NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label david stockman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label david stockman. Show all posts

04 December 2017

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. TRUE IN 2010, ABOUT TO BECOME TRUE IN 2017

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith


Senate Republicans pass a tax bill giving corporations a massive tax cut and cutting health care
“The hypocrisy is astounding”: this tax bill shows the GOP’s debt concerns were pure fraud
The Republican tax bill will exacerbate income inequality in America

America’s rich have gotten richer for decades, while the middle class and poor have seen meager gains. Since the mid-20th century, the top 1 percent have more than doubled their share of the nation’s income, from less than 10 percent to more than 20 percent.

The tax bill is the start of Obamacare collapse

It will hit red states especially hard.

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.

The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Cue the FoxNews denunciations.
David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems. His NYT op-ed, “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse,” begins:
IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.
Given our long-term deficit problem, Stockman said it is “unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.”
UPDATE: Huffpost reports that in an interview today on NBC’s Meet the Press, “Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs elsewhere could end up being ‘disastrous’ for the economy.”
Here are some more excerpts from Stockman’s must-read piece:
More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts “” in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance “” vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.
This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one….
The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.
… when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too “” signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.
The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Here, Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation.
There’s only one piece of GOP orthodoxy even Stockman can’t bring himself to take on — the need for government policy to rebuild the U.S. industrial base:
The fourth destructive change has been the hollowing out of the larger American economy. Having lived beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore. In the past decade, the number of high-value jobs in goods production and in service categories like trade, transportation, information technology and the professions has shrunk by 12 percent, to 68 million from 77 million. The only reason we have not experienced a severe reduction in nonfarm payrolls since 2000 is that there has been a gain in low-paying, often part-time positions in places like bars, hotels and nursing homes.
Well, the bold-face identification of the problem is right, but a major reason we have hollowed out the larger American economy is that the GOP have succeeded in blocking almost every major progressive effort to increase investment in infrastructure and R&D and other key aspects of a 21st century economy when Democrats were in charge, and they cut funding in those crucial areas when they were in charge. This effort will only intensify in the coming years.
So Stockman has only this solution:
It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans “” paid mainly from the Wall Street casino “” received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent “” mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy “” got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.
The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing “” as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach “” balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline “” is needed more than ever.
That would perhaps get our economic house in order in a narrow sense — assuming we deferred the balanced budgets until after the recovery is much further advanced. But it would continue the decline of our relative competitiveness to our major trading competitors.
Still, considering the source, this is an Emperor-has-no-clothes moment for the GOP. At least until the rest of the conservative kingdom turns on him.
Related Think Progress posts from today:
Related CP Posts:




22 March 2013

The U.S. Warfare State and Evangelical Peacemaking & A Heart for Peace from SOJOURNERS FEB 2013

BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS. Jesus said that. He did not offer the same for those who seek to resolve disputes with war, violence, intimidation, and bullying. It is time for the Universal Catholic (Christian) Church in America to the challenge the warfare state our self described Christian nation has come to endorse and embrace in direct violation and rejection of the teachings of Jesus Christ. There is no spin to Christ's words in the Beatitudes, he said flat out in Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Yet in Christian churches of all denominations and sects we find worship services dedicated to war. Yes, we should pray for God's protection and guidance of our troops in combat zones and in service in general. But before we send our troops into battle, we, the church should be sure we have exhausted every peaceful means of conflict resolution AND have determined the use of force is justified according to the teachings of Christ and is NOT an act of imperialism, neocolonialism, nationalism, or to increase the profits of the military-industrial complex. Not only do we have a faith based moral responsibility to challenge our religious, political and economic leaders on the use of force, we also have a faith based moral responsibility to challenge these same leaders on the squandering of scarce tax dollars on maintaining a warfare state at the expense of the vast majority (99%) of Americans. It is no wonder we are so divided as a nation politically, the constant state of war we have been in the past 50 years (the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Iran, El Salvador, Honduras, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, just to name a few, along with the never ending War on Drugs and War on Terror) is used by those politicians and corporations profiting from bloody conflicts to keep us on edge, afraid, and more susceptible to manipulation. The daily life of the citizens of our warfare state doesn't even come close to the daily life the Prince of Peace calls for us to live. The Church must challenge the warfare state and must include Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus and all other faiths to work together to end our dependence on violence and to increase our dependence on faith and morality to solve our problems. Here is a series of articles that will make you think, search your soul and hopefully inspire you to action. From the FEB 2013 issue of Sojouners, and consider this from Ghandi......


