this idea. Where do these people come up with that idea? I bet they have been duped by believing the media (oh boy, there's a can of worms). Liberal media wants to present this as an issue to deter folks from voting for this conservative candidate.
Let's not be fooled. Check out his statement on CNN (The Communist News Network, haha). He states that birth control should be available. And check out his voting record. Where has he voted to regulate contraception? Pray tell.
To clarify, abortion is an entirely separate issue from contraception. I can't say that he personally believes the two are different, but he has made it very clear that his personal beliefs are not, and should not be, imposed on the rest of society. God bless him for that. It is true that Santorum consistently votes pro-life (anti-abortion). God bless him for that, too.
And that's the #1 reason I like Santorum. He defers to God's instruction when deciding his stance on issues. I will never vote for a candidate who takes the position that it is acceptable to willingly take the life of an innocent child without danger to both the child and mother's health. That is inconsistent with my view of God's will.
Monday, April 02, 2012
A Christian Lawyer in a Not-So-Christian World
I'm in my last semester of law school. Lord willing, and through His power and sustenance, I will be a licensed, practicing attorney in seven months. I just took the Professional Responsibility exam and will be sitting for the Bar Exam in July. If you feel compelled, lifting a prayer in my direction is certainly appreciated. That such a great responsibility is about to be thrown on my shoulders in short time is slightly scary. Nevertheless, this isn't about me; this is 100% about God using me in a way that will accomplish His will and His purposes.
So, in case you were dying to know why lawyers are such crooks, I have been noting (although, not well) some of the inconsistencies in the practice of law and the practice of following Christ. As a disclaimer, some will say that the two codes are indeed consistent; however, these are my personal notes and observations. I wouldn't say they directly clash, but there are noteworthy nuances.
1. Lawyers don't lend money to clients.
I am almost certain that the money the restriction speaks of is client funds (particularly, funds in holding) and not personal funds. The goal is that attorneys' judgment calls aren't to be affected by ulterior motives, such as gaining your loaned money back. That seems fair, but I can't help but recall that Jesus tells us, in the Sermon on the Mount, to give to the man that asks. And if someone sues you, give him not just your cloak, but your tunic also. And I don't see an exception. (See Matthew 5:38-42)
2. Generally, lawyers don't have a duty to do the best thing, only the acceptable thing.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are written to be a floor, or standard, that an attorney cannot fall below in conduct. They (soon to be "we") are permitted to go above and beyond the call, but the rules are what are noted as acceptable. But does Jesus call us to be merely acceptable, or are we called to be the best we can possibly be? (Note Matthew 5:43-48). Again, this is not necessarily inconsistent per se, as attorney rules allow for better-than-minimal acts.
3. Attorneys are always working in ways that will protect themselves.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing; indeed, it's a smart thing to do. But I think it's sad that lawyers have to be constantly looking over their shoulders in preparing work. They are fearful that clients will turn around and sue for malpractice. Note: It is fairly difficult to prove and win a malpractice suit against an attorney. Moreover, as I noted, malpractice is most often due to an act that fell below that "floor." I just think that in such an environment of self-protection and "C.Y.A.", it would be easy to get caught up in and focus more on selfish endeavors to protect myself. It should be absolutely important to put the client's interests ahead of the attorney's.
There are more things to note, but I won't get into nitty-gritty rules of attorney conduct and practice. That might put you to sleep. As always, thank you for reading, and thank you for your support. I can't wait to finally finish law school.
So, in case you were dying to know why lawyers are such crooks, I have been noting (although, not well) some of the inconsistencies in the practice of law and the practice of following Christ. As a disclaimer, some will say that the two codes are indeed consistent; however, these are my personal notes and observations. I wouldn't say they directly clash, but there are noteworthy nuances.
