Why the Religious Left is Oxymoronic

Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of his possessions were his own, but instead they held everything in common. – Acts 4:32

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. – Proverbs 14:12

I have heard it argued that the basic tenet of Communism – “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – is derived from the Early Church as described in the Book of Acts. In a sense that is true, but the idea in this case, as in many others, has been twisted by man to suit his own ends.

Christianity is a revelation of the Divine Life available to man through Christ. The foundation of the Church is love – expressed by the New Testament’s commandeering of agape to describe the indescribable self-sacrificing love of God for man, and of the redeemed for one another. To understand this intellectually is one thing, these folks in the First Century Church knew this love by the Spirit, as it was shed abroad in their hearts. Yet, even this close to the origin of Christianity, there were those who missed the point. Ananias and Sapphira failed and died, not because they did not fully share their goods but because they were deceitful, seeking to gain advantage, regarding their gift as an investment with a return. Later, Paul warned the Thessalonians against those who refused to work and wanted to live on the labor of others.

There are two ways for holding “everything in common” to work. The first is by love; the second is by compulsion. While it may seem that forcing others to “do right” is a good idea, the consequences of such a course are deadly and disastrous. In the last century, people died by the millions as a result of such policies. To the extent that socialism is embraced, at the very least, economic vitality is sapped and individual liberty is sacrificed. We have to work, no longer for ourselves, our families, our descendents, but the “greater good”. The incentive, especially for those who do not know God, is gone. Some Christians may continue to do their best, viewing their efforts as being unto the Lord, but others will quickly begin to game the system, or seek to gain control of it.

The difference between trying to force the individual to work for the benefit of another and the laws against crimes like theft, assault, extortion, or murder should be evident to all but the most obtuse. When a person commits a crime, they deny the wronged person a positive good or benefit. If I break someone’s arm or steal their television, I deprive them of something that is rightfully theirs. Socialism is crime in reverse. The government deprives me of what is rightfully mine in order to give it to someone who has not earned it. Thus socialism reduces crime by eliminating the need for someone to steal in order to acquire the benefits of someone else’s hard work.

In the long run, whether you call it socialism, liberalism, progressivism, populism, or “compassionate conservatism”, the idea of government benevolence is nonsense and detrimental to the spirit. To foster dependence on an entity such as the federal government or upon men in positions of power is to deny the sovereignty and even the reality of God.

As those who know God, we are moved by the Spirit to be fearless in our generosity and our willingness to share with our brothers and sisters, and we are eager to provide even for those outside the faith. No legislation, doctrine, or human authority can compel this love within us. We are to give as we “purpose in our hearts”. Working and investing in a free market, capitalist economy is the best means of acquiring additional money that we can share with others. In such an environment, aside from the rare pathological miser, even those who simply accumulate and invest wealth benefit the poor by making more capital available for borrowing. Supply and demand, if allowed to operate in a free flux, will keep interest rates within a mutually beneficial range the vast majority of the time.

Christians are free to be as personally “socialist” as they choose and can afford to be. But there is no such thing as Christian Socialism at the government level. A “Christian Socialist” is a Collectivist using Christianity as camouflage to make compulsory generosity appear more palatable. I suppose they say ‘God bless you’ after sticking a gun in your face and forcing you to hand over your property.

We can follow Christ and do His will under any circumstances, any form of government, or any restrictions. We have our preferences. We will strive for the best.

In God, whose word I praise, in God I trust; I will not fear. What can man to do me? (Psalm 56:4)

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. (James Madison – unsourced, via Wikiquote)

Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, Tastes Great ...

Congratulations to Mr. Obama on his inauguration as the 44th President of the United States.

The general feeling seems to be that America is in crisis, and we need solutions. We need to be willing to try things and be patient with less than perfect attempts. We need to be willing to give Obama and his team a chance.

Really? You mean the economic crisis, brought on in large part because of the leftists’ insistence that we make loans to people who can’t afford them, is such an overwhelming threat to our way of life that we should support our government’s efforts even if we disagree with the policies?

Where I'm from we have a technical term for that: bullshit.

Think of me as Code Red.

Don’t question my patriotism.

And remember that protest is, after all, the highest form of patriotism.