The atomic bomb brought an empty victory ... but it resulted for the time being in destroying the soul of Japan. What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see.

-Mahatma Gandhi
FROM Sojourners

by David P. Gushee | February 2013

Evangelicals are gearing up to be makers of peace. Are they ready for the serious responsibilities that entails?


AMID THE COUNTRY'S serious fiscal problems, our $775 billion annual defense budget, not to mention our tens of billions of dollars spent on intelligence and other national security expenses, is treated as sacrosanct. Budget-cutters, especially on the Republican side, do not train their sights on the defense budget as they seek to address our flood of red ink, but instead focus on dramatic cuts in the safety net for the poor.

Take Action on This Issue

Circle of Protection for a Moral Budget

A pledge by church leaders from diverse theological and political beliefs who have come together to form a Circle of Protection around programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and arou

Related Reading

According to former Reagan budget director David Stockman, our $775 billion defense budget is nearly twice as large in inflation-adjusted dollars as the defense budget of Dwight Eisenhower for 1961, during the Cold War. Our FY 2011 defense budget was five times greater than that of China, our nearest competition for this dubious honor; constituted over 40 percent of the world’s entire military spending; and was larger than the cumulative budget of the next 14 nations in the top 15. All of this occurs at a time when our infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are sliding, and one-sixth of our population cannot find or has stopped looking for full-time work.
Stockman suggests that no plausible national defense goals today justify this level of defense spending. He rightly points out that “we have no advanced industrial state enemies” akin to the USSR of Cold War days. He argues that what in fact supports a budget of this size is an ideology of “neoconservative imperialism” and an attempt to function as a “global policeman” even after the world has “fired” us from this role.
Retired U.S. Army Col. Andrew Bacevich argues in several important recent books that the direction of U.S. foreign and military policy is slipping from democratic control. It is instead dominated by a cohort of active and retired military, intelligence, law enforcement, corporate, lobbyist, academic, and political elites whose power in Washington is sufficiently impressive as to foreclose serious reconsideration of what Bacevich calls the “Washington rules.” The elites enforcing these rules consistently drive us to policies of permanent war, a staggeringly large global military presence, and regular global interventionism. This analysis stands in striking continuity with the warnings offered 50 years ago by President Eisenhower about the “military-industrial complex.”
While our taste for large boots-on-the-ground military interventions appears finally to have waned after the bloody and bankrupting off-budget wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our special forces, covert, and technological interventions abroad—and the massive, secret national security establishment that supports them—have heightened. Our nation has not had a serious debate about the centralization of presidential authority involved in this recent shift, including the legitimacy of presidential authority to order long-distance drone strikes—in countries that want such strikes, and in countries that don’t want them.
The United States remains a nation traumatized by 9/11 and its terror attacks. We are easily manipulated into military and covert engagements in the name of post-9/11 national security.
One of the greatest tragedies of the last decade has been the extraordinary burden borne by the small cast of paid (e.g. “volunteer”) soldiers who have been killed or traumatized by our recent wars. We honor them with sentimental displays at airports and ballparks, but seem to have no serious answer for mental health problems that now take 25 veterans’ lives by suicide for every one soldier now dying on the battlefield. And we will be paying their pensions and medical expenses for the next 70 years.
In a trenchant turn of phrase, Stockman suggests that we have developed into a “warfare state” whose military-spending excesses are one major factor contributing to economic decline and imminent fiscal emergency. I believe that Stockman is correct.
THE CHRISTIAN, AND not just evangelical, voice in U.S. foreign policy debates seems entirely marginalized, more so than at any time I have lived through or studied. There is no contemporary Christian leader, scholar, denomination, or movement whose views on U.S. foreign and military policies seem to matter to either party or its leaders.
Just war theory does not seem to be functioning in any significant or constructive way. In academia, its use seems to have become an empty intellectual exercise divorced from any persuasive power to guide either state policy or Christian practice. The outcome of just war theory reasoning seems tightly linked to the prior ideological or temperamental makeup of the just war theorist.
On the right, anti-Muslim and neo-Crusade thinking has resurfaced in both popular and academic circles, Christian and otherwise. This problem has obviously been exacerbated by the trauma of 9/11 and other acts of Islamist terrorism as well as the stresses of multiple U.S. military engagements in majority-Muslim lands.
Pacifism remains popular in elite academic and popular (progressive) circles. But it has little to offer to public discussion other than occasionally trenchant analyses of obvious excesses or wrongs in U.S. foreign and military policy. And most academic pacifism is untethered to actual Christian communities that practice either nonviolence or any other form of radical Christian discipleship.
