Party Politics and Issues

The recent naval-gazing within the Republican Party has allowed an interesting study by the The Hill to emerge. It shows the problem that both political parties are having.

Respondents in The Hill Poll were asked to choose which of two approaches they would prefer on the budget, but the question’s phrasing included no cues as to which party advocated for which option.
Presented in that way, 55 percent of likely voters opted for a plan that would slash $5 trillion in government spending, provide for no additional tax revenue and balance the budget within 10 years — in essence, the path recommended by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) last week.
This was almost twice as many voters as opted for a proposal that would include $1 trillion in added tax revenue as well as $100 billion in infrastructure spending, and which would reduce the deficit without eradicating it.
Only 28 percent of voters preferred this option, which reflects the proposal put forth by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) last week.

So, Paul Ryan for the win? The answer is no. The same poll found that once voters were told which party supported which idea, the voters pulled the old switcheroo and backed the Democrats.

A plurality of voters, 35 percent, said they trust the Democrats more on budgetary issues, while 30 percent said they trust the Republicans more. A full 34 percent said they trust neither party.

To state the obvious, this is a real problem for Republicans. The people tend to agree with Republicans on the issues, but dislike them as a Party. That will make it hard to get elected. However, Democrats have the issue that once in power, they are promoting policies that the people  do not want. Granted, the poll was the narrow issue of the budget. I am not sure that you could extend it to other issues. Such a poll would also be interesting.

What this does suggest is that if Republicans are in step with a majority of the American people on the issues, they will need to figure out a way to surmount a rather large problem. The Democrat Party has successfully united with large portions of the Education establishment in universities, a large portion of media (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times and many other major city papers), unions, the multi-cultural agenda, progressive religion, and so on, to convince people to look at the Republican Party in a certain way. As I have personally experienced it, the attempt to convince people that the party that stands for individual freedom and limits on the federal government is immoral and therefore worthy of disgust, has been quite successful. What this means is that much work needs to be done by Republicans to go over the heads of the leaders of these groups and find ways of appealing directly to  the individual. The technology we have today makes this possible, but it will not be easy.

Reduce Federal Spending

I am interested in ways to actually reduce federal spending. Here are some suggestions. What do you think?

Here is a suggestion from Chris Edwards. He thinks that a better way to create lasting savings is to restructure entitlements and cut promised benefits. The 1983 law that increased the Social Security retirement age, for example, created ongoing savings that haven’t been reversed. Paul Ryan’s proposed shift to a more consumer-based Medicare and the block-granting of Medicaid would also generate large and long-lasting savings if passed.
Another good way to generate lasting budget savings is to terminate entire programs and agencies. Unfortunately, Republicans have not pursued such reforms in years.
Yet there are many large programs that are wasteful, inefficient, or would be better handled by state governments. Some good prospects for termination — with the rough annual savings — are farm subsidies ($22 billion), energy subsidies ($17 billion), public housing ($7 billion), community development ($14 billion), and K-12 education programs ($56 billion). That’s $116 billion in annual savings right there, or well over $1 trillion during the coming decade.
Other federal activities should be privatized, including the Postal Service, air traffic control, and Amtrak. Privatization would not only create budget savings, it would also boost the economy as the productivity of these services increased.
Such reforms may sound radical to U.S. policymakers, but they have been implemented successfully in numerous other countries. For example, New Zealand ended its farm subsidies, Germany privatized its post office, and Canada privatized its air traffic control.

Insights from 2000-1050 BC

This essay explores the biblical period before the rise of kingship in Israel around 1000 BC. In the process, some important theological and spiritual implications arise that may challenge assumptions of many within religious communities today.

The suggestion in this essay is that religion provides a way of looking upon religious belief that, in times of stability, provides a way of meeting the challenges of a human life and the challenges of community life. However, when history brings its inevitable changes, the religion shows its strength in its ability to rise to new challenges through changing its beliefs and institutions. This change occurs in a way that incorporates what was into a new formulation of religious belief, institutions, and values. What is new, far from abrogating the past, has a way of lifting up what formerly existed into a new formulation that people find strengthens them as they face the new historical challenge. What is significant here is that religion, far from showing its strength in resistance to change, shows its strength in adapting to new realities that fulfills what was essential in the past in a new form. Of course, this does not happen by necessity, for we know that religions die when they do not demonstrate such flexibility. Although what follows will keep close to the actual historical textual material, my hope is that reading the sacred text differently may help synagogue and church to read their situation today differently.