1. Lawyers don't lend money to clients.
I am almost certain that the money the restriction speaks of is client funds (particularly, funds in holding) and not personal funds. The goal is that attorneys' judgment calls aren't to be affected by ulterior motives, such as gaining your loaned money back. That seems fair, but I can't help but recall that Jesus tells us, in the Sermon on the Mount, to give to the man that asks. And if someone sues you, give him not just your cloak, but your tunic also. And I don't see an exception. (See Matthew 5:38-42)
2. Generally, lawyers don't have a duty to do the best thing, only the acceptable thing.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are written to be a floor, or standard, that an attorney cannot fall below in conduct. They (soon to be "we") are permitted to go above and beyond the call, but the rules are what are noted as acceptable. But does Jesus call us to be merely acceptable, or are we called to be the best we can possibly be? (Note Matthew 5:43-48). Again, this is not necessarily inconsistent per se, as attorney rules allow for better-than-minimal acts.
3. Attorneys are always working in ways that will protect themselves.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing; indeed, it's a smart thing to do. But I think it's sad that lawyers have to be constantly looking over their shoulders in preparing work. They are fearful that clients will turn around and sue for malpractice. Note: It is fairly difficult to prove and win a malpractice suit against an attorney. Moreover, as I noted, malpractice is most often due to an act that fell below that "floor." I just think that in such an environment of self-protection and "C.Y.A.", it would be easy to get caught up in and focus more on selfish endeavors to protect myself. It should be absolutely important to put the client's interests ahead of the attorney's.
There are more things to note, but I won't get into nitty-gritty rules of attorney conduct and practice. That might put you to sleep. As always, thank you for reading, and thank you for your support. I can't wait to finally finish law school.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Jesus > Imperfect People
6.6 million hits on YouTube. Over 60,000 comments under the link, with many more circulating among social websites and pervading conversations. I'm talking about the recent video "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus". If you choose to watch it, I strongly recommend putting on your critical thinking cap, and take captive in your minds every claim that is made. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&feature=g-logo&context=G2474ba1FOAAAAAAABAA
This post is intended to relay my thoughts and comments on the video. I'll say up front that I dislike it; it was something I couldn't bring myself to finish while watching the first time through. But, as encouraged by friends, I'm going to remain positive, such as making statements like this: I think that 99% of the video's caption, standing by itself, is great stuff. The problem, however, is the spoken word. My challenge: to include Scripture as my bases for objections.
Here is what I find convincing and true about the video (POSITIVES):
(1) Religion itself was never meant to be about self-righteousness or about following a set of rules. Jesus did indeed bust people's chops for doing so.
(2) That's how we, as imperfect people, have perverted something that God set forth as holy. We have let our bone-headed mistakes discourage others from wanting to be a part of the Family. I call these "church owies". It's reality, and it deeply saddens me. And if you are reading this and have become a product of one of these owies, I apologize to you for whatever it was. But I strongly encourage you not to allow what imperfect men have done to taint your image of what God has set forth. We'll talk about that in a minute.
(3) Church is not meant to be a place where people come to have all the mistakes they did Monday through Saturday cleansed so they can repeat the same mistakes again the next week. Nor is it meant to be a museum of the pious and perfect. It is, indeed, a gathering where Christ-followers come to seek edification from brothers and sisters who, in all likelihood, find themselves making the same mistakes you do.
(4) Yes, the family of believers has hypocrites, and it's a shame.
On the other hand, these statements are where I take issue with the spoken message (OBJECTIONS):
Before I start, I want you to do two things: (a) Define for yourself what "religion" is. The way the video uses it, I think, has to do with organized bodies of believers. Personally, I feel that it is critical to make the distinction that "religion" is a set of beliefs and the actions carried out in support or response, while people are a different subject. Religion is inanimate; people do the acting. (b) Secondly, I want you to put on your thinking caps and make decisions for yourselves. 1 Corinthians 14:20 says "in your thinking, be mature."
(1) This guy makes tons of claims about Jesus. Where is His scriptural support? I know it's meant to be a poem, but putting Jesus' life and mission into words is something that is never meant to be taken lightly. Thus, it needs absolute backing from the Bible. I didn't hear a single Biblical support. Again, I'm going to try to avoid being hypocritical whenever I possibly can, so I'll try my best to cite.