Just peacemaking theory offers a profound strengthening of the last-resort criterion of just war theory, as well as highlighting realistic conflict resolution possibilities through creative state and NGO diplomacy and grassroots citizen advocacy and action. It is currently the most relevant of all existing Christian peacemaking theories/strategies, but it would not be accurate to say that it has gained wide influence in U.S. foreign policy circles.
A longstanding coalition strategy within the center-left of evangelicalism has attempted to overcome differences between pacifists and just warriors by emphasizing areas of agreement and shared commitment to just peacemaking. This has protected friendships and produced strategic gains at times, but I wonder whether it has weakened the concreteness, realism, and relevance of evangelical peacemaking efforts, and perhaps obscured the legitimate, principled differences between pacifists and those who believe Christians can sometimes support the use of force.
EVANGELICAL PEACEMAKERS NEED to join the conversation about U.S. foreign and military policy, such as it is. That includes studying U.S. foreign policy goals, our current military presence around the world, our alliance commitments, existing and planned weapons systems, and finally how all of that is reflected in the U.S. defense budget. We also need to become aware of the various political, civic, and economic forces that block needed budget cuts in defense even when foreign policy and governmental leaders believe those cuts are needed. This is a formidable research agenda calling for the emergence of a new generation of ethics specialists in this area.
What would it mean to offer our own proposals, or join with those of others, for the kind of foreign policy, use of military force, and size and shape of defense budget that we could support? This would require a willingness on our part to accept a legitimate national right of self-defense and use of lethal force under certain specified conditions. It would also involve consideration once again of the morality of maintaining military forces and weapons of sufficient scope to deter aggressors. In other words, we would have to decide whether there is such a thing as “national security” that can find a place within a Christian approach and, if so, how a legitimate national security is best garnered and protected.
To do the above would involve accepting, at least provisionally, the stubborn existence of an entity called the nation-state, a world filled with an ever-shifting array of nation-states, and the internationally recognized right of those states to defend themselves. That is one price of admission to the conversation about how much defense to buy, for what purposes, etc. Currently in academia there is much critique of modernity, including the hegemony of the nation-state and its use of violence. This is really quite interesting, but meanwhile we live in a world with 190-plus nation-states, including our own, all of which are committed to defending themselves.
I suggest we need a swing back toward consideration of the difference between an ethic for Christian disciples and an ethic for the leaders of nations, states, political communities. The state is not the church. Even though I believe that the church qua church is called to be a nonviolent community, the state qua state cannot be a nonviolent community—though it can be called to exercise its security responsibilities as nonviolently as possible. The church can urge peace, we can pioneer peacemaking practices, and we can place ourselves at risk in order to create reconciliation opportunities between peoples and nations. But we must take seriously once again the classic conundrum that the statesperson, even the Christian statesperson, faces responsibilities involving the use of force in relation to protecting the people within his or her realm that others generally do not (cf. Romans 13:1-7). That is what U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic operatives do, and are supposed to be doing, even if their current mission needs dramatic trimming.
WHAT IF THE thinking of U.S. center-left Christians, including evangelicals, has been somewhat misshaped by the increasingly obvious wrongs of U.S. foreign and military policy for the last 65 years, including the first use of nuclear weapons in 1945, the insane nuclear arms race with its Mutual Assured Destruction madness, the deployment and planned use of nuclear weapons in various theaters of war, the foolish conventional-but-devastating wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere, and the bloating of our military budget as outlined earlier?
What if because U.S. foreign and military policy has been potentially lethal to the planet, as well as bankrupting, unwise, and neo-imperialistic, this reality has obscured for us historic issues in Christian thinking about war that go back at least as far as Ambrose? What if we simply haven’t had to deal with the most basic and ancient questions about whether or how peoples on this planet legitimately defend their lives against aggressors, because until the recent domestic terror attacks this was not the most urgent question when thoughtful Christians engaged U.S. foreign policy? These are at least the questions raised for me as I consider the nexus between the U.S. warfare state and evangelical peacemaking.
David P. Gushee is the Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University. This article is adapted from his presentation at the September 2012 Evangelicals for Peace conference in Washington, D.C.
February 2013

A Heart for Peace

by Geoff TunnicliffeRick LoveLisa Sharon HarperTyler Wigg-StevensonBob Roberts Jr.Jennifer CrumptonLisa Gibson,Douglas M. JohnstonSami Awad | February 2013

The surprising new surge in evangelical peacemaking.

