Light-work

Babylon's World of Extremes

JD asks a great question from the sermon series on Revelation: In the last couple weeks we have touched on Babylon and the type of city it will be; my questions are: Is Babylon spared or sheltered in some way from the devastation of the judgments poured out? If not, how is such wealth and opulence available and usable so soon after the global devastation of the judgments? We spent a number of weeks going thru the tough times ahead spiritually and how it will become economically oppressive and devastating worldwide and exponentially so for believers - how does what we are now hearing about Babylon and it's wealth and comfort correlate with what we have previously gone through? World wide famine, economic collapse, enormous loss of human life, natural disasters on a scale unseen previously - and then a city where pleasure rules and stuff is God- where does it all come from in the wake of such devastation and catastrophic losses?

Essentially, she is asking how a city experiencing plenty can exist in a world of devastating want. First, let me affirm what she is saying about the hard times ahead. The second vision in the book of Revelation (Chapters 4-16) outlines an event sequence that consists of three series of seven. Think of them as a line of 21 dominoes representing global natural disasters and political shifts. With the fall of domino seven and domino fourteen, the dominoes that follow take it up a notch from the previous group of seven. JD is exactly right that these will be the worst of times for those who dwell on the earth.

So, how can it be the best of times for Babylon? We are provided with a hint in Rev. 6:6: And I heard something like a voice in the center of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not damage the oil and the wine” (Rev. 6:6). This verse is connected to the third domino. It describes runaway inflation. A denarius (see above for a sample coined in 2nd C. BC) in John's day represented about 3 grams of silver and was the equivalent of a laborer's daily wage. It would buy about 10 quarts of wheat. So John is describing an economic climate in which the value of money has been reduced by a power of 10. Stated in another way, the cost of basic commodities has increased by a factor of 10. No matter how you slice it, this is a description of not much bread for your dough.

But then there is the last phrase, "do not damage the oil and the wine." This suggests a glaring disparity. Those dwelling in the land of subsistence will be in a world of hurt. But those sitting in the lap of luxury will be unfazed - the economic crisis associated with the 3rd domino will not inhibit those who are enjoying the good life. Babylon is not named here but could easily be such a place of living the good life unhindered.

Certainly by the time we conclude the last set of dominoes, whatever protections Babylon has erected will come to naught. But until then, Babylon will hold onto enough of her greatness and grandeur to effectively convince herself that she is beyond the reach of the misfortune that befalls the "little people." Such a grand delusion!

 

Introducing FlemCare

Countless noble evergreens have given their lives for the cause of health care - the various mega bills that have been littering congressional committee rooms are but the last vestiges of the pulp they sacrificially yielded to the cause. Would that a spirited lawyer would represent these silent giants of wood and dell in their struggles against the ravages of health care.

Alas, no champion has stepped forth: We must save them by throwing a wrench of simplicity into the gear-works of bureaucracy. After much deep thought (for about 5 minutes), I have come to my eureka moment. I hereby propose for your consideration "FlemCare: Health Insurance for Everyman." It doesn't require two reams of paper per copy; it operates on a very simple premise that can be captured in a single sentence - Allow every individual to enjoy the full benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having.

I will parse this principle, the FlemCare Prime Directive, momentarily. First note two operational requirements for FlemCare to work well. (1) "Group health insurance" premiums would be considered income and subject to income tax. (2) Individual health insurance premiums would be exempt from income tax (up to a certain amount). This would give everyone with income a "tax discount" for purchasing individual health insurance. By giving a tax advantage to individual health insurance plans, FlemCare creates an environment conducive to individual choice, where every individual gets Goldilocks insurance - "just right!"

Okay, let's break down the core principle: Allow every individual to enjoy all the benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having. Note first the phrase "reckons worth having." It represents that an individual makes some quantifiable determination of the value of a health-care package. He attaches a number to it, a price he is willing to pay for what he receives. A package is "reckoned worth having" when a man buys it. "To allow every individual to enjoy the full benefits" means to give him free and unhindered access to the services for which he has paid. If a man purchases a "$100 discount on every prescription," he has a contractual right to receive that benefit.

