Published - Idaho State Journal, 04/24/11

With the arrival of Easter, perhaps the most significant of Christianity’s holy days, comes an opportunity to reflect on our own lives and what we do to magnify the message of Jesus. It also affords an opportunity to reconcile our core beliefs with the political machinations of the world we live in.

There is obviously much need for the latter, especially in light of an article in USA Today this week which proclaimed, “A new poll released Thursday found that more Americans (44%) see the free market system at odds with Christian values than those who don't (36%).”

To those of us who work through our faith intellectually and logically, such poll results are disturbing for the obvious logical superficiality of their viewpoint.

Let’s start with the most obvious issues. Did Jesus go to the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas, or Pilate to advance his teachings as a new system of governance? No! His message was not one of collective governance, but one of individual, personal governance. Governments have no soul to be saved, no salvific ordinances can be performed in their behalf, and have not the promise of a resurrection on some distant Easter morn. Christ’s message was to individuals, not a political system by which to govern.

Secondarily, and perhaps most theologically important, is the eternal concept of free agency or free will. To understand this in political context, it may help to take a brief look at the simplified political spectrum, which applies to individual ideological alignment as well as governments, and goes from left to right, most tyrannical and un-free to least tyrannical, or freedom.

All variations of socialism are on the far left of that spectrum right along with dictatorships. They are coercive and trample individual freedom as they reduce individuals to tools of the state. Yet the Lord’s entire plan is based on freedom of choice, or free agency. Socialism is irreconcilable and heterodox to Jesus’ message for it is based on coercion, the elimination of freedom and free agency. It is both illegal and immoral for individuals to forcibly take from one to give to another, so why is it not immoral when governments do it? It certainly has no redeeming value to the forced “giver.”

Jesus taught many divine principles by parable. One of the most relevant dealing with economics is His “Parable of the Talents.” You’ll recall that the master gave five talents (a measurement of weight and also of a silver currency in biblical times) to one servant, two to another, and one to a third, based on their respective abilities. He was not egalitarian in his distribution, but he expected results, namely that each would increase what was entrusted to them. The first two doubled their talents and were rewarded; “Well done thou good and faithful servant…” while the third buried his in the ground and returned it to the master with no increase, and was punished for his indolence.

The fundamental tenets of free agency and free enterprise were affirmed as none of the servants were told how to increase that which was entrusted to them, or by how much they were to increase the master’s wealth. But the tenet of increasing what is given to us, either as financial talents or talents as we employ the term today, is clear.

Not only are we accountable for what we do to develop character through our industry and acumen, but we are to be sensitive to the needs of others. As Jesus said, “I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me… Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” And this we do individually, exercising our free agency as evidence of our professed religious beliefs, not by force, coercion, or compulsion from a government that mandates it. For coercion is to Jesus’ teachings as negative is to positive in physics: polar opposites.

Socialism is an amoral (if not immoral) secular governmental system, while free enterprise or capitalism is the freest, most ennobling and affirming to individual worth. Free to pursue our own interests, free to buy, trade, barter, whatever we legally choose. It is not a perfect system, but it is the most true to the fundamental tenet of free agency and provides best for individual altruism.

In our reflections of the meaning of Easter, let us be cognizant of how we use our talents, monetary and otherwise, in the service of others, not counting on forced government programs to do what we as individuals are called to do.

Published - Idaho State Journal, 4/17/11

There are so many disturbing elements to last week’s last-minute federal budget agreement that it’s truly difficult to know where to begin. Especially when we consider that such budgetary brinkmanship would not have been necessary if Nancy Pelosi’s congress had done what they were supposed to last year: have an operating budget for 2011. But because the political backlash would have been even more devastating at the polls last November, she forsook her responsibilities for perceived political advantage.

Instead, we waited through last-minute theatrics on both sides, and we still got an illogical, break-the-bank kind of budget that we can’t afford, while apprehension continues to increase over the cost and scope of government. The compromise arrived at with two hours to spare before the government “shut down” trimmed a scant $38 billion from a $3.7 trillion budget. A mere 1% cut to the proposed budget was enough of a stumbling block to some congressmen that they nearly let the government shut down.

And yet, playing to the politics of fear in grand theatrical fashion, many in Washington were lamenting in apocalyptic Jeremiads, what a devastating effect such a small reduction would have on the nation. At the center of the budgetary battle was whether the relatively minuscule $75 million appropriated to Planned Parenthood, seen by many as the primary social advocate for abortions, should be halted. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the floor of the Senate told about the health risks to his wife and daughters and nine granddaughters if he agreed to the proposed cuts. Makes one wonder what he thought Planned Parenthood would do for them.

Not to be outdone in the politics of fear, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton called the potential government shutdown “the equivalent of bombing innocent civilians.” The Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, Daniel Inouye, said in a news release that some of the cuts would be “especially painful.” Collectively they were saying the proposed cuts were “draconian.” If they act like this with these minor spending reductions, we know they will never have the political backbone to make the necessary major cuts to ensure fiscal soundness of the republic.

The Democrats were willing to shut down the government over a scant $75 million for their abortion purveyor of choice. Yet the Republicans let them get away with holding the nation hostage based on ideology over a minuscule part of the budget, and not pushing for some serious spending reductions which may actually make a difference in the future solvency of the country. I don’t know what to be more outraged over.