A VARIETY OF EVANGELICAL PEACEMAKING efforts have sprung up in recent years, from the Two Futures Project, which seeks a world without nuclear weapons, to the World Evangelical Alliance’s Peace and Reconciliation Initiative, which seeks to redress the fact that “in our zeal for evangelism, we have often overlooked the biblical mandate to pursue peace.”

Take Action on This Issue

Circle of Protection for a Moral Budget

A pledge by church leaders from diverse theological and political beliefs who have come together to form a Circle of Protection around programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and arou

Related Reading

This fall, evangelicals from a range of viewpoints gathered at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., exploring what a distinctive evangelical contribution to peacemaking might look like. The essays below, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the first Evangelicals for Peace conference, a “summit on Christian moral responsibility in the 21st century.” Organizers hope to publish a book with the entire collection of talks.—The Editors
-----
‘All the Easy Jobs Have Been Done’
Standing on a rich tradition of peace and transformation 


by Geoff Tunnicliffe
WHY IS PEACEMAKING an important topic for evangelicals? As a global community of 600 million Christians, our churches are confronted daily with the impact of illegal weapons. Our hospitals treat the victims of violence. Our church leaders counsel the traumatized. All forms of conflict negatively impact our development programs. Our aid agencies seek to care for and rehabilitate child soldiers. Our inner-city communities are confronted with the outcomes of gang warfare.
For all of us who say we are followers of Jesus, as we observe or experience the brokenness of our world, it should break our hearts. If we feel the pain so deeply, I can’t imagine what our loving God feels. The One who is called the Prince of Peace. The One who laid down his life, so that we could be reconciled to God and each other.
The World Evangelical Alliance’s engagement in peacemaking stands on the rich traditions of evangelicals who have devoted themselves to being instruments of social change and transformation. We want to say loudly that we evangelicals want to be on the forefront of peacebuilding. All the easy jobs have been done. It’s just the tough ones that are left. It requires clear vision to face these challenges.
We as evangelicals are committed to working together with those in and outside our community for the good of all. May God empower us through the work of his Spirit to be his ambassadors of peace and reconciliation.
Geoff Tunnicliffe is secretary general of the World Evangelical Alliance.
-----
Following the Prince of Peace
The six spheres of evangelical peacemaking
by Rick Love
WHAT WOULD A biblical, comprehensive, proactive peace witness look like? The challenge for us is to begin with peace with God. What does that mean practically? It means peace with ourselves, peace within the church, peace with our neighbor, and ultimately peace with our enemies. The reality is, life is not a nice sequence like this, or a continuum, but this is where Jesus wants to move all of us. If we are going to be an evangelical movement that stresses a biblical, comprehensive, and proactive peace, then we need to train our people in all these dimensions.
Here are six spheres of how we could do this as evangelicals. The first sphere is personal peace (“Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts”). I think that should be the foundation for evangelical peacemakers. Then it moves to interpersonal (Go and be reconciled in our homes and our churches). Then there’s social peacemaking (“Take the log out of your own eye”). Next there is urban. As Jeremiah wrote, “Seek the peace of the city.” How can we, as evangelicals, seek the common good, seek the peace of the city? And then it moves to national and, ultimately, international peacemaking. Each of these spheres builds on another, and shows the complexities that we face today. I believe that evangelicals around the world need to be engaged in each of these spheres. We want to help followers of the Prince of Peace be a more effective force for peace in our world today.
Rick Love, organizer of the Evangelicals for Peace conference, is president of Peace Catalyst International.
-----
Believing in Redemption
The way Jesus responded to terror is a lesson to all of us
by Lisa Sharon Harper
JESUS STARED INTO the faces of people who considered him their enemy, and he turned his other cheek. He allowed himself to be whipped. He allowed a terrorist state to use his death as a horrifying warning to any who dare follow him from this point on: Declaring allegiance to Jesus will be deemed a direct challenge to the deity of Caesar and to the ultimate authority of occupying Rome. Do so upon pain of death.
Why didn’t Jesus fight? After all, that’s what the people wanted. They had been waiting for a Messiah to overthrow Caesar by force and take back the Promised Land. Why did he choose the route of silent, nonviolent resistance with Pilate, rather than lashing out or arguing his case? Why did Jesus turn the other cheek and exercise meekness, which means disciplined power, in the face of terror?
I believe it was because when he looked into the eyes of the chief priests or their slaves or the Roman soldiers, or even Caesar himself, he saw the image of God. How could Jesus strike down the image of God? He came to redeem and restore the image of God on earth, to set the slaves, and the soldiers, and the priests free from the violent reign of humans. He came that Caesar himself might be brought back to life by the dominion of God—a dominion characterized by disciplined power, servant leadership, truth-telling, just dealing, reconciliation and reparation, and, above all else, love. Jesus did not fight because he believed in redemption. n
Lisa Sharon Harper is director of mobilizing at Sojourners. Her presentation at the Evangelicals for Peace conference was adapted from her book Left, Right, and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics (with D.C. Innes, Russell Media, 2011).
-----
Become Doers of Peace
Jesus does not allow us simply to spiritualize peacemaking 