The first step is that the story of the Patriarchs had the primary spiritual and theological awareness of the call of God upon their lives to migrate from place to place under the promise of land and progeny. The primary institutions revolved around land and children, and the primary values sought to keep family together. Think of it this way. Children were the primary way the nomad could think of connecting with something beyond him or her. Connecting to the future with a sense of hope is an important connection for human beings to make. The struggle to offer the gift of children to the future was quite real. Birth was dangerous for mother and for child. Further, to own land was equally important. In an agrarian society, owning land was vital. Ownership made the clan a home.

The caution one needs to have in these stories of the Patriarchs is to refuse the temptation to import too much later theology into their story. If we see value in discerning the ways of the God of Israel into these vignettes from family life, then we need to be modest about their theological and spiritual implications.

Scholars differ as to the assessment of the assessment of the traditions that we find in Genesis. I direct your attention primarily to those stories that an oral culture might remember. These stories would have developed around 2000 to 1700 BC. Thus, the call and genealogy we find in Genesis 11:28-30, 12:1-9, 35:16-20, 22b-29) become central. It was a vague promise, but a promise in which they had trust. One can think of their stories as little vignettes of the life of a family. Think of the struggle of Abraham to find a legitimate heir (Genesis 16, 21), the struggle maintain his relation to his wife (Genesis 12:10-16), the struggle for land (Genesis 21:25-26, 28-31a), the struggle to bring Isaac and Rebekah together (Genesis 24), the struggle between Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:21-26a, 27-28, 29-34, 27:1-45, 32:3-8, 13a, 33:1-17), and finding Jacob a wife in Rachel (Genesis 29-30, 31). As with every family, relationships were important. In order for this family to survive, it would need forgiveness. Esau is the one who extends forgiveness. These stories remind us that the meaning of human life is never completed, even at death. It led to the formation of twelve tribes, each with their own characteristics.

The assumption one might have here is that theologically, the Patriarchs had a simple belief in “El,” something as vague as we might think of in the word “divine.” This God could guide to a new land and ensure the preservation of the clan. One offered sacrifices to this God.

In stable times, the belief of the Patriarchs sustained them and their progeny. Belief systems have a way of interpreting the world and helping those who believe face the challenges of life. Their belief was strong enough to interpret the world as they experienced it. The struggle over what we might think of as mundane and simple matters of family and land were quite real for a clan.

Why would a sacred text, achieving its final formation in the exilic period, want to remember such mundane stories?

For a sacred text, these stories remind readers of the risk God has taken. God has entrusted to weak and frail human beings the task of faithfully carrying out the divine purpose. These stories remind us of the patience of God in working with imperfect creatures over long periods in order to bring a family, a people, or a world, to the place God wants. Think of it. Abraham was anxious and fearful. Sarah was mean-spirited. Abraham showed lack of courage in facing his wife when she had done wrong. Jacob deceived others. Yet, these actions did not define who they were. In fact, these actions, honestly recorded for posterity, awaited a further fulfillment they could not imagine. In the case of the Patriarchs, their commitment to work out the mundane, intimate, and often dysfunctional family matters opened them to a future they never imagined. They did not know of covenants, laws, priests, kings, temples, Sabbath, circumcision, and the like. They did not offer the future a set of theological ideas or systems. What they did offer was their imperfect lives. In the process, unknown to themselves, they became the family that prepared the way for a new people of God.

The second step we need to take is to recognize that a new challenge rose as the clan made a home in Egypt. Historically, we are now advancing to around 1500-1300 BC. What we will see here is significant changes in belief (from El to Yahweh), institutions (charismatic spiritual and military leader), and values (covenant that bound people to Yahweh to and to each other with ethical demands). The clan became resident aliens. This development began with friendly relations with Egypt. As they grew, political realities shifted. Pharaoh no longer trusted them, leading to slave labor. The experience of the world of these clans changed. It seemed as if the God of the Patriarchs was no longer sufficient to help them face their new world of experience. A quite real question arose.

            It took the leadership of Moses to bring the twelve tribes together and form a people (Exodus 1:2-7, Psalm 105:23-25, Deuteronomy 26:5-7, Exodus 2:15). Israelite religion breathes the spirit of its founder. He became the mediator of the presence of Yahweh for this new people of God. He shared the law of God so that the life of the people would conform to the mind of God and serve the personal will of God. The will of God became normative in all human relationships. The word of Yahweh expressed the will of Yahweh.

