Immorality of Government Charity

Recently, the Washington Times wrote an article discussing some of the tax changes that President Obama is proposing for charitable deductions. He is proposing reducing the deductibility of charitable donations. For those of us who make significant charitable donations over the course of the year, this is a disturbing development, but the loss of deductibility is only a minor inconvenience compared to a greater danger that this policy contains. Associated with the change in policy is a move toward further government immorality. Let me explain what I mean.

In the Washington Times article, Roberton Williams,senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, was quoted, saying:

This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've behaved in the past.

If we eliminate the deductibility then we may see a drop off in the amount of charitable contributions that occur and that is a serious concern, but frankly if the deduction were completely eliminated there would probably continue to be philanthropist leanings from the majority of the populace. The real danger is found in the next paragraph of the article.

Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.

This is where the immorality comes in. President Obama is not simply proposing reducing the deductibility of donations, he is proposing that the government tax the people and become the replacing donor to these charities. That is coercive and immoral and as a country we should be frightened of the implications of this continued slide toward government forcibly replacing our own better impulses.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this ideology would force us, at gunpoint, to give our money to a government that claims to know better than us how to take care of those in need and thus will make our charitable decisions for us. This is morally decaying and dangerous. If, as a society, we no longer sacrifice our time and money for the care of those in need because we feel morally compelled to do so then we will be on a path to a deserved destruction. The majority of Americans still feel the compulsion to give back to their neighbor in some way or another. It may be through donating time, food or money to the local food bank. It may be donating to the schools. It may be donating to libraries, children's funds, homeless shelters, medical services, prisons, infrastructure projects or any number of other worthy causes. We tend to seek out those things that speak to our own sense of mission in our lives.

If we allow our sense of mission to be usurped by the government then we will lose a connection with our fellow man that softens our worst impulses and creates a positive feedback loop that incites us to further service. That would be a tragedy of epic proportions and something that future historians would sadly shake their heads at. We CANNOT allow that to happen. For the sake of our childrens' liberty, we MUST NOT let it happen. We must communicate with our elected representatives the danger that that path leads to and work to avoid the immorality of government charity.

American Order and Change

I recently read a book entitled The Roots of American Order by Russell Kirk. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the laws, customs, mores, morals, and traditions that lead to the establishment of the American government and which guided the thinking of the framers as they constructed the Declaration and Constitution.

The framers were able to draw on a vast reservoir of tradition beginning in ancient Israel with the Law and the Prophets. They drank deeply from a well of knowledge sorting through glory and ruin in ancient Greece, each providing lessons, patterns, and maps by which to guide their thinking. Looking to the great Roman civilization, they were able to find a guide that would illustrate the necessity of balancing virtue and power. They recognized the unique genius of Christianity as a bridle on passions and as a self-imposed form capable of keeping a free people from running upon themselves with lawlessness and anarchy. The framers understood that Christianity has a tempering influence on people that keeps order in a civilization without overreaching, cumbersome, or intrusive government-mandated laws. In addition, the framers were able to take the sword of faith, the idea of universal truth and courage, from the hand of the knight during the Middle Ages leaving behind the darkness and error that consumes much of middle-age history. The Reformers added to the framers' knowledge reservoir rejecting extremism and endowing them with a sense of moderation. Moreover, the framers made use of seventeenth and eighteenth century philosophers including Lock, Hobbes, Browne, Bunyan, Montesquieu, Hume, Blackstone, Burke and others who set and expanded upon the debate between social compact and natural law (among other things). The framers debated these philosophical ideas accepting some while rejecting others but always with an eye toward the practical over the theoretical. For them, law was nothing if it was not useful.

The framers benefited greatly from an historic legacy of success, failure, refinement, and law. Others also had this same benefit (think French Revolution) but did not have the wisdom to draw upon it. While the French sought irresponsible power as a basis for revolution, the Americans used prudence, judgment, and wisdom as their guide. In a way, as Kirk says, the American Revolution was a “revolution not made, but prevented.” By this he means that the Americans were trying to preserve an established order brought to them by thousands of years of refined human history and religious tradition. The English (King George III and Parliament) were trying overthrow the long established colonial order and engender a new order in the colonies. The goal of king and parliament was less about tea and tax and more about demanding the right to establish a tax if they saw fit. Said Kirk, “What …America stood for was the long-established chartered right of the colonies to govern themselves. They looked upon George III as a monarch who intended to make a revolution by subverting their old ways of self-government; they protested that they, in resisting Crown and Parliament, were preventing this royal revolution.” I can’t think of any leading American patriot who saw himself as a social revolutionary. The Americans were trying to keep their existing order and defend it against external forces while the French rising was what Edmund Burke called, “a revolution of theoretic dogma” intended to tear down the then standing government and replace it with something entirely new.

