I probably place less emphasis on secular politics than most anyone you know. As a former member of both the Moral Majority and the American Family Association, I’ve written my fair share of letters and participated in a few boycotts along the way. My perception of their ultimate ineffectiveness eventually led me away from them.
The first presidential election in which I voted was Reagan-Mondale in 1984. After work I stood in the voting line at Riverdale Elementary School and counted it a tremendous privilege and must say that I experienced some amount of national pride in that moment. I was happy for the Reagan landslide as we watched it unfold that night and I’ve never missed an election night broadcast since. I’ve always voted in primaries and in as many runoffs as I was able. For several elections I voted a straight Republican ticket as Georgia was such a Democratic stronghold that I simply wanted to see competing ideas under the capital dome. (One such competing idea recently espoused by a Georgia Republican leader is that the courts are to “enforce the will of the people.” So much for the rule of law.)
Along with many other pastors, I’ve come pretty close to endorsing a candidate, but have stayed just short of that. The older that I’ve gotten, the less impressed I have become with any politician and so it was with a sense of despair that I had someone ask me the question in February, “Who are you going to support for President?” When I recently joined Facebook and had the option to choose a political affiliation, I was looking for “Given up hope,” but that wasn’t an option.
The purpose for this post is not to endorse a candidate, though at this point there is one that I will support (though I disagree with some of his positions) and only one more for whom I might vote in the end. Writing in a candidate is always an option for me; I’ve done it before in both state and national elections. At this point I’ve concluded that the major candidates are just varying degrees of the same thing, whether Democrat or Republican.
Besides the issue that the Bible directly addresses, the sanctity of human life, there are other issues that have become increasingly important to me such as American empire building abroad, unsound monetary policy, needless income taxes, the unwise lack of balance between the legislative and executive branches, ever expanding government and the national debt which, it seems, is barely making it into the debates this time around.
When I found out that the United States maintains over 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world, I was shocked. Are we really that concerned about a national enemy? Al-Queada is not a national enemy and traditional military bases seem ineffective against terrorists’ strategies anyway. Why are we still in Okinawa, Japan more than 50 years after the bombs were dropped? Why are we still in Germany decades after V-E Day? Are these countries not able to defend themselves? How much of a dependency has the US created in various countries that should already have been supporting themselves? It seems completely bizarre that we give “foreign aid” in the way that this chart describes. I no longer find it wise, necessary or feasible that we should consider ourselves the world’s policemen.
And, Presidential Prayer Team not withstanding, it is more than a little disturbing to me that the Halliburton Corp not only wins a no-bid contract to “rebuild” Iraq, but its subsidiaries are paid billions more in tax dollars to provide service and support at military installations around the world.
It bothers me as a taxpayer that $2B a day is being borrowed from international banks (governments?) to finance with no plan at all of it being paid back. I understand that much of the financing is coming from China…do we really want to be servant to that lender?
And while I do not completely understand monetary policy, I am suspicious of the Federal Reserve and its power to print money at will thereby decreasing the real value of property, savings and retirement. Not too long ago you could vacation to Canada and live like a king for a week. The US dollar was worth about $1.50 Canadian “loonie,” creating a boon for the American traveler and a blessing for Canadian wait staff when it came time to leave the tip–a few American dollars equaled a 30% tip! A 1998 trip to Australia found the same thing regarding the strength of the dollar. (In fact, the host pastor of the church were I preached was apprehensive about giving me the love offering in cash saying that by the time it was exchanged it would provide me with virtually nothing. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the opal faced, Pierre Cardin watch that I received instead!) I do not know if going back to the “gold standard” is the answer, but it does seem that some consistent measure could be formulated. As it is the “potato chip standard” might be as good as what we have.
And while Ross Perot’s homespun analogies might have over simplified the situation in the early 90’s the national debt created by irresponsible, unbridled politicians of both major parties has become an issue of almost unfathomable importance and virtually no candidate has even the remotest idea on how to solve it. I don’t think it’s too strong a language to say that the politicians of today are fiscally raping the tax payers of tomorrow. What Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Tyler in 1816 has foretold today:
I sincerely believe…that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
To put it another way, the Federal government of the past few years has behaved immorally against the American people so that our children are going to be left with a massive burden they did not create. We have been warned about this for years, but have now reached the point where Democrats and Republicans alike seem to believe that the federal government is just one big teat out of which all Americans and much of the world have a right to drink. This overspending cannot be financed forever.