Remove restrictions limiting the number of insurance companies that can compete in any given state. Remove requirements about the types of coverage that have to be included in their products. Allow insurance companies to sell insurance as car companies sell cars. Allow them to develop SUV's, sedans, pickups and sports cars. Allow them to create "options" that can be added to a plan based upon the customer's needs. Allow insurance companies to price plans according to a risk assessment for each individual. If they want to offer a non-smoker a cheaper policy, let them. (As is currently the case with life insurance.) Allow companies to market packages they believe will sell and allow buyers to purchase plans they want.

Under FlemCare, everyone goes out and buys the insurance plan he considers to be a bargain and suited to his needs. As a bonus, he gets a tax break on premiums. This feature of FlemCare accomplishes something important. It requires the government to support health care by a "loss of tax revenue," NOT through an increase in revenue.

So here's what everyone does under FlemCare: Individuals purchase what they want and enjoy a tax break for doing so. Insurance companies compete for the business of individuals by providing superior products at competitive prices. The government requires that insurance providers market their products using some sort of straight-forward and standardized "benefit and cost summary," kind of like a new car sticker or the "Good Faith Estimate" you received when you applied for a home mortgage. The judicial system would make sure that individuals receive the benefits they have purchased and that companies compete fairly. The government would also operate the "FlemCare Reallocation Plan" and "FlemCare Grace" described below.

Under FlemCare, you do not have to be a US citizen to participate. Individuals are free to purchase coverage and companies are free to sell coverage to all US citizens and residents. This solves the "illegal aliens" problem. If they want to buy insurance and get a tax break, let them.

What about those who have a pre-existing condition or some other situation that makes them "uninsurable?" An enterprising insurance provider might establish themselves in this niche market by providing a product line suited to the needs of their customers and priced at a level appropriate to the risk. But, to be sure, there will be some who cannot afford the high rates their risk category would call for. What should be done?

Those who cannot afford or elect not to purchase health care would fall under the FlemCare Reallocation Plan. Here's how it works: Whenever someone without health care receives uncovered care, their medical providers should be paid by drawing from the recipient's government entitlements like welfare, unemployment, and social security. For example, Joe is 59, has no insurance and incurs a bill for $10,000 at the local hospital. The government would pay his bill but recover the expense by delaying his social security eligibility date for about one year. It would be as if Joe got an advance from social security to pay his hospital bill.

Granted, an uninsured cancer patient could easily incur costs that bar him from drawing social security until he is 92. But that was his choice when he elected not to buy insurance. The marvelous advantage of this plan is that it results in a "zero net cost" because money for health costs is offset by corresponding reductions in other government entitlements.

What makes FlemCare so different from all the current proposals is its rigid insistence that individuals receive the benefits and consequences of their choices. This is clearly a biblical notion: "For each one will bear his own load" (Gal 6:5). "Health-care" which insists that everyman has a right to something he has not earned moves all men toward indolence. Not very healthy!

There is one more aspect to FlemCare, "FlemCare Grace." For those who are facing a medical crisis without insurance, the government could maintain a website discretely summarizing their situations. Here is where grace would find a place in FlemCare. Individuals would be encouraged to make donations to these needs. Because of its commitment to "improved health care," the government would treat the donor's gift as tax deductible and the income to the recipient as tax exempt. The lost revenue would be the government's way of saying, "We want to match someone's gift with a nice little bonus. We want you to be taken care of enough to ask for less from you."

Our Senators and Representatives have championed the cause of the uninsured. "FlemCare Grace" would give them (and all who have a heart of genuine compassion) a very direct way to address the need. I would be delighted for our congressmen to lead the way by giving extravagantly toward the grace plan from their own pockets. Now that would be leadership!

Tell your friends and neighbors about Flemcare where every individual enjoys the full benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having! Tell your congressman about FlemCare! Tell me what you think?

Eighty Acres of Cash

(The photo above shows the 11 acre plot on which Collierville Bible Church was built - hold that thought!)