(2) Fallacy #1 (even though this is point #2): the claim that "Jesus came to abolish religion". This claim is not only completely irrational, but not scripturally supported. Objection: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but fulfill." Appealing to logic, why would Jesus come to destroy what His Father set up (note the temples where people gathered in the Old Testament)? Or why, then, did Jesus send apostles out to different cities?
(3) Fallacy #2: Claim: "If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars? Why does it build huge churches, but fail to feed the poor?" Objection based on logic: Again religion is inanimate. It cannot by itself do anything. People start wars, based on imperfect qualities about them. It is people's jobs to feed others; an inanimate object cannot do so. That's about as rational as saying "Guns kill people; people don't kill people." Or "I didn't hit you with my car; my car hit you." Or "you can't get mad at me; I didn't say those words - it was the keyboard that typed them." Of course, the institution itself cannot do, it is up to the individual person to make the decision.
(4) Fallacy #3: Claim: "Jesus and religion are on opposite ends of the spectrum... One is made by God, the other by man." My objection is based on the assumption that "religion" = the gathering of Christians. Sure, we have imperfections, but that doesn't dismiss the command to gather. The Bible doesn't make that exception. As a matter of fact, I don't find many exceptions to what we are instructed to do, if any! And to point out, the gathering was most certainly not created by man.
(a) Matthew 18:20 "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." Doesn't sound to me like Jesus came to abolish this. In fact, Jesus blesses the gathering and says that He is with us when we congregate.
(b) 1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." So I'm being told by an imperfect man that church wasn't ordained by God and is an ugly thing, yet the Bible tells me that God's peace rests with the gathering of His imperfect children? I think I'll go with the Bible.
(c) Hebrews 10:24-25: "Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another"
(d) 1 Corinthians 14 entails instructions for when we gather together.
(e) 1 John 1:7 "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another."
Therefore, God doesn't separate himself from things that are holy. From my recollection, the only thing that God separates Himself from is sin. But He loves us unconditionally, imperfections and all.
(5) Claim: "Religion says Do, but Jesus says Done." What's wrong with that? Objection: "Faith without works is dead"...? James 2:17. Plus, the speaker was wanting the "church" to feed people, right? Isn't that a "do"?
(6) Claim: "Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free." Objection: Again, this is a personal choice. You must accept the gift for Jesus to set you free, (even though we are told the Truth sets us free in John 14). But, if we apply that same logic, wouldn't it be our own personal choice if we ALLOW the church to hold us in bondage? It's a simple choice: shuck it and don't let it bind you!
(7) What this guy is doing is exactly the opposite of what he is pointing fingers at. He wants us, as bodies of believers, not to make claims about what is right and wrong, yet he points out the many imperfections of people. In voicing some of my objections, a few friends pointed out that I shouldn't allow my objections get in the way of me seeing the good... yet, here is the speaker's problem. I wouldn't be surprised if he has once been the object of a church owie, but in my opinion, he has effectively allowed it to taint his perspective of something ordained by God! He overlooks what a church does right. Instead, we hear a laundry list of complaints (to keep myself from falling into the same trap, I have listed my positive remarks). Yes, a church, or body of believers, has hypocrites, but you can't allow what a certain person does taint your view of the whole.
(8) In the caption, the speaker says that religion can end in either one of two ways: pride or despair. Now that, to me, totally misses the mark. I know he said he loves churches, but that statement is highly deterrent of others wanting to become a part of a body. When religion is pure, it brings a person closer to God (thus, a third end, if you will). James 1:27 says "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to take care of orphans and widows in distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." It brings us closer to God as mentioned in Proverbs 27:17 - "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." See? There's some great stuff that association brings about.
I fear the video is going to discourage association. And that's purely contradictory to what the Bible tells us to do. I feel (personal opinion) that Christ didn't intend for us to go stag. He wired us to want to be associated and be able to fit in, so He gave us the church for that. A church that was intended for building others up and strengthening each other. Again, man misses the mark when that goal is not accomplished. But it is wrong to blame the institution when one man's words or actions hurt another. That's like blaming your entire body for stubbing your toe. Satan is stronger when we don't have other Christians to strengthen us (there is strength in numbers), and his attacks are stronger in those scenarios.