I was against the bailout of Wall Street and the automakers because I am a free market capitalist. It doesn’t matter if it is under a Republican administration with a Democrat-controlled Congress or under a Democrat administration. Government intervention in the private sector is bad for everyone. Make-work projects prolong and deepen recessions. We don’t have to go back to 1936 and the WPA. Jimmy Carter tried things like CETA and PSE back in the late ‘70’s. Those were disastrous wastes of tax dollars.

Expect Chicago street crews to expand, such that, instead of five guys – ethnically and gender diverse, of course – leaning on shovels watching one guy work, there will be eight guys leaning on shovels watching one work.

I do not want to live in a European-style social democracy, and I will do whatever tiny thing I can to prevent America going further down that road. America has already embraced too much socialism; government meddling is the primary problem we have now with healthcare and the financial sector. Our income tax system punishes achievement, our courts allow people to play lawsuit lottery, and we allow people on the government dole to vote. To the extent that Obama and his leftist, collectivist buddies want to push America on down the road to socialism, I am not “on board” with them, and I sincerely hope their efforts are monumental and catastrophic failures.

The majority of Democrats, in the face of a vicious common enemy – radical Islam, thought nothing of attempting to thwart the military, destroy morale, and play politics with the blood of American servicemen. They were more concerned about destroying George Bush and regaining political power than defeating a threat to Western Civilization. They succeeded. We can thank God that our military has succeeded as well, despite the increased cost in casualties resulting from an enemy emboldened by Democrat opposition.

In light of that, all efforts by the right to oppose Obama and his desire to destroy the Constitution and our economy are to be considered highly patriotic.

Thoughts About Bad Investments

We may start hearing more and more about AIG, the insurance giant that needs additional government money to keep it afloat. Michelle Malkin has a roll-back-the-bailout thread going today. Pay particular attention to her quote of a letter from SC governor Mark Sanford, who is evidently one of us.

The federal government is about to dump another $150 billion into AIG to try and save it. This isn’t rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic – this is handing out solid gold lifejackets. Think about it.

AIG has been a troubled company for years. Corruption and scandal do not appear to be strange to it. This is from the International Herald Tribune dated Jan 7, 2008:

The billionaire investor Warren Buffett has long been revered in the business world, but his importance at a trial involving the world's largest insurer is hotly contested.

The trial started Monday in federal court in Hartford for four former executives of the Berkshire Hathaway General Re unit and a former executive of American International Group who are charged with participating in a plan to manipulate AIG's financial statements.

Some of the executives say they believe Buffett was involved and supported the deal that led to the charges. Buffett leads Berkshire Hathaway, drawing at least 25,000 people to his annual shareholder meetings.

Buffett, a big Obama supporter oddly enough, is generally viewed positively. He is a favorite of Charlie Rose. He’s got the ‘I’m-from-Omaha’ thing going for him. He has made his money purely by investing. Berkshire Hathaway, like AIG and many other American corporations produce nothing directly. That doesn’t mean they are unproductive because they do provide capital and other services that allow production to take place. The trouble such companies usually get into involves manipulating their stock prices through accounting tricks. The article continued:

Buffett, who has not been charged with any wrongdoing, has said he was not briefed on how the transactions were to be structured or on any improper use or purpose of the transactions. His attorney, Ronald Olson, said in a recent statement that Buffett "denies that he passed judgment in any way" on the challenged deals.

At issue are two reinsurance transactions between AIG and General Re of Stamford. Reinsurance policies are backups purchased by insurance companies to completely or partly insure the risk they have assumed for their customers.

Prosecutors said the transactions were initiated by an AIG senior executive to quell criticism by analysts of a reduction in AIG's loss reserves in the third quarter of 2000. The indictment alleges that the aim was to make it appear as if AIG increased its loss reserves by about $500 million in 2000 and 2001, pacifying the analysts and investors and artificially lifting the company's stock price.

The former General Re executives charged include Ronald Ferguson, a former chief executive. Ferguson and the other defendants have pleaded not guilty.

The trial could shed light on what AIG's former chairman and chief executive, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, knew about the transactions. Allegations of accounting irregularities, including the General Re transactions, led to Greenberg's resignation in 2005.

This is not, unfortunately, at all uncommon. It very often works and stockholders make a lot of money. As an investor myself I have benefited from it, I’m sure. Accounting is not all that different than witchcraft, except accounting actually works. Both involve selling one’s soul to the devil.