Moses experienced the call of “the Lord God,” or “Yahweh Elohim.” (See Exodus 3:1, 9-15, Ezekiel 20:5-6, Isaiah 42:8, Exodus 6:14-27, Deuteronomy 26:6-9).

 Deliverance from bondage became the theme. The Lord is a warrior acting in history to bring “signs and wonders” on behalf of this new people for their liberation. Moses becomes the pattern of the one on whom the Spirit of the Lord falls to bring liberation from oppression for the period of around 1500 to 1300 BC. (See Exodus 6:14-27, Deuteronomy 26:6-9, Exodus 15:4-13, 21, Psalm 78:9-13, Joshua 24:7). The struggles of the wilderness period (Numbers 21:10-22:1, 23:4-24:25) seemed to bind them to Yahweh and to each other. In the deliverance from Egypt Israel saw the guarantee for all the future, the absolute surety for the will of Yahweh to liberate, something like a warrior to which faith could appeal in times of trial. This remembrance of a deed of Yahweh in war is the primary and oldest datum in the confession concerning the deliverance from Egypt. Yet, the direct intervention of God is pictured by natural events, such as the east wind, etc.  Thus, we should not separate the historical natural events from the theology supernatural events. What occurred was not just a military event. This is the time when God truly brings a people into being. 

In essence, Moses came proclaiming a new revelation, and with it, a new covenant and calling to form a people bound to Yahweh in covenant and bound to each other in ethical relation. Yahweh demanded a sense of the unity of what people knew as the divine in one God, Yahweh.

We can best understand the covenant established at this time as patterned after the suzerain treaty.  The purpose of such a treaty was to distinguish between a group that must be dealt with by force and a group that could be dealt with according to what we consider as normal, orderly, peaceful procedures.  This may well account for the emphasis on the anger of God in the Old Testament, a feature that becomes a barrier to many people who read the Bible today.  Those who do not enter into covenant with the Lord are outside the possibility of peaceful relations and subject to the anger of God.  In the same way, the breaking of the covenant by Israel means it will be subject to that same anger, since to break it is to make it of no effect.  This became a point of reference beyond mere individual or social interests.  It was the awareness of covenant that led to the formation of the Hebrew community. Covenant is what held the community together as well, which became a radical conception of community.

            What we can learn here is that Moses appeared at a time of instability and uncertainty. He brought a significant change in beliefs and in institutions to order to meet new challenges. In the formative period, the concern is to break with tradition. Thus, Moses came with a new vision of God as Yahweh. This view suggests that as helpful psychology and sociology of religion might be one ought not to reduce religion to these dynamics. Religion has its own strength to offer a people. In particular, it offers a belief system that views the world a certain way and helps a people rise to challenges of new times. In this case, the experience of these loosely bound clans shifted, and Moses realized that what was needed was a new faith in a God who acted in history for the deliverance of the people. What is significant here is that this vision did not abrogate the faith of Patriarchs, for the promise of land was still present. The El, the divine, the God, of the Patriarchs, continues in this new revelation of El as Yahweh. Now, these people became the possession of Yahweh, and Yahweh became their God. This suggests that the historical moment of instability and uncertainty is a period when a religion must rise to the challenge of the new time and experience, or it must die. History has many examples. Within biblical texts, gods like Marduk and Baal, and the belief systems that grew up around them, were not able meet the inevitable tests history would bring. The belief system died. In a sense, the god died as well. In fact, one could suggest that the ability to change in the midst of new challenges is a sign of the strength of the belief. If so, this observation challenges the notion that a religion must simply remain faithful to the past. Rather, a religion must have the creativity to meet new challenges. Such creativity reveals its strength.  

As an aside, denominational religion today has much to learn from this distant past of its sacred text. The challenge is to find creative ways to meet new challenges, or die.

What we find, then, is that Moses did not finally define the will of Yahweh, for the rest of the Old Testament shows continuing development and openness to the new things God wanted to do when confronted by the inevitable newness history would bring.

            The third step is that any history of the origins of Israel must start with the sudden appearance of a large community in Palestine and Transjordan only a generation after the small group escaped from Egypt under the leadership of Moses.  The historical period would be from around 1300 BC to around 1000 BC. This period will, of course, be a continuation of the dramatic changes in belief, institution, and values that Moses introduced. It is quite likely that during this period the kingship of the Lord was the vision that held the Israelites together as a distinct group.  It was this faith of early Israel that meant they could transcend the traditional boundaries of tribalism. This means that kinship is not the explanation of the expansion of Israelite authority in Palestine. Most scholars will also admit that military superiority was not the source of this growth. Every indication is that Israel's military might was less advanced than that of Canaanite city-states.  Even further, politics, so valued today, was not the reason for this growth, even if we can say that Egypt and the city-state system in Palestine were both weak at this time.