by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson
UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN Christians disdain peace, it is a clear triumph of cultural religion over biblical fidelity, because peace is at the core of what it means to follow Jesus. Jesus is the “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). The good news that he died for sinners is itself the “gospel of peace” (Ephesians 6:15), because the purpose of the cross was to “[make] peace through his blood” (Colossians 1:20). His peace is to “rule” among us, “since as members of one body you were called to peace” (Colossians 3:15). And, though Paul begins his letters to the churches by pairing “grace and peace,” I wonder if most of us hear far more about grace than peace from our churches’ pulpits. Despite the clear biblical witness, many Christians resist peace.
Peace is more than the absence or cessation of war. But neither does Jesus allow us simply to spiritualize peace. Though the peace of Christ is internal, it does not remain internal. Otherwise, how can we make sense of his exaltation in the Beatitudes of the highly active work of the “peacemaker,” which literally combines the Greek words for “peace” and “to make or create” (Matthew 5:9)? Jesus does not bless the peace-feelers or the peace-talkers, but the peace-doers.
Tyler Wigg-Stevenson is founding director of the Two Futures Project, a movement of Christians for the abolition of nuclear weapons. This is adapted with permission from his forthcoming book, The World is Not Ours to Save (© 2013, InterVarsity Press, PO Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515; www.ivpress.com).
-----
Sharing the Bed
Pastors and peacemaking in a globalized world