Fox News ran a story today, although the issue hasn't gotten much of a media spotlight. It should! The Congressional Budget Office report on fiscal 2009 shows some serious deficit spending went down. When you compare how much Uncle Sam spent in the last 12 months with how much revenue he received, there is a $1.4 trillion shortfall. We have all gotten used to saying "trillion," perhaps we need a refresher on what this represents.

Let's make a stack of one dollar bills. To give our stack some stability, we will lay 4 bills end to end. We will add 5 more similar rows adjacent to our first row. So now we have completed our first layer that is 4 by 6 bills in size, roughly 2' by 15". Next we will add 41,667 more such layers (and subtract 8 bills from the last layer) to make it an even $1,000,000. This stack will be a few inches shy of 14 feet tall. (A dollar bill is 0.010922 cm thick.) Okay, that's our first stack.

Now let's repeat the same process and create an additional one million four hundred thousand more "one million dollar stacks." If we butt each new stack up against the previous one in a long line, we would create a side of 1,183 stacks. We would then form a second side of 1,183 stacks perpendicular to the first. Now we just fill in the interior defined by our two adjacent sides with 1,397,124 more "one million dollar stacks," and, voila, we have a handy (maybe not so handy) visual representation of what $1.4 trillion dollars looks like.

Our resultant rectangular solid will be 2,366 feet long (almost one half mile), almost 1,479 feet wide (a little over one quarter mile), and slightly under fourteen feet tall. This is the equivalent of an 80 acre parcel of land covered to a depth of fourteen feet with tightly stacked dollar bills. That is over seven parcels just like the one pictured above, cleared of all trees and stacked tightly to a depth of 14 feet with dollar bills.  80 acres of cash with 41,667 layers of dollars bills covering the entirety represents how much more the government spent in the last year than it received in revenue. How encouraging!

Crockettcare vs. Obamacare, Part 2 of 2

Who ya' gonna call when you need health care relief FAST. Yea, that's the "King of the Wild Frontier" on the left and he has a totally different take on how to tackle the problem. If you have got the context from the previous post, then read on for the rest of the story. (Note: This is longer than my usual post, but you'll be glad to have read it.) The "narrator" continues:

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and – "

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied:

"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"Yes."

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

He came upon the stand and said:

"Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, Sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Crockettcare vs. Obamacare, Part 1 of 2

There are times, rare mind you, when a forwarded email from well-meaning friends is a sockdolager ("something outstanding or exceptional, a decisive answer"). But I received one a few weeks ago. It was an excerpt from The Life of Colonel David Crockett written by Edward S. Ellis and published in 1884. The excerpt consisted of the majority of chapter XIII, titled, "A Sensible and Timely View of a Certain Constitutional Question." I was taken aback by the relevance of this chapter to our current debate over health care, so much so that I questioned its genuineness. Surely something so pointed and clear to a current issue could not have been written 125 years ago!

So I sought a copy of the book to satisfy myself that I wasn't being scammed by another internet masquerade. In 2004, University Press of the Pacific in Honolulu issued a reprint of the original which I was able to procure from those amazing book purveyors at Amazon. Sure enough, chapter XIII lines up with the email version.

There is no record of the "Not Yours to Give" speech delivered by Crockett: Neither the Register of Speeches nor the Congressional Globe have transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. However, Crockett's vote and personal actions in reference to a similar bill (in April, 1828) are consistent with the position espoused in this speech. The author, Edward Ellis, introduces this chapter as the recollections of an unnamed "narrator" whose business affairs brought him to Washington. The narrator recounts his observations of Crockett on the House floor and a personal exchange a few days later. Here is part one of this account.

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

A Better Brand of Stimulus

In the previous post, I observed that government prefers the word "stimulus" as a euphemism for "control." It sounds great when the politician declares, "We are stimulating the economy back to robust health." It's far less inspiring when someone admits, "I promise to return a fraction of the money I will be taking from you for the rest of your life IF you trash your perfectly serviceable car that is paid for and instead make several years of payments on the kind of vehicle I think you SHOULD be driving." Yep, that last sentence doesn't sound quite as positive as the first one.