Another problem I have with corporations is that CEO’s and directors are kind of like managers in baseball or head coaches in football. No matter how badly they screw up they can probably hang around and get picked up by some other team. A winning college coach may have a graduation rate of 0%, but if he has more wins than losses in his tally, he will keep moving ahead to bigger schools. Missouri didn’t have a problem with Quinn Snyder’s recruiting tactics or his players’ behavior until they missed the NCAA tournament. The same is true in corporations. A CEO is only frowned upon if he doesn’t make money for the stockholders. He will only be hauled into court when the stock prices fall and the investors lose money.

Even then, they sometimes manage to hang around, as in the case of the aforementioned Hank Greenberg.

Back in April of 2005, CNN Money reported that Greenberg had given his wife a gift of AIG shares then valued at $41 million three days before he “retired” because of accounting irregularities. Those irregularities between the Berkshire Hathaway reinsurance unit and AIG falsely inflated AIG’s loss reserves and boosted the stock price.


Let’s move up to October 1, 2008 where we find directorship.com reporting that Greenberg is seeking to buy some of AIG’s assets.

Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, former CEO and AIG critic, has asked the company’s CEO for the opportunity to bid on any assets the insurer plans to sell, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Greenberg made the request to Edward Libby, who took over AIG two weeks ago when the government agreed to let AIG borrow up to $85 billion in order to help it avoid a possibly bankruptcy filing. As a result, the United States government will control 80 percent of the company.

In his letter, dated September 29, Greenberg wrote, “now understand that the company has begun to liquidate itself by selling assets in privately negotiated transactions without transparency and without providing the opportunity for the participation of alternative purchasers."

Greenberg added that he wanted to formally request to have the opportunity to submit an offer on any assets that the company intends to sell. Greenberg left AIG amid an accounting scandal in 2005 and is currently fighting civil charges related to his time at AIG.

A spokesperson for AIG said that the company is open to all reasonable expression of interest in the assets AIG plans to sell, according to WSJ.

I have no idea from the story what "assets" Greenberg would be buying. My guess is that it would be one or more specific insurance portfolios. I would assume that Greenberg has some kind of company set up to service these portfolios. Since he was an insider, he is likely cherry-picking in order to leave AIG and, thus, the government -- ultimately the taxpayers -- with the weaker assets.

By the way, if you go follow the directorship.com link, you will see an ad for a “Boardroom and Economic Forum” featuring Michael Oxley and Barney Frank. It’s the “annual global gathering of leading board directors and corporate governance influentials”. I’m sure Congressman Frank will reassure the corporations that he will help them out, just like he has AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, et al.

Corporations and the federal government have far too much of an incestuous relationship as it is. Does it seem ironic to you that the FTC spends months if not years debating something like the merger of XM and Sirius, but it isn’t even in the loop when Uncle Sam, Inc. starts buying up banking and insurance stock to become the major investor in these companies? If the feds “take over” GM, who is going to be responsible for oversight? Is the buyer going to drive products and services, or will we get what our new Congressional Overlords think best for us to have? Uncle Sam Motors does not have to turn a profit, please the customer, or please its "investors". If it gets in trouble producing crappy vehicles, it just prints more money.

The bailout is a bad idea and getting worse everyday. I would rather have a severe recession than the lifetime of government control that currently threatens us.

Maybe it's time we got rid of the Separation of Church and State and went with Separation of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.

Completely Unrelated Healthcare Rant

I was visiting a family member in a long-term care facility. Another family member and a couple of friends stopped by about the time some of the staff came in to do some cleanup, so all four visitors ended up in the hall. Since illness was the reason for our being there together at that time, it’s not surprising that the topic of healthcare came up.

One of the friends is a lady three or four years older than I am (I was a year ahead of Moses in school). She comes from a family of life-long Democrats. They are old school rather than leftists, so I found it a little strange that she started in with the socialized medicine talking points. “We’re the only country in the world that doesn’t have healthcare,” she said. Then she went on to tell about a friend of hers from Canada (let me guess – Toronto) who loved the system in the Great White North.

Don’t get me wrong. Canada’s a great country, especially the West. Those folks can come and join us and we’ll give Los Angeles and San Francisco to the Canadians – along with Maine, Minneapolis or Madison -- a couple of leftist strongholds to go with Toronto and Quebec. Still, the truth is that Canada’s entire GDP is about equivalent to that of Texas . I’m not up on my Canadian demographics so I don’t know how age distributions and racial components might impact our neighbor’s healthcare costs. My point is that even if someone proved to me that socialized medicine worked in Canada, I would not necessarily take that as being applicable to the U.S.A. Beyond that, many claim that it does not work as well as our system does.