Thus, a reasonable explanation of the growth of Israel was that it was a religious community based upon a covenant.  The twelve tribes were comprised of those members of the population of Palestine and Transjordan who had accepted the reign of God.  The ethical power of this new movement explains its phenomenal growth.  The enormous growth of the Israelite people so quickly is best accounted for by the essential conversion and incorporation into the covenant of many Canaanites. The Lord was the king, the leader in war and the judge and lawgiver.  Clearly, the Israelites took the approach of proselyting the nonbelievers in their midst, rather than seeking military or political supremacy.

Part of what happened was that this “people” came into an area that had developed an organization of city-states that were quite independent of each other. In essence, the vision of Moses sustained the tribal federation quite well, from around 1300-1200 BC to around 1000 BC. The Hebrews, now Israelites, moved into this land and steadily won over or defeated former residents. During this period, a focus on the covenant was common, but the tribes still had their distinctive qualities (Joshua 3:1-4:18, 5:10-12, Exodus 12:2-23, 27, 29-34, 37-39, Shechemite covenant in Joshua 8:30-35, 24:2-13, 25-28, Deuteronomy 27:27:15-26, Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:7-21, and Book of Covenant in Exodus 20:22-23:19).  The covenant united them. Here are some uniting elements of that covenant. One was not make an idol, misuse the name of the Lord, disrespect the Sabbath, dishonor parents, steal property, tell lies in court, mislead the blind, treat unjustly the alien, orphan, or widow, commit adultery, have sex with one’s mother, an animal, sister, mother-in-law, murder,  or be involved in sorcery. The law offered restrictions on lending money in order to protect the poor, wanted to make sure that justice was evenly given to all, developed laws of restitution regarding stealing, and put limits on the treatment of slaves. In essence, as the people of God are to be faithful to God, they are also to be faithful to each other. The Levites in particular were to protect this covenant. They were the ones who received the annual festivals, covenant renewal, and kept alive the stories of the faith. Yet, we find in Judges 19-21 a terrible story of a Levite who acted in a corrupt and violent way.

Before, religion was little more than rituals designed to influence the supernatural world to do humanity's will.  Under the covenant system, religion became a matter of submitting to the will of God, which in turn was largely defined by ethical standards.

The personal experience of the Lord was that of awe or fear. Cosmic powers could reflect the intervention of the Lord. Yet, the Lord now guided by the Word and by the Spirit of the Lord.

Seers were people who see more than ordinary mortals who see the future and anything hidden. They possess the gift of clairvoyance. Physical phenomena may accompany such clairvoyant gifts. Ecstatic disturbance of consciousness may also accompany it. One could exercise it fully awake or in dreams. Such manifestations appeared in other religions of the area. The unique element for Israel was that the seer had the added responsibility of transmitting the energy and devotion of the period of Moses. The Israelite seer derived oracles from Yahweh as revealed through Moses. People viewed such insights as continuation of the divine dialogue begun through Moses, the purpose of which was to acknowledge the honor due to Yahweh. Their oracles mediated the divine presence. Their powers served the purpose of implementing its religious heritage. This meant resisting foreign influences. They had awareness of God and enthusiasm for Yahweh, who directs actions toward moral ends. The seer inherits a great and sacred task. Deborah, for example, held political, legal, and religious influence. Just as Moses had political, military, legal, and religious functions, the seer inherited responsibility in these areas. Although the texts focus upon the work of the seer as political and military leader in times of crisis, the quiet and continuous work of the seer in times of peace was also of decisive importance for showing the superiority of Yahweh over nature religions. Samuel became one of the outstanding persons of Israelite history for this reason.

The ancient Nazirite had streaming locks, the symbol of complete dedication of his life to God. The way in which he served Yahweh was by warring against the nation’s enemies as the champion whose daring feats of military strength should inspire his compatriots to heroism in battle. They had their widest influence during this time. With the monarchy, they disappear or continue to exist in a drastically modified form. They contributed to strengthening the sense of a people and of the religious basis of that connection. They helped in keeping the religion of Israel from drifting into a compromise with the religion of Canaan, and in urging it to assert itself and to develop to the full its unique character. They animated and sustained the religious conception of war. In this way, they afforded significant support to the judges.