by Bob Roberts Jr.
THE WORLD IS open like never before, but sadly we are becoming our own worst enemies. The biggest obstacle to us engaging the world with our faith is us. Though we have been contemporizing the church in the West, we still have an old worldview of faith and how it engages the world.
For the most part, we evangelicals have had our “religious” response to peace and foreign affairs, but it isn’t enough. Without the Holy Spirit and personal relationships with people from challenging countries, we will be just another group banding together wanting peace. Wanting peace is not enough; we must promote it, and we promote it through relationships.
The reality is we cannot truly discuss theology without legitimate relationships, unless all we want is academia. The greatest thing a pastor can do is to mobilize and equip his or her church to engage the world. The greatest power of a pastor is to connect his or her people with people of other faiths.
What we desperately need is a global perspective. Whether it’s the economy, oil, foreign affairs, environment, or statecraft, we Americans sadly see through a purely American or local lens. This is my biggest concern for my country: We don’t realize how we are contributing to the tension in the world; we think it’s other people, and often it’s us. We’re hogging the bed without realizing others are about to fall off. n
Bob Roberts Jr. is founder and senior pastor of NorthWood Church in Keller, Texas.
-----
Sparking “Aha” Moments
Social media can transport us to places that we couldn’t otherwise go
by Jennifer Crumpton
IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT we exert our evangelical voices—for peace, respect, religious understanding, cooperation, reconciliation—into the popular political and social discourse that’s going on about foreign policy in war and conflict. We have to really understand that we live in two dimensions now. We have our real- time, academic, pastoral activism world, but then we also have another realm in which we can touch people in the world that we have never been able to touch before. We can have a voice in places that we have never been able to have a voice before, with people that we would never otherwise meet.
We really cannot underestimate the power of social media to spark “aha” moments. When we think in terms of iconic change over time—the big moments in our national history and the history of the world—all of those moments start with tiny little moments: little conversations, little dialogues, little quotes from a summit that you’re sitting at. Conversations that otherwise wouldn’t have happened—those are what create iconic change, where the world will never be the same.
Social media is kind of like the Holy Spirit. It can transport us to places that we couldn’t otherwise go. It can help us interact with people that we wouldn’t have otherwise, in ways that we wouldn’t have even dreamed of. So let’s go with it. With social media, we all have a pulpit. A lot of the time, we want to come down from the pulpits and get into the streets, and social media is a way to get into a lot of streets that we couldn’t otherwise travel down.
Jennifer Crumpton, a pastoral associate at Park Avenue Christian Church in Manhattan, is the founding editor of “Uncommon Voices,” the blog of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.
-----
On Not Fighting with the Enemy’s Weapons
When her brother was killed by terrorists, she had a choice to make
by Lisa Gibson
IN 1988, MY brother Ken was killed in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Ken was 20 years old at the time and was serving in the Army in Berlin, Germany.
I was only 18 years old when my brother was killed. The question that God placed on my heart, after all the dust settled, was simply this: “How might I be a part of seeing this tragedy redeemed and see some good come out of it?”
Now, after more than 20 years, I know what it is to wage the battle in the physical and the spiritual realms. For years I was simply indifferent. I didn’t know any Muslims, and that was the way I wanted to keep it. As a Christian, I knew it was wrong to hate and that I was called to forgive. But as I read the Bible, I was challenged because I learned it was more than not hating my enemy—it was about loving them. At the heart of terrorism is hate and fear. The only way to effectively fight the battle is to walk in the opposite spirit. Too many Christians are trying to fight the battle with the enemy’s weapons. Where there is hate, we must respond in love. Where there is fear, we must respond in faith.
Rather than succumbing to bitterness or simple indifference, I chose to respond in love. With the realization that love is an action, I began to look for opportunities to reach out in love to my enemies.
Lisa Gibson is founder and executive director of the Peace and Prosperity Alliance and author of Life In Death: A Journey From Terrorism To Triumph.
-----
Religion Matters
In foreign policy, ignoring the motivating influence of religious faith is a sure recipe for failure
by Douglas M. Johnston
IF I HAD to convey a single message to U.S. foreign policy practitioners, it would be that religion matters. For good or for ill, religion is increasingly important in our world. What’s more, the nature of religion in many places is changing; it is becoming more dynamic, more activist, and more political. While the majority of religious movements are peaceful, some errant ideologies are at work justifying and encouraging violence. These ideologies must be countered, and countered effectively. Military force can never fully protect us from the type of terrorist assaults that have taken place over the past decade. Ideologies must be countered with ideas, and ideologies steeped in religion need to be challenged on religious grounds.
These days, in almost any foreign policy situation, ignoring the motivating influence of religious faith is a sure recipe for failure. Because so many terrorists, like those that struck the United States on 9/11, derive their legitimacy from extremist interpretations of their religion, the most effective counter is to empower the more tolerant, mainstream beliefs of that religion, especially among those communities most at risk of succumbing to violent propaganda. Although radical Islam is at the forefront of most religious conversations today, the lessons to be learned from combating extremism in an Islamic context apply equally well to any conflict having a religious dimension to it.
Douglas M. Johnston is president and founder of the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy.
-----
Following the Healer of Healers
How evangelicals can be catalysts for peace in the Holy Land


