New Happenings

A bit of a housekeeping post here.  First, I want to make an official statement on behalf of LE regarding Political Cartel.  Recently one of our liberal friends at PC made a post regarding the divinity of Christ.  The touchy nature of this post has caused half of their writers to leave and start another blog.  While we still recognize PC as an enjoyable blog to read, we at LE disagree and denounce that post and reaffirm our belief that regardless of political differences or opinions, Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  Too often the deep thinking that goes into analysing political positions can go to far and stir relativism into one’s faith.  What a tragedy when people form faith around their politics instead of the other way around.  We have removed our blog link to PC and will instead add What’s Left Now.

On the note of things changing, let me introduce our newest contributor.  Michael Walker is a Junior at Harding University.  He is originally from Great Britain so he offers a bit of additional perspective on political ideology and the pitfalls of socialism.  Plus he has a great accent…too bad you won’t get to hear it on the blog.  Look for more posts from Michael as well as some articles in upcoming issues of the newsletter.

The War on Terror

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444088,00.html

After reading the article above, it got me to thinking about the War on terror and what we need to do. ‘Change’ candidates are all about looking back and seeing how things were handled since going into Iraq, but that is quite irrelevant now. The American troops, along with British troops and others are there, and we need to look at the possibilities about how to handle the future.

Now, just to state, I didn’t agree with going into Iraq in the first place. I thought there were better countries, for lack of a better term, to go into. Iraq wasn’t the most threatening country, but nonetheless, its done and we need to look forward.

Lets see what the Candidates both are proposing to do, in relation to Iraq.

Barack Obama: He is proposing to slowly withdraw 1 to 2 brigades each month, which would mean that military forces would be out of Iraq by the summer of 2010, 7 years after the war started. He also wants to put an end to the war as soon as possible.

John McCain: He firmly states that we need to stay in Iraq until Al-Qaeda is firmly stopped within Iraq. The troops need to stay there until the Iraqi forces can support themselves against the terrorists.

Now, both of these sound good on the surface. Actually, Obama’s plan sounds much better. Safer, cheaper, and like we’re helping the Iraqi people out by letting them get on with their own lives. Funny how liberals would love to let the Iraqi people control their own lives and have their independence. Wait, do liberals want independence or not?

We need to make sure, now we’re already in Iraq and Afghanistan and whether we like that fact or not, that we make sure we leave them both as stable as possible. Barack Obama says that we can be gone by the summer of 2010, after being there 7 years, and it will be stable enough for them to live in. Easy for him to say, seeing as he wont be living there.

If you haven’t heard, the number of Al-Qaeda insurgents in Afghanistan is on the rise, and we have been there 7 years. Afghanistan is still not safe after 7 years and a lot of fighting, so what is to say the same will happen with Iraq?

And I love the statement from Barack Obama “we need to end the war as soon as possible.” Really? He did go to Harvard didn’t he? That’s an incredibly smart statement. I think everyone agrees with that, but not before its safe for the Iraqi/Afghan people to live regular lives, which would be a first for them. Freedom.

I know that it costs a lot of money to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan but by liberal standards we need to make sure, regardless of costs, to help everyone out. So, lets finish Iraqi freedom and actually make them free. Not leave them hanging. Remember Vietnam?

“Governmental benevolence”

*This article was published in the October 3rd, 2008 edition of Libertas Exemplar

Let’s get right to the point: socialism is a bad idea. Every attempt in history to create a government-state has failed and failed miserably. There is, however, a faction in this country that wants to see us move more towards a socialistic-state. And of course they argue, “Socialism has not worked only because it has not been executed properly. If we brought socialism to America, we could make it work.” What an outrageous assumption. And what an ideological pendulum swing we have taken in this country. No more than fifty years ago, during the “Red Scare,” communist sympathizers were thrown in jail! Today they are lauded as “critical thinkers” and given safe-haven on college campuses. Obviously, detaining these commies, which in itself is very totalitarian and communist, is not the answer. But the fact remains: we have taken a far swing to left in a very short period of time. Why?

A combination of factors are at work. First, government censorship of preachers has left many Christians to decipher political issues on their own. With the current lunatic media as their guide, it should come as no surprise that many Christians are now buying into the environmentalist movement and big government. Fifty years ago, Christians in this nation were some of the most Conservative, freedom-loving citizens this world had ever seen. Even longer ago, preachers could be heard speaking out against government oppression, advocating traditional values and the “separation of Church and State” as it was originally intended—keep the government out of the church, not the church or religion out of the government. But today, because of various non-profit regulations, preachers and pastors have been virtually silenced on (conservative) political issues. The government is now adorned and praised by many church leaders.