The Spirit of the Lord fell upon leaders (many of the stories of the judges in Judges, such as Deborah and Barak, Gideon, Abimelech, Samson, Ehud, Othniel, Shamgar, Tola and Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Gibeah and Benjamin, demonstrate the blessings and curses of this period. In such ways, the Lord showed the divine intention in the formation of this people. The Lord wanted a people bound to the Lord in covenant and a people bound to each other in ethical relation. The Lord was their “king” and their leader in military battles in Joshua (victory over eastern kings in Genesis 14, Jericho in Judges 2, 6:21-27, Ai in 7:2-9, 8:1-29, Gibeonites in 9, kings in 9:1-2, 10:1-10, 15-27, Makkedah in 10:28, Libnah in 10:29-30, Lachish and Gezer in 10:31-33, Eglon in 10:34-35, Hebron in 10:36-37, Debir in 10:38-39, Hazor and the northern alliance in 11:1-14). In essence, the tribes possessed the new land (Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 33, and Joshua 15:1-12, 16:1-17:13, 17:14-18, 18:11-19:48, 20:1-9).

Such leaders were among the new things this tribal confederation experienced with Yahweh in contrast with that of the Patriarchs. Moses was the pattern. It was the form in which Yahweh protected them in times of war. The means employed was the charismatic gift that God bestowed upon one of the leaders of the people. Yahweh went into battle and defeated the enemy through divine terror sent to the enemy. The stories of the judges present us with Israelite leaders of varied types, who exercised a greater or less degree of authority over the nation or merely over sections of it. They were chieftains or petty princes, who achieved a distinguished political position by their prowess in war, but whose influence nevertheless seldom extended beyond the bounds of their tribe. These old stories commemorate political acts of deliverance effected by Yahweh through charismatic leaders as well as a numinous panic that Yahweh caused to break out among the enemy. Yahweh rose up to protect the people in these holy wars, and the action that was decisive belonged to Yahweh.

Some question whether they exercised a religious function. We should not underestimate the religious effects of the emergence of political leaders in this period. The call is followed immediately by the public proof of the charisma effected by means of a victory over the enemy. Then the line curves steeply downwards. The one who was a special instrument of the will of Yahweh in history falls into sin, degradation, or some other disaster. Thus, these little narrative complexes already have as their background a definite, pessimistic conception of the charismatic leader. Behind these narratives lies, it would seem, the unspoken question, where is the one who serves his people as deliverer not merely on one occasion alone? For a time, Israel follows a judge. After death, the people fell away from Yahweh, and an interval ensued, during which Yahweh handed the people over to their enemies for punishment. Then, when they cried to him in their distress, he once again sent them a deliverer, and the cycle began all over again.

They could not carry out their projects without adopting the slogan, “Yahweh and Israel.” They were forced into this policy for several reasons. One was by the close connection between national and religious freedom, between the concepts of Yahweh and of the nation.  In addition, the obligation to take part in wars against their common enemies could only be brought home to any considerable proportion of the Israelite clans and tribes, it was invested with religious authority and subjected them to the sovereignty of the divine will. The greatness and glory of the nation depended on the worship of this God. The coups effected by these tribal heroes not only gave the Israelite minority room to develop freely, but at the same time strengthened their spiritual powers of resistance by awakening and reinforcing their determination to assert their unique religious character. Even in those figures that are purely secular is the miraculous power of the spirit that is the real force behind those acts of redemption that preserve the life of the nation.

In the unexpected success of their enterprises, the Israelite recognized the activity of a higher power. By designating this power as spirit, Israelites made their political leaders the direct servants of God and the instruments by which God exercised sovereignty. The close association of political and military activity with the power of the divine Lord served to make clear to people the emphatic way in which the whole of life was related to the one Yahweh, and decisively excluded the idea that political life might be isolated as a purely human preserve.

This partnership of seer and judge is probably not to be regarded simply as an isolated phenomenon. It indicates a new way in which the frequent and volcanic outbreaks of nationalist fervor were made to serve God. These warrior heroes, who often exercised their power within very restricted limits, are able to furnish the colors for the portrait of the one great Redeemer who is to bring order out of life’s chaos and set up Yahweh’s rule over the sorely pressed land. They regarded these people as instruments of the dominion of Yahweh. Thus, despite the limited significance of their actual historical role, they became genuine mediators of the covenant with Yahweh.