Here’s an experiment for you. Go down to the emergency room of your local hospital and start looking for signs on the wall. There’s close to a 100% chance you will see a notice in both English and Spanish stating that no one in need of emergency or acute treatment will be turned away, even if they are unable to pay.

So, in this great country, who is denied healthcare? No one. Can’t happen.

People imply that it happens by saying, as my friend did, that there are 100 million people without health insurance. I think her number was off. The highest I heard is around 40 or 45 million. My guess is that if that is true it’s a rolling number. There aren’t 40 million people chronically uninsured, but that it averages around that. But even so, if you are sick, you can get treatment, as I pointed out above. If you are a little more responsible, you can pay out of pocket at those little urgent care clinics. I think those are great.

What I wanted to tell her was that there are people in this country sitting on their fat behinds, watching Oprah on their big screen TV while eating Krispy Kremes and drinking Starbucks with their iPods in their pockets on their damn cell phones complaining to their drug dealers that they can’t afford health insurance.

I know a little about government and healthcare. One of my less glamorous jobs was compiling hospital survey information for a state agency and providing data to what was called the State Health Planning and Development Agency. I would guess that most states have something similar. You see, that’s the problem with the healthcare system. The government is already involved and has been in a big way since the 1960’s and the advent of Medicare. Healthcare is not a free market system but a partially planned economy. The answer to rising healthcare costs and insurance premiums is not a socialized, single-payer system but capitalism.

Like big private insurers, Medicare and Medicaid have negotiated payment schedules. Providers that jump through the governments hoops – adding to their costs – get the government’s rate for procedures. There is no benefit to cost control since rates are usually based on costs. The government tries to control it by regulating providers – especially hospitals -- with regard to expansions of their facilities. The more government gets involved, the worse the system gets. At this point it’s locked in an upward price spiral that is hampering the economy in general as employers are dumping millions into the rat-hole of employee health insurance that could go for expansion and more productive investment. This is one reason why we now consider full employment a couple of points lower than we did back in the ‘70’s. Too much money is being drained off by healthcare.

Employers, and government in some cases, are trying to remedy this by attacking from the demand side. The positive part of this approach includes wellness programs. The negative part is an increased encroachment on personal freedom by anti-smoking, anti-fat nazis in both the public and private sectors.

A better approach is to divorce healthcare from both the government and private employers. My employer has never offered to pay any part of my auto or homeowners insurance premiums. Why should health insurance be different? Because of a historical fluke with wage-and-price controls after WWII, we have gotten locked into a mindset of health insurance being part of a job’s benefits package.

I’m not sure we can do away with Medicaid or Medicare in the short-term. The way to start revitalizing healthcare is to start in the private sector. Do away with group plans. Let everyone purchase their health insurance individually. I can hear the screams now. What about people with pre-existing conditions? Won’t insurance companies reject them? Some will, no doubt. In a free market, however, somebody will try to tap into that money pool. Bad drivers still get liability insurance and bad credit risks still get loans. It will come at a higher premium but there is a way to mitigate that as well by offering policies that cover catastrophic costs with high deductibles.

Personally, with no health problems at all (if you don’t count bifocals, creaky joints, and hearing damaged by derringers and dirt bikes), I would jump at a low-cost insurance policy with a $5000 or even $10,000 deductible, something that would protect my assets if I got hit by a truck and couldn’t tell them not to take me to the hospital.

Paying out of pocket to cover high deductibles will result in market forces that counter ever-increasing charges for procedures. The consumer of healthcare will become price-sensitive and lower cost providers will spring up to offer alternatives.

Will you get equality of care? No. The guy working behind the counter at the convenience store will not get the same healthcare as Ted Kennedy or Warren Buffet. We don’t expect working class folks to drive the same cars or live in the same houses as those with higher incomes, why do we expect them to have the same healthcare?

I know: blasphemy. Still, no-frills healthcare doesn’t mean bad healthcare any more than driving a Corolla mean you have a bad car. The answer is not to make healthcare an arm of the government but to give individuals more freedom and increased responsibility for their own health. If you make bad decisions with your health it should have consequences, just like making bad decisions with your money, your family, or any other aspect of life. Your fellow citizens should not be forced at gunpoint to hand over their earnings to pay for your care.

I’d better quite for now before I get myself in trouble.