The second reason that Christians are embracing government is the main focus of this article: the government has taken a major role in benevolence. Whether it is welfare, social security, or disability, many issues that were traditionally handled by the church have become government programs. Well, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the church give up the initiative to help the disadvantaged and so the government stepped in, or did the government stick its nose where it did not belong and push the church out of the equation? While attempting to create a “wall of separation” between the church and the state, the lines have become too blurred. The government has stepped into the church’s role regarding issues like poverty and disability by creating a welfare state. This growth of government began under President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the “New Deal.” These New Deal programs were not intended to last forever. So why have they?

Is the government still simply “doing what has to be done” or is the church slacking?

Without pointing a finger and determining a sole cause for this government intervention, it seems fair to say that the church has been failing in some ways: instead of fighting this government-run system, the church too often points the needy in the “right direction”—towards the welfare office. Regardless of “who started it,” the failures of the church have opened the door wider for government benevolence. Sure, we talk a good talk, send missionaries overseas, and fill up shoe boxes for orphans at Christmas time. But what are we doing here, at home? Too often Christians sit around and wait on the government to swoop in a save the day. And they do…well, they try.

As a result of this “government benevolence,” many leaders in the Christian church have become proponents of big government. In general, they see the government as compassionate and benevolent. Whether it is welfare or nationalized healthcare, the government gains a pretty good reputation from the evangelical community. Hey, the government is not all bad. But when it acts with blatant disregard for the Constitution, it should receive criticism, not applause. Too often Christians fail to see the expansion of governmental control and the freedoms (and tax dollars) they are forced to sacrifice in the proper way. Forcing benevolence down the throats of Americans in the form of higher taxes and government handouts only kindles resentment. Christians need to stand up and defend the weak: the unborn, the poor, and the disabled. Stop waiting on the government to solve all of the world’s problems. Instead of relying on government programs, churches should focus more on outreach and “taking back benevolence.”

The Other Five Percent

As a premise, i feel obliged to state that this post is more of an inquiry than an assertion.

My current occupation allows to me to hear a lot of network news coverage, most of which is obviously focused on the presidential election. While network news coverage can sometimes be repetetive, the advantage to watching television news is I am able to watch a significant amount of live campaign events.

As the election draws near, it has become clear that the economy is the dominant issue. If it wasn’t before the current economic crisis, it most certainly is now. While I am nowhere near an economic buff, I feel that I have become more informed in recent weeks than I was before. However, certain facets of each candidates economic proposals baffle me.

From the title, please don’t assume this is going to be a stump speech telling you why Joe the Plumber is a hero and Barack Obama is a commie. Instead this post is an inquiry to the many people who read this site, hopefully resulting in a clearer definition of what I see as controversial policy.

Even before Joe the Plumber (with or without a plumbing license— whatever) surfaced on the national scene, I had developed a disdain for one of Barack Obama’s most frequently used phrases— “Cutting Taxes for 95% of Americans.”

While this is mildly feasible, the idea astounds me. Every time he is on the TV preaching about how “95% of American will NOT see their taxes go up” a voice inside of me cries out “then what about the other five percent?!”

This much is certain: I am currently far from the upper echelon of financial success. HOWEVER, taxing a certain group of citizens proportionately more money because they are more successful seems absolutely ludicrous to me. The stat I have heard Obama site is that those earning below $250,000 a year will not see their taxes go up. The crowd cheers at the thought of less taxes, but there are massive discrepancies that I believe America is overlooking.

1) When Obama says “tax cuts” he really means “tax credits” - Again, I am no economic aficionado, but I know the difference between some similar terms. When someone is promised a tax cut they assume that they will pay less taxes. Obama’s plan, however, does not involve simply cutting taxes— it involves government-sponsored tax credits. Obama has redefined the “tax cut” into his own language.

2) Tax credits begin to phase out at $40,000! – While everyone under $250,000 will share in this joyous punishment of the rich, those who are the poorest of them all will truly reap the benefits. If those in the middle stay the same… and those at the bottom get lots of money… and those at the top pay lots of money… isn’t the eventual goal to (not to overuse a phrase) spread out the wealth?