They had a strong sense of “solidarity,” to the point that the action of one person could represent others (Achan in Joshua 7:16-26). Such a view could mean that the sins of one person could mean judgment would fall upon others. Such a view also tied those who lived with the past and with the future, for solidarity included those remembered in tribal history and those who would come into the clan in the future. They had only a vague sense of “sheol” as a place where the dead resided.

Yet, as Israel would understand it, with good reason, this entire period would be a record of breaking the covenant. An example of a positive in the period is in Joshua 22:10-34, where the tribes avert a civil war by talking with each other. The story of Ruth is an example of covenant faithfulness. Yet, we see some of the difficulties of the period in Judges 17-18, Judges 19-21, Genesis 19:30-38, Genesis 38, and I Samuel 2:12-17, 22-25, 4:12-22, 4:1b-5:12, 6:1-7:1). Although the memorable phrase “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25) might have been an originally positive statement, it became a sign of the primary sin of this period. People came to disregard the Lord and the covenant. They did what they wanted.

For us who read this sacred text today, I would like to suggest some theological and spiritual challenges.  

One is the way covenant embraces all of life. It suggests that basic religious commands will dictate every facet of life. This view needs re-reading in light of the success of the Enlightenment view of the acceptance of separation of church and state. In this view, political, economic, and religious life influence each other, but one does not dictate to the other. Such a view offers a certain degree of freedom and independence to the various spheres of communal life. Of course, the danger is treating the spheres of life as segments or silos, as if they have no influence upon each other. In any case, Christians today outside “reconstructionism” have no desire to bring back theocracy. Most Christians today, whether intentionally or not, value the gift the Enlightenment has offered citizens in Western civilization. The American constitution enshrines this value. The cause of this separation was largely due to the horror of the religious wars in Europe. While the churches of Europe have had centuries to adjust this new reality, other religious groups have not. The Orthodox Jew still refuses to accept this reality. The Muslim still largely rejects it by holding that someday Sharia Law will reign over nations. Here is an aspect of ancient religious communities that served a valid purpose at the time, but also that those who read the sacred text today need to set behind.

Two is the way God is active in history. Granted, one is grateful for the notion of God acting in history to liberate people from bondage. It may be quite realistic to suggest that God is fighting for the oppressed, and that their liberation will mean the death of the oppressor. Yet, Psalm 58:10 says that “The righteous will rejoice when they see vengeance done; they will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.” Exodus 15:1 says that "I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.” The notion of the righteous celebrating the death of the wicked is not in the hearts of Christians, so far as I know.  One might say that in such sentiments we find the worst of religion.

Three is the notion of development and education in this history. True, some elements of the past need to be left behind. Yet, the past also finds new life and interpretation in a new vision, a new promise. Of course, one should not expect it to be an even and steady increase wisdom and practice.

Four, this presentation challenges the notion in the Quran that one need Jews and Christians have to get back to belief we find in Abraham, who is the first Muslim in their view. In fact, my suggestion is that had the faith of the head of the clan remained central, we would not be discussing Jew, Christian, or Muslim today. The pressure of inevitable historical events would either bring new beliefs, institutions, and values into reality, or the religion would die.

Five, standing the test of time is an important aspect of truth in this area of human life. Of course, such a test is not final until we reach the end of history. In time between now and the end, however, we can have some assurance that belief systems, institutions, and values, that have died, and often with them their gods, were not “true” in important respects. They may have served a group of people for a significant length of time and may have felt “self-evident” to them. Yet, history has shown that the trust was misplaced. The trust placed in Marduk, the confidence many placed in the political system of Rome, the confidence many had in the feudal system, and so on, have simply not stood the test of time. While lasting is not the only test of a belief, it remains an important one. The Hebrew word, emeth, is that which lasts, that which is reliable. What I am suggesting, then, is that the faith we find represented in Abraham and in Moses continues to inspirit and strength people today. It has lasted, whether in synagogue, church, or mosque. Of course, this raises the question of whether the belief system is more than that. Behind their belief may well be the one and true God of this universe. That, however, is another essay.

 

To conclude in a way that opens the reader to the next “stage” of biblical history, the vision of Moses that sustained the tribal federation period will not last forever. New challenges arise. True, the vision of Moses lasted for several centuries. It interpreted the world as then understood, and it stood the tests presented. Yet, it had its weaknesses, which a new historical situation brought to the attention of all. Something new needed to come. As helpful as the belief in Yahweh had been in forming a people and binding them together, the military strength of surrounding nations presented a new challenge. The quite real question arose as to whether the belief in Yahweh and acceptance of the seer, Nazirite, and judge, could stand the new tests. The vitality of this belief in Yahweh and the messengers of Yahweh would need to meet this new situation and find a creative way to deal with the new historical situation.