Consider the following quotes from A More Perfect Constitution by Larry J. Sabato of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia:
In 2001, the accumulated debt of the United States stood at a sobering $5.6 trillion. This is despite the fact that the high-tech bubble of the late 1990’s had produced one of the most prosperous moments in American history, pouring tax revenues into the Treasury as businesses and individuals grew richer. In fact, from 1998 to 2001, the annual deficits were eliminated–but the surplus of more than a half a trillion dollars was mainly spent on government programs rather than used to retire a substantial portion of the national debt…The high-tech bubble burst in 2001, triggering a mild recession, and the shock of 9/11 produced more economic gloom….By 2007 the national debt had mushroomed to a staggering $8.8 trillion, which is equivalent to more than $29,000 of debt for every American citizen, adult and child…Since 2000 we have added almost half as much to our national debt as we had accumulated in all the previous years of the American republic. (pgs. 54, 55)
To illustrate: If a senior adult was so entirely irresponsible that they spent everything that they had, mortgaged all property and continued to accumulate debt until their death, leaving no positive inheritance to their children, only debts on the estate that must somehow be settled, our view of them would be of immaturity, selfishness and/or incompetency. The truth is that our elected officials in D.C. have done and are doing exactly the same thing.
The key to all this, of course, is to vastly reduce the size of the federal government, eliminating many departments completely and decrease other departments drastically. Must of what the government “has responsibility over” could be done as good or better by the private sector anyway. As one person said recently, “Whatever government controls becomes more expensive and less effective, whereas whatever the private sector controls becomes more effective and less expensive.” Just one example: the Department of HUD vs the development of personal computers. Okay, another: FEMA vs Wal-Mart (after Hurricane Katrina). Too few candidates seem to addressing the size of government. IT’S TOO STINKIN’ BIG!!
Mitt Romney does address the issue of big government on his campaign site, but Romney’s already demonstrated flip-flop on the abortion issue has damaged his credibility in the eyes of too many for him to win the nomination, IMO. (I could never vote for someone who looks and acts so much like a “Ken” doll.)
Mike “I’m Your” Huckabee seems to think that a Fair Tax is the answer. Ok. So if I understand this right, we would get to keep the 15-28% that is paid in our current bracket. Then, assuming 23% national sales tax, I would be blessed to add $4,600 dollars of federal tax on the purchase of a new $20,000 car, $230 to a new $1,000 washer and dryer set, and $23 to a few books at my local Lifeway store. I really don’t see how this benefits anybody as a lower tax. (And, in a twist few are talking about, your kids and mine who work and scrimp and save to buy an iPod or Wii or something else will also be hit with a 23% federal sales tax creating a situation where non wage earners are paying federal taxes. That’s “fair.”) The obvious question for either of these is why replace the income tax with anything? It sounds like they aren’t going to be reducing the size of government at all, but finding a new way to fund it. At least Hillary Clinton is open about her big government ideas, while Barack Obama would have to be God in the flesh to fulfill these campaign promises without raising taxes. Read this, by Arkansas writer David J. Sanders, for Huckabee’s taxes while governor.
I’d rather reduce government spending and do away with the income tax altogether. We didn’t have one before 1913 but it currently provides about 40% of our federal income. A determined chief executive could surely refuse to sign pork laden appropriations bills such as this one that includes over 9,000 pork projects forcing our idiotic congress to live within our means. (Since a line item veto has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, anyone running on that platform is pandering. Unless they are determined to lead in a constitutional amendment providing a line item veto it is all talk. Only a President willing to veto, veto and veto again will be able to stop congress.) Of course, our current chief executive has expanded government at a rate that would make FDR proud and makes me wonder if he remembers which political affiliation he claims. (Here is a pdf file excerpt from the 2008 U.S. budget. Pay close attention to the charts.)
It seems that this election will show whether the citizens of the U.S. can even conceive of life without big government. Can the limited federal government that the constitution envisions return the radar screen of voters or have we grown so accustomed to it that we’ve become a perversion of Patty Hearst–having been taken hostage by big government are we now so convinced that we can’t get along without it that we have become its defender? Caucuses, primaries, November and time will tell.