Order gives freedom its power. Order is not binding, it is liberating. The roots of the American order sink deep in the soil of ancient tradition and prophetic law. While these notions may seem antiquated to some of our friends who worship at the Altar of Modernity, let us not quickly cast them aside for what is shiny, trendy, or new. Our established order embodied in the founding documents has outlasted all others, not because of some new idea or fad dreamed up by the framers, but because of the many traditional values and ideas refined through the experience of time contained in those documents.

I often hear people calling for reform or “change.” Some of those calling for change seek, by judicial fiat, to have an overreaching government abolish long-standing traditions like marriage, a culture that supports life, or a parent’s right to raise their children. Others just seem to want change for the sake of change. At the risk of stating the obvious, let me note that change is not always better. On the other side of the spectrum, I hear a few calling for secession or even revolution. They wish to separate themselves from an ever expansive and intrusive government. While some espouse socialism, others clamor for near unbridled freedom. My plea is to let cooler heads prevail. Radical change in any form departs from those time-honored traditions preserved by the framers in our founding documents. Let us not quickly move away from those traditions and laws that have been refined throughout history and handed to us undiminished by our founding fathers. We need not look to modern Europe to know what is popular or for help in interpreting our laws. We need not turn to radical social reform in time of economic duress. We need only look to our founding documents and to the establishment of the American order as our guide. These documents embody the order of liberty under law, limited government, the God-given right of life, equality under the law, and the unimpeded right to pursue happiness among other things.

Change will come but let it happen over centuries and millennia rather than weeks, months, and years. Let the cleansing power of time sift the ideological chaff from the wheat. I conclude by returning to Kirk’s words, “To live within a just order is to live within a pattern that has beauty. The individual finds purpose within an order, and security – whether it is the order of the soul or the order of the community. Without order, indeed the life of man is poor, nasty, brutish, and short…Although in recent years the American order may have been deficient in imagination—in dealing with its problems of urban life, technology, shifts of population, and education, for instances—nevertheless this American order has maintained a high degree of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity…To protest against the existence of order is to protest against well-being, justice, freedom, and prosperity. Happiness is found in imaginative affirmation, not in sullen negation. Gratitude is one form of happiness; and anyone who appreciates the legacy of moral and social order which he has inherited in America will feel gratitude…One finds happiness in restoring and improving the order of the soul and the order of the republic—not in acts of devastation that make a desert of spirit and of society.”

~Ryan McKeehan

The True Dichotomy

We often hear commentators and journalists use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" or "right" and "left". If you're a Republican then you're probably labeled a conservative of the right wing of political philosophy. You also share the same office space as the Nazis according to many commentators who put fascism on the right wing. That's probably not where you expected to find yourself. If you're a Democrat you may find yourself being described as a liberal or a left-wing idealogue. The problem with these descriptions is that they aren't descriptive. They're whatever you view them to be in your own mind. If you ask 10 people to define conservative or liberal you'll get 11 different answers. It would probably be useful to start a conversation on what the actual ends of the political spectrum are.

The debate about the role of government has raged for centuries and millenia. Hobbes, Plato, Rousseau, Locke, Thoreau, Smith, Voltaire and countless others have debated with each other across time and we still haven't decided unanimously about how we should be ruled or rule ourselves. In spite of an elusive unanimity of opinion in that respect, there is a simple way to lay the ground work for the debate and that is to start by defining the terms we use. I would argue that Republicans and Democrats no more define the right and left ends of the political spectrum than orange and yellow define the ends of the color spectrum. They are closer to each other than the other colors and there are other colors that lay further to the right and left of them.