As a college graduate pursuing further education I have every intent of making well past $250,000/yr in my lifetime. It bothers me that there is a current tax plan proposed that will tax me in proportion to how much I make.

In my mind, the significance here is less to those making over $250,000. While they will be unfairly taxed in relation to those making less money, the real problems lie in the resulting middle class. If someone at $40,000 receives a slew of tax credits that someone at $45,000 does not, what incentive does someone have to work harder in this economy? Instead, remain at a low wage and let the government give you a yearly bonus.

So far I have restrained from using the “S” word, but as I look more at Obama’s economic plan (and hear him repeatedly say the “95% of America will prosper under this plan!”) I can’t help but recognize the socialist undertones.  Herein lies a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals: allow the government to tax more, spend more, and control a plethora of societal functions or reduce government involvement in order to maximize competition and individual success.

I look forward to the ensuing conversation on this post. Most of all I look forward to someone explaining these things:

1) How is it fair to tax citizens earning more money proportionately more than those who earn less?

2) If the government provides a stream of handouts to middle class America, what incentives will remain for citizens to work harder and earn more?

3) What about the other five percent?!

sk.

Un-Fair Trade

Most of us have been told, at some point in our lives, “life’s not fair.” Whether it was our parents, the media, or a school teacher, we have learned that not everything is equal in this world. Some are rich, some are poor; some are educated, some are uneducated; some work hard to make a living, some simply rely on the hard work of others and wait on their government handout to come in the mail. Despite this universal truth of “unfairness,” there is a movement on the left to equalize everyone and everything. From “free” healthcare for everyone to farm subsidies, equality is placed above quality. Of course “free” healthcare is not free at all, nor would it be available to everyone: those above a certain income bracket, those who pay the most in taxes and fund the majority of this “free healthcare” would be ineligible! Call it “liberalism” if you like, but we prefer the term “socialism.”

Another branch of this socialist movement worldwide has been innocently labeled as “Fair Trade.” It seems that many coffee farmers in South America have been receiving prices for their coffee that are less than their costs of production. Therefore, a movement has launched to support these poor farmers despite their unsuccessfulness. Fair Traders are made up of businesses who agree to participate in certain activities aimed at bettering the lives of these farmers. Such businesses are called “Fair Trade Certified.” These businesses include Starbucks and many other coffee houses around the world. While Fair Trade groups are involved in more than just buying coffee, the greatest emphasis of their work is to help these farmers make more money. These groups work to see to it that poverty stricken farmers in less developed parts of the world are able to earn “a living wage” despite the low value of their goods. Many of the farmers in South America simply can’t meet cost for a variety of reasons so Fair Trade Certified companies agree to pay an arbitrary premium on the coffee beans. This is a typical liberal response. See a perceived injustice, blame it on the free market, and throw money at it. This seems to be such an unrefined, uneducated response to the coffee farmers’ plight. “They don’t make enough…well, pay them more!” The Fair Trade movement is simply strong-arming American businesses into buying their coffee, threatening to tell the world that these businesses favor impoverishment and want to see poor farmers suffer.

Many factors are contributing to these farmers’ poverty, and Gene Callahan of The Freeman concentrates on two:

In some cases a particular farmer could run his business profitably except that he is competing against others who receive some form of state-granted privilege.. This privilege could be a direct subsidy from their government, or a favorable trade agreement with a coffee-importing country. That is clearly unjust, but [Callahan] contend that the best way to address such injustice is to eliminate the favoritism, rather than trying to compensate for it.[1]

We will concede the point that there is some corruption and local government issues at work in these countries. But this simply drives home the point that Fair Trade is a bad idea. Throwing money and premiums at the problem will not end any amount of corruption, and could in fact create more. If something is to be done it should be done through these channels—don’t mess with the economy.

The other reason is even simpler: there are too many coffee producers in the market. Trying to be a coffee farmer in South America is like trying to be a used car dealer in America: the market is highly concentrated, and it can be tough to generate business. The demand for coffee beans simply cannot keep up with the supply, and therefore some producers are suffering. Apparently the Fair Traders would rather pay a 5-cent-per-pound premium to keep a failed business in operation instead of encouraging farmers to seek other employment. Is that really fair? The left is correct about one thing: being a coffee farmer in South America is difficult, and it is impoverishing. But to see simple inequality as somehow “unfair” is ludicrous. Further, to encourage these farmers to continue in a poverty stricken industry is morally wrong and only perpetuates this problem. Consider the alternative: let the market play out and force some farmers out of business. The production will fall off, the price will go up, the coffee farmers make more money. Those who got out can get back in when demand rises again, or find other sources of income.