Even if we accept the whole as a compilation of imperfect people, we still must love each of those people and forgive them as Christ loves and forgives us. See Matthew 5:43, 1 John 2:9, and 1 John 4:19-21. We are called to see them as Christ sees us - He loves His children and calls them His own.
Please don't let what one person or a group of men taint your view of what God set up as holy. Peace be with you.
This post is intended to relay my thoughts and comments on the video. I'll say up front that I dislike it; it was something I couldn't bring myself to finish while watching the first time through. But, as encouraged by friends, I'm going to remain positive, such as making statements like this: I think that 99% of the video's caption, standing by itself, is great stuff. The problem, however, is the spoken word. My challenge: to include Scripture as my bases for objections.
Here is what I find convincing and true about the video (POSITIVES):
(1) Religion itself was never meant to be about self-righteousness or about following a set of rules. Jesus did indeed bust people's chops for doing so.
(2) That's how we, as imperfect people, have perverted something that God set forth as holy. We have let our bone-headed mistakes discourage others from wanting to be a part of the Family. I call these "church owies". It's reality, and it deeply saddens me. And if you are reading this and have become a product of one of these owies, I apologize to you for whatever it was. But I strongly encourage you not to allow what imperfect men have done to taint your image of what God has set forth. We'll talk about that in a minute.
(3) Church is not meant to be a place where people come to have all the mistakes they did Monday through Saturday cleansed so they can repeat the same mistakes again the next week. Nor is it meant to be a museum of the pious and perfect. It is, indeed, a gathering where Christ-followers come to seek edification from brothers and sisters who, in all likelihood, find themselves making the same mistakes you do.
(4) Yes, the family of believers has hypocrites, and it's a shame.
On the other hand, these statements are where I take issue with the spoken message (OBJECTIONS):
Before I start, I want you to do two things: (a) Define for yourself what "religion" is. The way the video uses it, I think, has to do with organized bodies of believers. Personally, I feel that it is critical to make the distinction that "religion" is a set of beliefs and the actions carried out in support or response, while people are a different subject. Religion is inanimate; people do the acting. (b) Secondly, I want you to put on your thinking caps and make decisions for yourselves. 1 Corinthians 14:20 says "in your thinking, be mature."
(1) This guy makes tons of claims about Jesus. Where is His scriptural support? I know it's meant to be a poem, but putting Jesus' life and mission into words is something that is never meant to be taken lightly. Thus, it needs absolute backing from the Bible. I didn't hear a single Biblical support. Again, I'm going to try to avoid being hypocritical whenever I possibly can, so I'll try my best to cite.
(2) Fallacy #1 (even though this is point #2): the claim that "Jesus came to abolish religion". This claim is not only completely irrational, but not scripturally supported. Objection: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but fulfill." Appealing to logic, why would Jesus come to destroy what His Father set up (note the temples where people gathered in the Old Testament)? Or why, then, did Jesus send apostles out to different cities?
(3) Fallacy #2: Claim: "If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars? Why does it build huge churches, but fail to feed the poor?" Objection based on logic: Again religion is inanimate. It cannot by itself do anything. People start wars, based on imperfect qualities about them. It is people's jobs to feed others; an inanimate object cannot do so. That's about as rational as saying "Guns kill people; people don't kill people." Or "I didn't hit you with my car; my car hit you." Or "you can't get mad at me; I didn't say those words - it was the keyboard that typed them." Of course, the institution itself cannot do, it is up to the individual person to make the decision.
(4) Fallacy #3: Claim: "Jesus and religion are on opposite ends of the spectrum... One is made by God, the other by man." My objection is based on the assumption that "religion" = the gathering of Christians. Sure, we have imperfections, but that doesn't dismiss the command to gather. The Bible doesn't make that exception. As a matter of fact, I don't find many exceptions to what we are instructed to do, if any! And to point out, the gathering was most certainly not created by man.
(a) Matthew 18:20 "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." Doesn't sound to me like Jesus came to abolish this. In fact, Jesus blesses the gathering and says that He is with us when we congregate.