I would argue that the actual dichotomy in governance is, on the one side, complete totalitarian control over the populace by a governmental elite and, on the other side, complete atomistic every-man-for-himself individualism. With that in mind, it's easier to see that the differences between the Republicans and Democrats has less to do with the extent of government control than it does with where the government control is exercised. Democrats (for the most part) feel comfortable with using government coercion to achieve their ends of social equality, environmental policy, health care and other pet pork projects. Republicans (for the most part) feel comfortable using government coercion to achieve their ends of corporate welfare, agricultural subsidies and other pet pork projects.

I think that most people would agree that complete totalitarian control, someone dictating to you every action you are to take, is an undesirable circumstance. Who wants to be told where they can work, what they can buy, where they can live, who they can associate with, or thousands of other personal decisions? We derive our greatest pleasures and lessons from the choices that we make for ourselves. I believe most people would also agree that a completely individualistic society where there are no rules and no enforcement would be undesirable. Why would you want to live so that you were constantly in fear for your life and your property, never able to trust that the people you meet have similar beliefs regarding your personal well-being. What would keep people from committing theft, assault, deception, contract-breaking and any other hedonistic pursuit?

This is a more useful dichotomy to use. The real question now is: where along this spectrum do we find the best protection of individual human rights while providing enforcement of contract

Suggested reading
The 5,000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen
What Social Classes Owe to Each Other by William Graham Sumner

The Torch; be Yours To Hold it High

Each year in December, we gather with family and friends for a night of music and poetry. In anticipation of this night, I try to memorize one or two new poems to be presented that evening. This year I have committed to memory a poem by Lieutenant- Colonel John McCrae. His beautiful and inspirational poem is called In Flanders Fields.

In Flanders fields, the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.


I’m certain that there are many ways to interpret this highly emotional poem. But on this beautiful Thanksgiving Day, I choose to interpret it with a mind of hope and even of joy.

John McCrae writes of soldiers who have died and who now lie dead in a cemetery. Of course, on the surface, this topic seems to bring great sorrow, and truly it does. But it also brings an image of men – of ordinary, mortal men standing and fighting for something in which they believe. And instead of regretting their decision of dying for a cause, they simply ask us one favor, to “Take up their quarrel with the foe” and to take from their hands, their failing, mortal hands, the torch. All they want from us is to keep their torch burning, to continue fulfilling their mission and to make it our own.

Today, as we feel and express gratitude in our hearts for our many blessings, let us remember those who have gone before. Those who have fought and struggled for a great cause. The greatest way for us to give thanks to them and to our God is for us to take up their torch and to hold it high. We must remember their fight and we must make their battle, our battle. I am not talking simply of war, for there are many quarrels. Consider the quarrel of Mother Theresa, whose foe was hunger, sickness and poverty. Think of the scientist who has worn out his life in the pursuit of extinguishing disease. Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers fought for liberty and against tyranny. William Wilberforce held a torch of freedom and tirelessly fought to end the British slave trade. Mormon pioneers endured seemingly endless struggle as they often gave their lives in a struggle to find refuge and to live the fullness of the gospel. Of course, I could go on and on. But let me end with the greatest struggle of all; the struggle of Jesus Christ to save each and every one of us. Has He not asked each of us to take up the torch and to hold it high? Are we not commanded to let our light shine unto the world?

Now, on this Thanksgiving Day, I hope that each one of us takes up the torch, the torch of liberty, of learning, of love. Let us hold it high so that truth and light may fill the world. For the only tragedy I see in John McCrae’s poem is if we fail to take the torch. So let us remember that ours is the responsibility, while standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before, to grasp the torch from failing hands.
~Heidi McKeehan

Power to Save the World

One of the largest problems facing us over the next several decades is meeting the growing demand for energy without bankrupting ourselves with the costs. I have absolutely no problem in principle with solar and wind energy. They are exciting alternatives that may eventually be able to produce the energy we need. As it stands right now though both of those alternatives are quite expensive. We do, however, have an alternative energy that we have been using for decades with great success: nuclear.

Journalist William Tucker has been investigating nuclear (or as he calls it, terrestrial) energy and shares several insights that seem to be lacking in the debate. Several of those insights relate to challenges faced by the alternatives: hydroelectric is about maxed out because the best dams have already been built, solar requires enormous land areas, wind is fickle and one turbine the height of the Trump Tower creates only 1/200th the electricity of a normal power plant. So while these alternatives may certainly provide greater potential in the future as we invariably apply our ingenuity to the problem, they certainly won't meet the needs of the next 20 or even 50 years because of the time and resources it will take to bring them online in a meaningful enough way to be noticeable. Nuclear, however, provides the electricity we need while being familiar and advanced enough for us to bring meaningful amounts of energy online over the next 20 years.