It’s ironic how liberals think nothing of bankrupting oil companies, who are making their money as the market directs it, but can’t sleep if coffee farmers in other countries aren’t making money. What happened to opposing windfall profits? Besides, isn’t it wrong for the U.S. to meddle in the affairs of other nations? Isn’t that what they keep saying about Iraq?

Callahan makes another great point in his article, citing the extreme level of co-dependency that the Fair Trade movement promotes, a movement that aligns itself with the left’s campaign to create dependency on government and dependency on others.

It is ludicrous to imagine that a social arrangement is sustainable in which anyone who chooses to persist in a money-losing occupation is entitled to be supported in his obstinacy by the rest of society.[2]

“Fair Trade” is fair in name only; it does not address the true injustices in the coffee industry, but uses guilt to manipulate bleeding-hearts to purchase expensive coffee in order to sustain unsuccessful, impoverishing businesses. In a very real sense, “Fair Trade” actually feeds the poverty cycle, but telling these unsuccessful farmers, “you’re doing great; here’s an extra 5 cents per pound that won’t even cover your production costs. Please stay in this industry and continue to lose money.” Not only is “Fair Trade” unfair, it feeds the unnatural dependency of these farmers on government and strong-armed leftists.

We are fully aware that liberals who read this will say we are nothing more than cruel, cold-hearted conservatives—we must not love anyone. We must not care about anyone except the rich corporate swindlers. The fact of the matter is that by supporting the free market solution, we care more about the coffee farmer than any liberal could. They want these farmers to be stuck in a failing industry with the ultimatum of giving up a subsidy in favor of searching for more profitable work. That is not compassion.

These farmers, particularly in South America, should be growing corn or sugar cane to fuel the ethanol craze in countries like Brazil: in April of this year, Brazil’s fuel market reached fifty percent ethanol. The ethanol expansion in the region is a great business opportunity for coffee farmers: the demand is high, and supply cannot possibly keep up with demand. If we truly wanted to help these impoverished farmers, we should encourage them to pursue other crops or means of employment.

The ultimate irony of “Fair Trade” is simple supply and demand economics. Should the movement achieve its “ultimate goal” and keep these farmers in the coffee market, the supply continues to increase while demand remains constant; the market becomes more and more flooded, making it even harder to succeed. And of course, should they achieve the high price that “Fair Traders” are demanding for their coffee, the price increase will cause the demand to fall, meaning fewer sales for the farmers. In every way, “Fair Trade” is a losing proposition.

---

[1] Gene Callahan, “Is Fair Trade a Fair Deal?,” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, (March 2008): 8.

[2] Gene Callahan, “Is Fair Trade a Fair Deal?,” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, (March 2008): 9.

Nicholas H. Horton

Liberal hatred at its “best”

Worst Week

For those of you who judge the state of the economy by the Dow Jones Average (which I find somewhat ignorant) this was a bad week for you.  In fact, this was the worst week in history for the stock market as it dips below 8,000 now for the first time in 5 1/2 years.  So much for that soul-saving bailout the government said would save our bacon.

Aside from the usual lack of confidence and negative talk, I think the major contributor to this is the uncertainty of the upcoming election.  In less than 4 weeks, we will elect a new leader.  Both candidates offer very different plans when it comes to taxes and the economy, and garner very different reactions from investors.  More specifically, I think the threat of an Obama presidency is a major reason for Wall Street’s ills of late.  Look at the recent rise in Obama’s polling numbers and the continued drop in stock value.

There is simply no other reason.  Interest rates are down, lots of money is waiting to be invested in stocks now that T-Bills, bonds, and other investments are less attractive, and yet there is no rally.  Could it be that the presidential front-runner is one who promises to increase the tax on investment dividends?  Perhaps it is because there is a fair chance that the next President will be one who will raise corporate taxes?  If John McCain were to look the American people straight in the eye and say that he will cut taxes across the board if elected, you would see a rise in his numbers, as well as a rise in the value of our markets.

 

Derek R. Glover

John McCain – The Next Vice President of the United States!

Infanticide

More of Obama’s extremism.

Reason #2