(b) 1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." So I'm being told by an imperfect man that church wasn't ordained by God and is an ugly thing, yet the Bible tells me that God's peace rests with the gathering of His imperfect children? I think I'll go with the Bible.
(c) Hebrews 10:24-25: "Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another"
(d) 1 Corinthians 14 entails instructions for when we gather together.
(e) 1 John 1:7 "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another."
Therefore, God doesn't separate himself from things that are holy. From my recollection, the only thing that God separates Himself from is sin. But He loves us unconditionally, imperfections and all.
(5) Claim: "Religion says Do, but Jesus says Done." What's wrong with that? Objection: "Faith without works is dead"...? James 2:17. Plus, the speaker was wanting the "church" to feed people, right? Isn't that a "do"?
(6) Claim: "Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free." Objection: Again, this is a personal choice. You must accept the gift for Jesus to set you free, (even though we are told the Truth sets us free in John 14). But, if we apply that same logic, wouldn't it be our own personal choice if we ALLOW the church to hold us in bondage? It's a simple choice: shuck it and don't let it bind you!
(7) What this guy is doing is exactly the opposite of what he is pointing fingers at. He wants us, as bodies of believers, not to make claims about what is right and wrong, yet he points out the many imperfections of people. In voicing some of my objections, a few friends pointed out that I shouldn't allow my objections get in the way of me seeing the good... yet, here is the speaker's problem. I wouldn't be surprised if he has once been the object of a church owie, but in my opinion, he has effectively allowed it to taint his perspective of something ordained by God! He overlooks what a church does right. Instead, we hear a laundry list of complaints (to keep myself from falling into the same trap, I have listed my positive remarks). Yes, a church, or body of believers, has hypocrites, but you can't allow what a certain person does taint your view of the whole.
(8) In the caption, the speaker says that religion can end in either one of two ways: pride or despair. Now that, to me, totally misses the mark. I know he said he loves churches, but that statement is highly deterrent of others wanting to become a part of a body. When religion is pure, it brings a person closer to God (thus, a third end, if you will). James 1:27 says "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to take care of orphans and widows in distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." It brings us closer to God as mentioned in Proverbs 27:17 - "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." See? There's some great stuff that association brings about.
I fear the video is going to discourage association. And that's purely contradictory to what the Bible tells us to do. I feel (personal opinion) that Christ didn't intend for us to go stag. He wired us to want to be associated and be able to fit in, so He gave us the church for that. A church that was intended for building others up and strengthening each other. Again, man misses the mark when that goal is not accomplished. But it is wrong to blame the institution when one man's words or actions hurt another. That's like blaming your entire body for stubbing your toe. Satan is stronger when we don't have other Christians to strengthen us (there is strength in numbers), and his attacks are stronger in those scenarios.
Even if we accept the whole as a compilation of imperfect people, we still must love each of those people and forgive them as Christ loves and forgives us. See Matthew 5:43, 1 John 2:9, and 1 John 4:19-21. We are called to see them as Christ sees us - He loves His children and calls them His own.
Please don't let what one person or a group of men taint your view of what God set up as holy. Peace be with you.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
My Thorn in the Flesh
2 Corinthians 12:7-10: "In order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." Amen. And such a powerful passage.
God knows me so well, and this verse speaks to me. This is how I perceive myself. Frankly, my thorn in the flesh is being quick to action. I feel that I respond to adversity by objecting, making my voice heard, and standing fast and firm. I take an active approach, not passive; I am a do-er. My problem is I lack sufficient discernment; I don't take a lot of time to think before doing.
I don't follow James 1:19-20 as well as I should: "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires." And personally I feel like anger could perhaps include incitement to action, not just ill feelings.
That's me (Part 1). In being quick to action, I am about as gentle as a fire hydrant. That's one of my side effects. I turn people off from listening to me because I unintentionally become harsh and brash. Apparently, I get "lawyer-y" on others. Ouch.
I want to change. I have been praying to God that He changes that about me. I feel so far that my answer has been no several times, but I am open to considerations: (a) I may not have been ready or open to it, (b) God may choose to say "no", or (c) God is giving me opportunities to develop the change. It has been, and continues to be, a tough process. I'm trying, and I hope I am receptive to what He has in store for me.