The term "nuclear" could practically be a Rorschach test. Most people envision mushroom clouds and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Because of that, one of the most vocal proponents of nuclear energy may surprise you. Patrick Moore was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace and now finds himself at odds with many of his former compatriots because of his position on nuclear energy. He argues that nuclear has the ability to replace the majority of our fossil fuel base load energy production while having the added benefit of reducing the greenhouse emissions that concern environmental activists. And it's not a new or untried technology. Nuclear power is the source of 20% of our electricity needs and it has been powering our navy for decades. Its cost is roughly $.02 per kilowatt-hour which is comparable to coal and hydroelectric so we could bring plants online without seeing material changes to our power costs. The same could not be said of solar or wind power.

Of course, the most pressing concerns that people have are related to the radioactivity of the waste. There are several things that people should keep in mind when they consider this. First of all, the process that the radioactive material goes through as it sloughs off particles in order to balance out the number of neutrons eventually leads it to become a series of elements until it finally stabilizes as lead. (For a thorough and fascinating discussion on nuclear power and it's safety go to your library and check out "Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens) Within the first 40 years the material has only one-one thousandth the potency and radioactivity as it started with. We have the capacity to deal with this material. Particularly since we have changed the laws involved with what we classify as nuclear waste.

Years ago, the United States classified every by-product of the nuclear process as nuclear waste. This is ridiculous since a significant amount of potential energy is still in the rods after the first cycle. France, who leads the world in nuclear energy advances, recognized that about 98 percent of the by-product of the first cycle could be reused. As such, they recycle that 98 percent of the material for further use. France, after decades of nuclear production, has been able to limit their waste to fit into a single room in Le Havre. The United States has since changed the law and legalized the recycling of materials which will substantially reduce the difficulties that faced us in dealing with the waste. It can be easily and safely stored in the Yucca Mountains.

One of the other major concerns comes from the nuclear power plant failure of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. These two isolated circumstances are, in the case of Chernobyl, illustrative of the differences in technology and in the case of Three Mile Island illustrative of the success of American nuclear technology. Chernobyl was far and away one of the worst ecological and human disaster in human history. And yet, it was largely a result of incompetence in construction and management. Chernobyl was built without a concrete structure around the reactor, a safety feature that does exist in the American plants. In addition, the Soviets were using materials that are not used in America that actually helped to facilitate the chain reaction that occurred. Chernobyl is so different in style and structure from our plants that it is not helpful in comparison but rather in contrast.

Three Mile Island on the other hand was an unmitigated success. It proved that our systems worked. No one, worker or neighboring inhabitant, was killed or even made sick by the meltdown at Three Mile Island. The fail-safes worked and contained all the damage within a concrete barrier. The scare at Three Mile Island was exacerbated by the coincident release of Jane Fonda's movie "The China Syndrome". It came together and created a maelstrom of misinformation and mistrust that resulted in the complete cessation of nuclear power plant construction in this country.

No energy source is without advantages and disadvantages, but a reasoned debate in solving our country's energy issues should include a full and complete look at an energy source that has served us well without costing us a fortune or causing harm to our health. If we take the time to think things through rather than oppose nuclear energy in a knee-jerk fashion, I think we will find an intriguing solution to our problems.