The Democrats obviously have no will or backbone to make serious cuts, and are willing to sacrifice the entire operation of the government over relative pennies in the budget. But the Republicans, proving they are little more than “Democrat-lite” seem to lack the courage to seriously reduce spending as they boasted of the “historic” 1% spending cuts. Truth be told, the actual cuts are much less than 1%. The $38 billion figure was little more than figurative, since the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has now said that most of the $38 billion was accounting trickery, and that the actual cuts amount to a mere $352 million under 2010 spending levels.

President Obama has called for addressing the spending boondoggle like “adults.” Since much of it is a result of his and his party’s profligacy, that’s tantamount to calling for his replacement next year by a real adult. And based on all the posturing, theatrics, and budgetary trickery that resulted from such a minor figure in last week’s showdown, it appears we don’t have many adults in Washington.

There are a few exceptions, like Congressman Paul Ryan who is developing a long-term budget proposal that will actually reduce the deficit, pay down the federal debt, and increase the solvency of some of the core entitlement entities like Social Security. There is a little glimmer of hope for the nation since the House passed Ryan’s 2012 budget on Friday. If 1% cuts were “draconian” I can only guess the posturing they’ll pull on this one.

Considering the umbrage expressed by the left with George W. Bush’s $267 billion deficit, they should be outraged at Obama’s $1 trillion plus deficit. And Republicans, seemingly content with a 1% budget cut, obviously have no clue either. Our current spending trajectory is simply unsustainable, and portends serious consequences for the steadily declining value of the dollar, the viability of our debt instruments as investments, and our national security. Perhaps our only hope is if all those who voted for the budget resolution last week, and those who voted against it believing the cuts were too much, are replaced with people of common sense and a commitment to live within our means, like all of us real people have to.

Published - Idaho State Journal, 04/03/11

We seem to have an “Absent Minded Professor” in the White House. With oil over $100 per barrel, and gas at nearly $3.50 a gallon, our president continues to call for “green energy” to replace our steadily increasing reliance on oil. To my knowledge, cars and trucks have not been retrofitted with windmills or solar panels to power them. Never mind that the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, but until viable options are created to replace oil, we still have an economy where transportation and manufacturing are heavily dependent on the black gold.

Yet twice in as many weeks our Professor In Chief has stumped for weaning us of our dependence on oil and increasing reliance on “green” energy. Yet with no viable replacement for oil to transport us, our food, and everything else we buy, he might as well be marketing “flubber,” that fictional “green” energy source created by Disney’s Absent Minded Professor.

This month our professor has called for a reduction in U.S. oil imports by 3-4 million barrels of oil a day, or about one-third of our current demand over the next decade. This is to be accomplished not by increasing our own domestic oil production, but by using “alternative and renewable energy sources.” Since there are none on the immediate horizon to replace oil, we are left to surmise that his intention is to incentivize the “flubber” industry to power our Kenworths, John Deeres and Chevys. 

Domestic oil production has declined 40 percent over the past 25 years even though demand has soared. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 75 billion barrels of oil have been precluded from drilling due to political action over that period. That oil would be enough to replace all of our imported oil, excluding what we get from Canada and Mexico, for over 22 years. World oil demand is projected to increase by 40% over the next 22 years, and U.S. demand projected to increase by 28%.

While we are unable to control events in the troubled Middle East where much of the world’s oil is drilled, we have the ability to reduce prices and mitigate demand by simply allowing access to our own resources.

Our professor also seems to have two sets of teleprompters he employs for his major speeches. When he reads from the one on the right, he brags that his administration has granted more new oil exploratory leases (though the new standards his EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, is imposing for those new leases are so unrealistic that they’re likely to never be exercised). When he reads from the one on the left, he’s promising $2 billion to assist in technology improvements for off-shore drilling. Not here, but in Brazil!

His right teleprompter tells him to say, “The only way for America's energy supply to be truly secure is by permanently reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” But the left one tells him to do everything possible to restrict domestic production.

When he reads from the one on the right, he’s advocating the use of “clean coal” and natural gas for our energy needs. When he turns back to the one on the left, he has his Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, canceling 77 leases for oil and natural gas drilling in Utah.

Increasingly it appears the concept of an Obama Energy Policy is an oxymoron. There is no policy, at least not one based in reality. Rather, if there is one, it seems based on some mythical, non-existent oil replacement.

We have to acknowledge that this administration likes high energy prices for ideological reasons. During his presidential campaign, Obama declared that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket" on his energy agenda. And his current Energy Secretary, Steven Chu has said that he thought our gas prices needed to be much higher as a means of weaning us from our reliance on fossil fuels. He told the Wall Street Journal two years ago, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." At that time, gas prices averaged $8 per gallon there.

It appears they’ve figured out how to do it: do everything within their power to thwart and restrict domestic oil production. At this rate, we’ll see $8 per gallon gasoline far sooner than we’ll see anything else to realistically replace it.

John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil, recently said that Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012 based on the uncertainty of world events, the lack of domestic supply and increased worldwide demand.

Current “energy policy” assures we’ll pay more and more for oil with absolutely nothing done to ease the pain at the pump, while increasing, not decreasing our dependency on foreign sources.