by Sami Awad
HOW CAN EVANGELICALS be a catalyst for peace in the Holy Land? The focus must be on what Jesus wants us to do, not on what wewant to do—we must see how Jesus wants us to move forward in this. What is the language that he wants us to speak to those that are suffering, and to those who are committing the suffering as well? It’s very easy for us to dehumanize those who cause suffering. We always need to ask the question: Is this the style of Jesus? Is this how Jesus would talk to the oppressor?
For anything to move forward in the Holy Land, a relationship of trust and respect must be established between the peoples. Peace is not just negotiated agreements between politicians. Peace is the process of building trust and respect between the peoples of the land. To be able to see each other with new eyes. To be able to really understand who the “other” is. To appreciate them—their culture, their heritage, the narrative that they bring to the table. Trust and respect are the foundations.
We are called to love our enemies. No matter what we think or feel, no matter how much anger we have in us, we are called to love our enemies. And for me, my biggest challenge has been to understand exactly who my enemy is, in order for me to love them. As a Palestinian, as a Christian, the most transformative experience for me has been going to places like Auschwitz and Birkenau and understanding who my enemy is. To understand the Holocaust, to understand the suffering, the pain, and the fear that exists within the Jewish community. The only thing that you can do after that experience is to love them more, to have real compassion for them and real understanding of where they came from and where they are now—and what is needed for us, as Christians, to follow the healer of all healers.
Sami Awad is founder and executive director of Holy Land Trust in Bethlehem, Palestine.

11 November 2010

Mike Pence says raising taxes lowers tax revenues ....FALSE! from POLITIFACT 7NOV10

REP mike pence (r-IN), loud mouth liar for Republicorp and the greedy wealthy corporation and individuals in this country, caught again lying about taxing the rich, the deficit and entitlement programs. This from PolitiFact
Pence

"Anybody who is familiar with the historical data from the IRS knows that raising income tax rates will likely actually reduce federal revenues."

Mike Pence on Sunday, November 7th, 2010 in an interview on "This Week with Christiane Amanpour."
"To recap, Pence said that, "Anybody who is familiar with the historical data from the IRS knows that raising income tax rates will likely actually reduce federal revenues." Actually, the historical data doesn't show that. Experts said the economic theory Pence is drawing from doesn't apply in the current situation, and an increase in tax rates would not cause tax revenues to decline. So we rate his statement False. "

On one side, we have David Stockman, the budget director for President Ronald Reagan. On the other, it's Rep. Mike Pence, the conservative Indiana Republican and potential presidential candidate. The venue: This Week with Christiane Amanpour. The topic: What's worse, raising taxes or letting the deficit run wild?

Stockman said the deficit could ruin the country and savaged the Republican Party's refusal to consider tax increases. "Both parties, unfortunately, became free lunch parties, the Republicans cutting taxes every time they had a chance, never doing anything about spending, and the Democrats digging in to defend everything that was there," Stockman said. "As a result, we now have this massive deficit. ... This will not end well. It's going to end in a disaster."

Pence agreed that Republicans had wrongly allowed spending to increase during the George W. Bush administration but said that Republicans were now more committed to reducing government.

"We think we ought to go back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, and freeze there," Pence said. "There's been an 84 percent increase in domestic spending since this administration took office. We've got to roll back there. That will save $100 billion in the first year. How about a net hiring freeze on Capitol Hill? ... For Americans under the age of 40, we've got to put everything on the table in the area of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. We have got to reform these entitlement programs. They are threatening the fiscal vitality of future generations of Americans."

Not good enough, said Stockman: "Social Security needs to be means-tested right now, not for benefits in 2030, right now, for the top one-third of beneficiaries who have private income that they've earned over their lifetime. We need to drastically scale back Medicare. And the Republicans expanded it. And I appreciate what Mike is saying, but there's no track record of a willingness to take on the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies, the scooter chair manufacturers, who are everywhere. (And) we need to take on defense ... We can't be the policemen of the world anymore because we can't afford it. We're going to have to cut defense drastically. And that isn't just fraud, waste and abuse. It's force structure, fewer divisions, fewer aircraft carriers. And even if we do all that, we still have to raise revenue."

Raising revenue means a tax increase, which Pence said was a bad idea. And Pence further argued that a tax increase wouldn't help anyway: "David believes that every tax increase equals a revenue increase, but that's not true. Anybody who is familiar with the historical data from the IRS knows that raising income tax rates will likely actually reduce federal revenues."

That's what caught our attention as fact-checkers. How can raising taxes not raise money? And does the historical data really show that?

First, we should note that if you take Pence's statement at its most literal, it's not correct. The Internal Revenue Service has published detailed tables of tax collections, and they go up almost every year. They went up after tax increases passed in 1990 and 1993, and, when taxes were cut in 2001, collections dropped. But it's a bit more complicated than that.