The way "stimulus" is being bandied about today, it can give the concept a bad name. It deserves better! The Bible has good things to say about it. In Hebrews, we are instructed, "And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near" (Heb. 10:24-25). When believers get together, they ought to bring out the best in one another. Encouragement is a primary means by which to do so, and it is all the more needed with each passing day. According to these verses, a desire for healthy stimulus asks, "What can I say to a brother or sister that will put fuel in their tank to love God and others?"

Encouragement is the currency that funds the brand of stimulus God endorses! He uses it Himself! According to Romans 15:5, God is "the God who gives encouragement." The Apostle Paul teaches that any "stimulus" which is coercion in disguise is decidedly out of step with God's preferred method of doing business: "Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).

Men rely on force to get others to do what they deem best. God uses grace. His loving-kindness gives a man every reason to do the right thing while respecting his ability to make his own choice. I like God's way way better.

What Stimulus Stimulates

"Stimulus" can take many forms. Las Vegas is the consummate student of the subject and has applied its knowledge to great effect. Every year, millions are stimulated to excitedly empty their wallets and purses to benefit "the house." In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA's snazzy new logo above), the US Government has attempted to use its own special blend of stimulus to address the economic crisis.

Congress brewed up a mighty big batch of the stuff, $787 billion's worth! But it's for a noble cause, as the "full title" makes very clear: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Obviously, this is a very noble cause, indeed! The specific provisions of the bill have been much debated. So I thought it might be helpful, instead, to deconstruct the concept of "stimulus." Let's ask the simple question, "What is it about this bill that renders it into 'stimulus?'"

A good place to begin is in the retelling of a common story used to illustrate the "two sides" of stimulus. Once upon a time, a vandal named Rufio threw a brick through a shop-keeper's storefront window. Geppetto came outside to examine the damage where he was met by some of his fellow townsfolk. Wanting to help Geppetto "look on the bright side," they encouraged him in the knowledge that this unfortunate event would have positive consequences. They first observed how the town glazier would have the benefit of gainful employment. He, in turn, would be able to use what he earned replacing Geppetto's window to pay for food for his family. This act would put money in the pocket of the grocer who would spend it for clothing, thereby aiding the local tailor. As their creativity waxed on, the original scofflaw seemed the perfect hero of economic recovery.

But, there is another side to what happened. Rufio's actions stole a choice from Geppetto. Before his window was broken, the money that it would cost to replace the glass was his to use as he chose. He could have saved it, if he wanted, or spent it for whatever purpose he deemed most desirable. But when Rufio did his work of "stimulating" the local economy, he imposed upon the shop-keeper's liberty. He compelled Geppetto to use his own money to pay for something that Rufio determined should be purchased.

Without Rufio's vandalism, Geppetto's decisions about how to spend his money would have had no less stimulatory effect on the local economy. The same domino effect would have occurred, albeit without its necessary starting point at the glazier's shop. Rufio stole from Geppetto the right to choose how he would use his own money. Rufio's brick was simply about control.

Is this not the heart of what is euphemistically being called "economic stimulus?" Our government (the Rufio counterpart) is collecting money from us, the Gepettos of America, and thereby curtailing our liberty. Instead of allowing us the freedom to decide for ourselves how best to use our money, Rufio / Uncle Sam is compelling it to be spent as he sees fit. Some might object, "Isn't this what government does, take our money to buy what it decides to?" Precisely! This is just bloated government doing what bloated government does, but with a new label intended to dress up the whole business as something noble.

Alas, what Uncle Sam is doing is actually even more egregious than Rufio. The ARRA bill spends almost a trillion dollars that the government does not have in its possession. So where does the money come from? Ultimately, from "future Geppetto." Uncle Sam takes out a loan to get his hands on the dollars to fund his bill. He is able to secure this loan from creditor nations on the promise to pay it back (with interest) from future tax revenue. Uncle Sam has limited the freedom of "future Geppetto" by saddling him with a debt obligation for the things that Uncle Sam has determined should be purchased right now.