God knows me so well, and this verse speaks to me. This is how I perceive myself. Frankly, my thorn in the flesh is being quick to action. I feel that I respond to adversity by objecting, making my voice heard, and standing fast and firm. I take an active approach, not passive; I am a do-er. My problem is I lack sufficient discernment; I don't take a lot of time to think before doing.
I don't follow James 1:19-20 as well as I should: "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires." And personally I feel like anger could perhaps include incitement to action, not just ill feelings.
That's me (Part 1). In being quick to action, I am about as gentle as a fire hydrant. That's one of my side effects. I turn people off from listening to me because I unintentionally become harsh and brash. Apparently, I get "lawyer-y" on others. Ouch.
I want to change. I have been praying to God that He changes that about me. I feel so far that my answer has been no several times, but I am open to considerations: (a) I may not have been ready or open to it, (b) God may choose to say "no", or (c) God is giving me opportunities to develop the change. It has been, and continues to be, a tough process. I'm trying, and I hope I am receptive to what He has in store for me.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Federal Government Spending
In the wake of Obama's budget/fiscal/whatever speech recently, I shared a stimulating conversation with one of my law school buddies. He and I were mainly focusing on how many in America don't know how to live within their means, and how we spend more than we have. In essence, it's poor accounting (moreover, common sense) skills. You just don't "spend" what you don't have in the tank.
In essence, it's what our President is in the business of doing - pledging money in the red. Some might say he "has" the money (referring to taxpayers), but in reality, it isn't in his hands. My friend then took this conversation in the direction of "infrastructure" and how too much is spent on it. Interesting thought. I wasn't sure at the beginning what it meant, but I think Mark Cuban, interestingly enough, has a great perspective on it from a businessman's standpoint. I'll just let him take over:
In essence, it's what our President is in the business of doing - pledging money in the red. Some might say he "has" the money (referring to taxpayers), but in reality, it isn't in his hands. My friend then took this conversation in the direction of "infrastructure" and how too much is spent on it. Interesting thought. I wasn't sure at the beginning what it meant, but I think Mark Cuban, interestingly enough, has a great perspective on it from a businessman's standpoint. I'll just let him take over:
In the case of China, They spent . The economy grew. Correct, but very misleading, but also very informative. Infrastructure spending is VERY BENEFICIAL when the spending creates new commerce opportunities. So in China, when roads were built where there previously had not been a road, thats a good thing. It enables commerce. We have seen it in the US with Dams, Highways, Bridges and more.
With the possible exception of the enhancement and building of schools, the only infrastructure investment that makes sense is where COMMERCE THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY ABLE IS NOW ENABLED BY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.
The problem in the USA is that those opportunities are few and far between. We have been there and done that. The BIGGER PROBLEM WITH INFRASTRUCTURE is that in the name of creating jobs we actually inhibit commerce and possibly cost jobs. How ? When we rebuild or expand roads as a way of creating jobs, what happens ? We shut down or reduce the traffic on the roads to be rebuilt. The net effect is that during the construction period we CREATE PROBLEMS rather than solve them. We slow down commutes. Which costs people valuable time (and yes time is still money), wastes gas/oil/energy as we sit in traffic and forces traffic to streets not designed for the additional traffic. Not Good. The same could be said with building /bridge remodels or updates and other projects. We all want to see the potholes in our streets filled, but now is not the time to do it, and federal funding is not the way to pay for it.
The bottom line is that we have to understand the difference between Maintenance and Infrastructure. Infrastructure creates opportunity where there was none. Maintenance gets things back to where they were. You INVEST in infrastructure when you can see a return. You SPEND money on maintenance when you not only have the available funds to do so, but also the ability to withstand the downtime and negative productivity impact that comes with the impact of the maintenance work. Yes there are times when you need maintenance to return to a steady business state (ie your computer is broken or safety is an issue with a bridge), but again those have an obvious return.
We have to know the difference and the right time to spend . Otherwise a well intentioned availability of capital not only won’t generate a positive return, but could have a negative local impact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)