If you're not an economist, it sounds counterintuitive to claim that raising taxes gets you less money, but there is some logic behind the theory. You have to start with the idea that government can tax people so much that it creates a disincentive to work. Let's start with an extreme: If you tax people at 100 percent -- which means you'd take all of their income -- people quit their jobs, and you'd get zero dollars in taxes. And rates that are close to 100 percent create similar disincentives. Back in 1980, for example, tax rates were much higher than they are now, with marginal tax rates on the highest incomes at 70 percent. Today, the top rate is half that -- 35 percent.

During the Reagan years, economists postulated that you could cut that top rate, which would stoke economic activity and produce more tax revenues. (You might remember terms such as supply-side economics or the Laffer curve that offer explanations for the theory.)  And this seems to be where Pence is coming from. During the 1980s, Reagan cut taxes, and tax revenues did go up almost every year.

But we consulted the tax experts, who told us you can't just look at the raw numbers, for several reasons. First, you should expect tax revenues to go up each year due to economic growth and inflation, even if tax rates stayed the same. Second, there's not a straight line between tax rates and tax revenues. You can raise taxes the same year the economy tanks and get less revenue, or you can cut taxes during a time of economic growth and get more revenue. And those changes in the economy aren't necessarily caused by what the government is doing with tax rates -- the upturns could be due to new inventions and innovations, and the downturns could result from financial panics and real estate bubbles that have little to do with tax rates. And economists have to go to quite a bit of trouble to separate out the effects of tax policy from other things happening in the world.

We also consulted a 2006 Treasury Department report that examined the revenue effects of major tax law changes since World War II. The report examined tax revenues generated by various tax law changes as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, a measurement that accounts for economic growth and inflation. The laws that reduced tax rates produced declines in revenues, and the laws that increased tax rates produced increases in tax revenues. So this too contradicts Pence's claim.

Interestingly, Stockman agreed with a little bit of Pence's underlying assumption that increases in taxes can inhibit economic growth. But he disagreed that tax revenues would decrease if the government raised taxes. "I just have to respectfully disagree," Stockman said. "You will have some loss of revenue because some activity or transactions won't happen, but if you raise taxes on paper by $100 billion, maybe you'll get $90 billion or $85 billion. But it's just common-sense fact that, when you raise the rates, you get more revenue. Normally, it's a bad thing to do. But we are in such dire shape that we have no choice but to accept the negative trade-off of some harm to the economy to start paying our bills."

The tax experts we spoke with agreed with Stockman. In this climate, raising the top tax rates from 35 to 39.6 percent would increase revenues. The effect Pence is talking about would not happen at this level of taxation, they said.

"There is some rate at which it would be true," said Roberton Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "But I don't think there are any established economists who would argue that we're near that."

"At current tax rates, most tax increases will increase revenues, at least in the short and medium run," said Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The caveat is that in a fragile economy, it can be unpredictable."

"There is no real dispute among economists that broad-based federal income tax cuts reduce revenue (except when tax rates are much higher than they are now)," said Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts -- liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question."

To recap, Pence said that, "Anybody who is familiar with the historical data from the IRS knows that raising income tax rates will likely actually reduce federal revenues." Actually, the historical data doesn't show that. Experts said the economic theory Pence is drawing from doesn't apply in the current situation, and an increase in tax rates would not cause tax revenues to decline. So we rate his statement False.
About this statement:
Published: Tuesday, November 9th, 2010 at 4:30 p.m.
Subjects: ABC News 'This Week', Taxes
Sources:
ABC News, "This Week with Christiane Amanpour," Nov. 7, 2010
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury Department Gross Tax Collections: Amount Collected by Quarter and Fiscal Year, 1987 - 2007
The White House Office of Budget and Management, Historical Tables
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Revenue effects of major tax bills, September 2006
The Tax Policy Center, Tax Facts: Historical Amount of Revenue by Source, May 3, 2010
Interview with Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center
Interview with Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation
E-mail interview with Alan D. Viard of the American Enterprise Institute
The Washington Post, Lower Deficit Sparks Debate Over Tax Cuts' Role, Oct. 17, 2006
The Washington Post, Where does the Laffer curve bend?, Aug. 9, 2010
Tax Policy Lessons of the 2000s, edited by Alan D. Viard
Factcheck.org, "Supply-side Spin", July 11, 2007
The Christian Science Monitor, When taxes rise next year, will the rich avoid them?, June 10, 2010