The Cash for Clunkers program which "ran out of cash" yesterday (thankfully) took "stimulus" to new heights: It incentivized Geppetto to voluntarily smash his own window. He would be given a cash incentive to buy a new "energy efficient" window, which Uncle Sam would partially pay for by taking money from "future Geppetto."

So tell me, Geppetto, what does this "stimulus" stimulate in you?

Securing the Blessings of Liberty?

It is no secret that the United States is up to its eye-balls in debt. If you look at a "who's who" of buyers of treasuries, China and Japan are at the top of the list. Between the two of them, they are carrying nearly 1.5 trillion dollars of debt, almost half of the total of US Treasury Bills, T-Bonds, and Notes. Let me label the parties involved. China, the nation at the head of the list, is the top lender. The United States (that's us) is the borrower.

China has been sending boatloads of stuff to the US and, in turn, we have been sending boatloads of dollars to China. These dollars are "Federal Reserve Notes" which are IOU's from Uncle Sam. China has been using some of these IOU's to buy stuff, like gold (China's gold reserves have doubled in the last few years) and companies (resource companies that can fuel their expansion).

But even after buying lots of goodies with Sam's IOU's, China still has a pile of them. So they have asked themselves a perfectly reasonable question, "Why should we hold IOU's that don't pay any interest when we could put those IOU's to work?" So China has loaned over 800 billion dollars to the US by buying "Treasury Securities." Uncle Sam is happy to get his hands on more Federal Reserve Notes to use for "stimulating" the economy. China is happy to get some interest on these Notes, although they have expressed increasing concern over whether Uncle Sam will be able to pay back what he owes.

I tend to think China's fears have merit, although we ought not underestimate the power of Uncle Sam's printing press to create a loan repayment from thin air. This caveat notwithstanding, I am struck by a warning from the book of Proverbs: The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower becomes the lender’s slave (Prov. 22:7). China is the lender, the United States is the borrower. With each increase in the amount we owe China, we surrender more of our sovereignty.

Some might maintain that China is tied to the US and cannot scare away support for the dollar without hurting itself. But what will we do when the protection of our national interests conflicts with Chinese intentions? Will we oppose a lender who can easily say, "If you don't like what I'm doing, pay back what you owe!" Meeting that demand would require every single person in America to cough up over $2,500. Fat chance!

The Constitution of the United States was adopted for the purpose of securing the blessings of Liberty to the people of the United States. That end will not be realized as we deepen our national indebtedness and shamble toward servitude.

Less Me for More Sam

Here are some interesting stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since there is an ample supply of economic optimism out there, I thought I might suggest a little perspective. In the last year, private sector employment has gone down 5.9%. That represents a payroll reduction of 6.8 million people. In the same period, government employment has expanded by 5.8%, adding 1.3 million folks to the payroll.

When the current administration tells you they are saving jobs, this report backs them up. Over a million jobs have been created! There's just one teensy-weensy problem. Those 1.3 million jobs are tax-payer funded jobs. And the private labor pool that makes those government jobs possible is shrinking. A year ago there were 5.4 taxpayers for every government employee. Now 4.8 taxpayers have to do what 5.4 did in 2008. To pay the expanding pool of government workers, the shrinking pool of private sector workers will have to supply over 10% more in revenue. What a thrilling prospect!

This reminds me of the time when Pharaoh told Israel that their production quota's would remain the same even though their supply of straw would be eliminated. I feel their pain!

Who's Got Your Number?

Sometime in the future a very powerful smart idol will "encourage" allegiance to a charismatic world leader. Most folks will receive this encouragement as an offer that cannot be refused. A few will see past the hocus-pocus, declining to join the fan club despite the cost: These are the overcomers who are victorious over the beast (the antichrist) and his image - see previous post for more info.