The Crisis in America

There is a crisis in America, brought to the forefront by the election and other issues facing our nation. It is not a crisis of economics or even politics necessarily, although those are horrific symptoms. The crisis is more fundamental than that, a crisis of uneducated people being bombarded for years by propaganda and succumbing. Robert Hutchins addresses the core of this issue well:"The reduction of the citizen to an object of propaganda, private and public, is one of the greatest dangers to democracy...The great mass of the people cannot understand and cannot form an independent judgment upon any matter...The great storm of propaganda that beats upon the citizen twenty-four hours a day all his life long means either that democracy must fall a prey to the loudest and most persistent propagandists or that the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues for themselves".People everywhere are looking for the "quick-fix" to their problems, problems that in most cases have been generated by their own willingness to be duped. They seek a more invasive government to reach into their lives and remove the consequences of poorly thought through actions, without considering the ramifications on the future. What is the solution? Education, education, education. We must be steeped in the classics of humanity, classics that share the benefits of sacrifice and hardship, classics the demonstrate not only the resilience of the human spirit and mind, but the potential for human beings to rise above difficult situations and triumph.We do not have a choice whether or not to be human beings. Our choice lies, rather, in what kind of human beings we will become: "Whether [we] will be an ignorant, undeveloped one or one who has sought to reach the highest point he is capable of attaining" (Great Books "The Great Conversation", pg 5) No matter where we are at, intellectually or physically, we must shake off the widespread fallacy that we may not gain an education outside of the four walls of an established institution for learning. What type of education am I talking about? I am not talking about technical training specific to one field generally dished out by the local educational facility. I am talking about what is termed a "liberal education", the aim of which is human excellence, both private and public. Rousseau once stated: "It matters little to me whether my pupil is intended for the army, the church, or the law. Before his parents chose a calling for him, nature called him to be a man...When he leaves me, he will be neither a magistrate, a soldier, nor a priest; he will be a man." I am talking about an education that addresses the fundamental questions of society and life.We must start where we are at and begin reading daily from some of the great books that have shaped the thought of Western Civilization. A "Great Conversation" has been going since the dawn of thought, a conversation regarding the meaning of life, the problem of the immortality of the soul, the problem of the best form of government. It is a discussion of many ofttimes opposing viewpoints regarding the issues of soul, state, God, beauty. It is a discussion regarding "the differences and connections between poetry and history, science and philosophy, theoretical and practical science." (ibid, Pg 4) We must have people in our society who can step outside the conundrums of issues as presented by modern media to see what is unseen in both the issues and the solutions proposed by those who would lead us. We must realize the verity of Thomas Jefferson's admonition:"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,it expects what never was and never will be."We must start dedicating time each day to draw truths from the great books of our civilization,–the enduring, timeless classics– studying the lives and thoughts of others and by so doing, give us a broader basis for coming to our own conclusions in a time where mediocrity and conformity is celebrated. A great outline for this type of formative education may be found in The Great Books set, available at many libraries or even online. I have found another source in the recommended readings for graduate programs available at George Wythe College, also accessible online.We must take the future into our hands and verse ourselves in the language of liberty, the language of freedom: for if we stand for nothing, we will truly fall for anything.

~Mary Biesinger

Hobgoblins and the Automotive Industry

I'm currently reading a biography of H.L. Mencken who was a political writer in the first part of the 20th century. He was a very perceptive chronicler of politics in America. One of my favorite Mencken quotes describes very well the current economic situation:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with and endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

I believe that the automotive industry, through their lobbyists and campaign donations, are now providing politicians with yet another hobgoblin to frighten the populace. This hobgoblin, like others Mencken described, is imaginary.

The argument put forward is that if the American taxpayer doesn't pull out their wallet and fork over some money then the automotive industry in America will disappear and cause untold damage to the economy. This is the worst sort of blackmail and there are several flaws with their argument not the least of which is that GM, Ford and Chrysler no longer represent the sum total of the automotive industry in the United States. Over the past 20 years several foreign auto makers have set up factories here in the U.S. and now employ tens of thousands of people directly and tens of thousands more indirectly via their suppliers.

The argument goes along these lines: GM, Ford and Chrysler will undoubtedly fail unless they are given billions more in money from the taxpayer. If they fail then hundreds of thousands of people will lose jobs as the effect ripples through their suppliers and the businesses that supply the suppliers and so on. The problem with this is that it assumes that upon a liquidation of the assets, buyers who purchase the factories and all other assets will allow those assets to lie fallow. That is a ludicrous argument. There are plenty of investors who would be interested in purchasing those assets and putting them to work for the right price. They would only be kept from doing that by the government taking money from taxpayers and subsidizing these failing companies.

The bankruptcy process is valuable to our economic system because it puts assets in the hands of parties who have the capital and means to employ those assets more efficiently. GM, Ford and Chrysler have proven themselves incapable of employing those assets efficiently. For what possible reason would we give them money if they are unable to convince their investors to give them more money?