Say it Ain’t So, O[bama]

Some speculation has arisen as to the strategy of the President in these opening weeks of his second term. The speculation regards his motives. Motives are difficult to discern. In any case, I find the comments, from both liberal and conservative sources, to be disturbing. Let us explore it for a few moments.

According to the Washington Examiner, President Obama is just 42 days into his second term in the White House but he is already done governing. As The Washington Post reported this weekend, Obama is already “executing plans to win back the House in 2014, which he and his advisers believe will be crucial to the outcome of his second term and to his legacy as president.” “The goal,” The Washington Post reports, “is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists and others familiar with Obama’s thinking.”

As they see it, Obama is done trying to work with Republicans in 2013 and 2014. He is abandoning any real effort for bipartisan immigration, gun, or energy reform. The bulk of his effort will now be devoted to eliminating all Republican power in Washington. The first step in the campaign for the mid-term election is to maximize the amount of pain the sequester inflicts on the American people. ABC News reports: “Now that the sequester has gone into effect — bringing on the spending cuts Obama once guaranteed would never happen — the president is in the awkward place of rooting for it be felt as he and his administration has predicted.”

Their conclusion is that for perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people. They think that Obama could have spent the last 16 months preparing to mitigate sequestration’s impact on the American people, as any responsible manager would have. Instead, he has done the opposite, explicitly ordering government agencies not to prepare for the worst. And he has refused all Republican efforts to pass legislation that would minimize the sequester’s pain.

I hope I am not being unfair in suggesting that this approach reminds me of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.” One way to interpret the behavior of the Administration is to create in the imagination of government workers and citizens the worst possible scenario during these next few months.

Michael Barone said it appears Obama prefers delivering such messages to crowds of adoring supporters over actually governing. For support, he points to Washington Post's Bob Woodward. He is continuing to make it clear, as he did in his book "The Price of Politics," that it was Obama's then-chief of staff and now Treasury Secretary Jack Lew who first proposed the dreaded sequester. The point is that the president who first proposed the sequester, then promised it would never happen and then denounced it when it seemed clear it would.

Tom Brokaw said in an interview that the fact is that Speaker Boehner is right. Let the Senate come in here and start to play with this a little bit. Where is their budget? The president can start his budget process over there. He thinks the president spent entirely too much time in the last two weeks campaigning, in effect, all around the country, lining up that Saturday Night Live parody. All those people who will be affected, when he ought to have been at Camp David and said to Boehner and his team, and members of the Republican side in the Senate, 'Bring the leadership up here, let's spend five days showing the public that we are interested in trying to make a heroic effort to get a deal here. Can't make any calls out to anybody else except maybe your press representatives but not to your caucus members. We're going to sit here and negotiate this. You're the leaders of the Congress, I'm the leader of the country. We've got to find a way to work this out.' (The Cycle, March 4, 2013)

Yet, this strategy is consistent with Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, RULE 10: "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is the unceasing pressure that will result in the reaction of the opposition that is essential for the success of the campaign. The rule suggests to me that any cooperation with the House, any actual solution to the matters before the nation, would ease the pressure on Republicans.

I would like to think that these persons I have mentioned, from conservative and liberal sources, are wrong. Further, I am not comfortable trying to discern the motives of a person. Even if true, all it might mean is that the President thinks that Democrat control of every branch of government would be best for the country, so it is worth inflicting some pain now on citizens to accomplish that objective. Yet, even then, such a tactic seems devious.

I share this because it seems as if conventional wisdom is that Obama has an interest in inflicting as much as pain as possible through the sequester, confirming in the minds of some voters the evil intent of Republicans. It runs counter to the previous conventional wisdom that for at least a few months, the President and Congress would actually govern in the best interest of the nation.

Let me say it directly. If I were in his shoes, I would have welcomed the opportunity to cut “waste, fraud, and abuse” of the system, including all the expensive retreats about which we have been reading. The President wants us as citizens to assume that the level of federal government spending is “lean and mean,” and therefore, any cut must be to essential services. As I write this, I find it ridiculous, but I assume also that many Americans lean toward accepting its truth. The President wants a “balanced” approach, when in reality, major tax increases are already in place. The sequester, as designed by Obama and approved by both houses in Congress, is about spending. Its design, by our political leaders, was not balance, but spending.