But there is a third facet to their victory. In Revelation 15:2, we learn that they are also victorious over "the number of his name." Now how do you achieve victory over a number? To answer that question let's consider Revelation 13:16-18, which declares: And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six (Rev. 13:16-18).

Lots of energy has been consumed in attempting to make a positive ID on the number "666." It seems warranted because of the exhortation to "calculate" this number and the tantalizing prospect that someone who solves this high-stakes Sudoku puzzle "gets it," he understands. So there has been no small amount of speculation about what it represents. I won't go into all the proposals; they are myriad.

I am of the opinion (and it is just an opinion) that solving the 666 puzzle will be impossible until we pass a certain juncture in future events. Once we pass that juncture, anyone with a biblically informed understanding will "get it" quite easily. There is a biblical precedent for this idea. On the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus explained, “But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them” (John 16:4). Jesus predicted future events knowing full well that his disciples couldn't possibly anticipate how they would be fulfilled. However, He did not provide this information so that they could predict what would happen in the future but recognize what was happening for what it was once it had occurred. His prophecy was not about prediction but recognition!

I think that the "triple six" number system will be immediately recognized (by overcomers) for what it is when it actually appears. The saints will experience an "aha" moment when they are blinded by the obviousness of what they see. But, today, in the season when "666" is not manifest, every attempt to predict what to look for is a subjective stab in the dark.

What we can say right now and with certainty is this: The possession of this number is a requirement for market participation. The beast "provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name" (Rev. 13:17). Can you imagine having to survive in our modern world without buying and selling? I don't care how "off the grid" you live, buying and selling is still critical to your existence. Someday in the future, without a "beast mark" issued in the form of a name or number, you will be on your own.

So why would anyone refuse such a number. According to Revelation 14:9, receipt of a "beast mark" is a clear declaration of loyalty to this coming charismatic world leader and a declaration of opposition toward God: “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb” (Rev. 14:9-10). Anyone with the spiritual eyesight to see the issues clearly would realize that "taking a number" is a choice to keep the pantry stocked at the cost of incurring God's wrath! This is a no-brainer!

The "third victory" of the overcomer is a refusal to align himself with the antichrist even though it means his exclusion from the marketplace. When the time comes and when everyone around him thinks having a triple six makes perfect sense, he will KNOW this is a course defined by perfect stupidity. When told to "take a number," he will respond without hesitation, "Take a hike!"

This is SO Encouraging!

The Federal Reserve (sometimes called "the Fed") is the central banking system of the United States created in 1913. Despite its title, the Federal Reserve is not very federal. Twelve privately owned regional banks are the heart of this system. A link between these banks and the government is provided by a "Board of Governors." The seven members of this committee are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for staggered terms of fourteen years. Ben Bernanke is the most well-known member of the committee and is currently completing a four year term as its chairman.

The Board of Governors operates under the watchful eyes of its Inspector General. According to its website, "the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is also responsible for preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse at the Board, among other duties. The OIG achieves its legislative mandate through audits, evaluations, investigations, legislative reviews, and by keeping the Chairman of the Board and Congress fully informed."

So if you want to know what these private "Federal Reserve Banks" are doing, you would check in with the Board of Governors. And if you want to know if any monkey business is afoot among the Board of Governors, you would get a report from the Inspector General. So when you watch this video clip of recent testimony from the OIG, Ms. Elizabeth Coleman, I'm sure you will join me in breathing a sigh of relief and declaring, "This is SO encouraging!"

By the way, the cool cucumber asking the questions is Alan Grayson (D), representative from Florida's District 8. This testimony was given on May 12, 2009. 

An Apocalyptic "Smart Idol"

What would church be like if the morning message was delivered by the "Serminator?" Would it be an improvement to consult a cyborg "Bible answer man" who can instantly answer all of your questions? How will "technological progress" affect "the worship service of the future?"

We have smart bombs and smart home technology. Wait till you see the new "smart idol!" Some time in the foreseeable future, a religious leader called the "false prophet" will arise who assists a powerful governmental leader called "the antichrist" or "the beast." One of the great accomplishments of the false prophet will be creation of a "smart idol," an image of the beast that is capable of breathing and speaking. The achievement will be impressive enough to promote worship of the beast.