Divide Among Voters

February 23, 2009, President Obama:

 

“And that's why today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half at the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges that we have long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now in this administration for getting our spending under control."  

One sign of the divide in the country might be some that a majority of voters think he meant it and has been trying hard to do it. His years in office have gone the opposite direction because of Bush or Republicans or ... something else. They will give him much credit for trying. Another group suspects (thinks it knows) that he never meant it to begin with.  

In a similar sense of the divide among voters, George Will suggested: The sequester has forced liberals to clarify their conviction that whatever the government’s size is at any moment, it is the bare minimum necessary to forestall intolerable suffering. To add to this, the conservative will say that the present level of government is part of the problem and it needs actual reduction.

At this point, just wondering if that is the case.

Honesty on Tax Increases

I appreciate a February 2013 editorial in the New York Times about raising taxes. They emphasize the need to raise taxes because of fairness, but ... Well, here is how they say it:

 

new taxes on high-income Americans are a matter of necessity and fairness; they are also a necessary precondition to what in time will have to be tax increases on the middle class. …As the economy strengthens and the population ages, more taxes will be needed from further down the income scale… But there will never be a consensus for more taxes from the middle class without imposing higher taxes on wealthy Americans, who have enjoyed low taxes for a long time.

 

Frankly, I appreciate the honesty. The reality is that there is not enough money there, even if you confiscated it, to eliminate the deficit. Further, If you confiscated the money, it would be there only for one year. They would find ways to avoid going over the amount that would be confiscated.

 

One of the stated concerns of the United Methodist Social Principles (163) is sound fiscal policy. Although the principles go a quite different direction than what I am suggesting, John Kennedy admitted the difficulty in believing in the positive effect of low taxes. It does not seem fiscally responsble, but he points out why it is. "It's a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." Those are the words of President John F. Kennedy in 1962. He went on to say, "The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." What's more, in Kennedy's annual message to Congress, in 1963, he said, "In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction, even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit. ... Reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."

 

I recognize that the rates were quite different in the day of Kennedy, but the change he brought was in the right direction. Part of the point is that higher tax rates leads to more energy put into hiding income. What I think is a more important point is that the present tax rates, which leads to many people giving over 50% of their income to various levels of government, is simply unfair. People have a right to what they have earned.

 

Sequester 2013 By Numbers

The United Methodist Church, Paragraph 163, says that "we recognize the responsibility of governments to develop and implement sound fiscal and monetary policies." I imagine most of us agree with that statement. The current debate regarding sequester deserves some attention from us as citizens. It is a rather borning numbers game. I will keep it brief.

The sequester was the result of an actual law - the Budget Control Act of 2011, now known as Public Law 112-25. A bill becomes law (in most cases, including this one) when it is passed by the House and Senate then signed by the President of the United States. It does not matter whose idea it was first. As law, it is the idea of Senate, House, and President.

According to Larry Kudlow, the $85 billion "spending cut" is actually budget authority, not budget outlays. According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one quarter of 1 percent of GDP (GDP is $15.8 trillion). What’s more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25 percent of the $3.6 trillion government budget. Further, these "cuts" come off a rising budget baseline in most cases. So the sequester would slow the growth of spending. They’re not real cuts in the level of spending.

From Dick Morris: Concerning sequester and the military, Defense spending, as a percent of federal revenue, has been relatively constant, however. It peaked at 29 percent during the Reagan Cold War era and then dropped to 23 percent as George H.W. Bush wound down spending. In 2000, after the Clinton years, it absorbed 18 percent of the budget, swelling to 20 percent under George W. Bush and returning to 19 percent in 2012. The additional $40 billion in sequester cuts will drop its share to 18 percent -- hardly cause for alarm.

Jonah Goldberg says that if the sequester goes into effect, the federal budget for this year will still be larger than last year's ($3.553 trillion in 2013 vs. $3.538 trillion in 2012). With the sequester in effect, federal non-defense spending will still be 10 percent higher than it was in 2008.

The point is simple. The sequester does not come close to the type of setting of spending priorities that the politicians need to make. It does not mean the sky will fall if it goes into effect. Such language assumes that the level of spending the federal government has now is efficient and well spent. Saying that makes most of us realize how silly the entire discussion actually is. In fact, what needs to happen are real cuts in budget outlays, and they need to occur sooner rather than later. That would appear to be "sound fiscal" policy.