In a previous post, we noted that the inability of idols to speak diminishes their appeal. By solving this problem, the false prophet will take worship of the antichrist to a whole new level. Here's the Apostle John's warning about what to expect:

And he [the false prophet] deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast [the antichrist], telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him [the false prophet] to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed (Rev. 13:14-15).

This image appears to be a living thing, it speaks, and it kills. The Terminator series has already introduced us to the idea. The false prophet will take the idea and make it real in the world in which we now live. I do not know if this will be achieved through technology or something supernatural. But it will be utterly remarkable. Most men will be enthralled by the beast and captivated by his image. Those who see it for what it is, will discern a connection with the numbers 6-6-6, will be excluded from participation in the marketplace, and will be marked for extermination. The smart idol of the future will not be very tolerant. How politically incorrect!

Ferdinand de Lesseps and Infectious Optimism

Everything David McCullough has written is worth reading. One of my favorites is The Path Between the Seas, the fascinating account of the creation of the Panama Canal. His almost 700 page volume is divided into three "books," each devoted to a major phase of the project. The first book chronicles the failed attempt by the French to build the canal, a debacle spanning the years 1870 and 1894.

The dominant figure in book one is Ferdinand de Lesseps. Ferdinand was a diplomat and optimist who seemed the perfect man for the job. He had employed his formidable skills to great effect in the successful completion of the Suez Canal. The Panama Canal seemed the logical next step, albeit this challenge was of far greater scale.

I find this statement from Wikipedia ironic: "He attempted to repeat this success [Suez] with an effort to build a lock-less version of the Panama Canal during the 1880s, but the project was finally completed by the United States in 1914, once developments in medicine had been made which combatted the serious problems of malaria and yellow fever in the area." The statement makes it seem that the US merely picked up where Ferdinand left off, once somebody figured out how to fight malaria and yellow fever. Read the book to get it right - de Lesseps had moved some dirt, but his plan was flawed. The chief impediment to French success was de Lesseps own unassailable optimism. Although neither an engineer nor banker, Ferdinand was CONVINCED that only a sea level canal would do, even though his engineering staff knew this represented an impossible challenge.

Here is an extended quote from McCullough that captures the problem:

"The important point is that de Lesseps, once again, would get exactly what he wanted; he would follow his own lead and they would nod in agreement and go along with him as willingly as his stock-holders had, raising no serious objections about anything, which must be viewed as another testament to his powers of persuasion, rather than any lack of perception on their part. Unmistakably these were men of eminence and ability. ...Yet none was willing, or bold enough perhaps, to challenge de Lesseps' judgment or to take seriously the inevitable cost of a sea- level canal. Later it would be charged that de Lesseps never listened to his engineers. But in fact it was the other way around; it was they who were listening to him" (p. 137)

McCullough quotes the Illustrated London News which observed, "Perhaps no other man ever possessed to such a marvelous extent the power of communicating to other minds the faith and the fervor which animated his own" (p. 137). De Lesseps, in his own words, enjoyed "the privilege of being believed without having to prove what one affirms" (p. 239). McCullough notes, "His was the faith that the mountains could be moved by technology. He had the nonscientific, nontechnical man's faith that science and technology would 'find a way'" (p. 239).

What Ferdinand described as the investment opportunity of a lifetime was eventually demonstrated a fiasco. Those who believed this great optimist and invested in his project incurred staggering loses. They were taken in by a convincing communicator with a positive message and a unbridled confidence in what men can accomplish.

The incessant attempts to raise capital for a flawed project, the astounding amount of time, money, and manpower expended without return, the dogged enthusiasm for what bright minds can achieve, it all sounds eerily familiar to those dwelling in land of the bailout. When the dust settles on the current economic crisis, will we recognize the ghost of de Lesseps?

When men who knew better remained silent before unassailable optimism, when blind faith in the ability of man held sway, when men acted on the strength of another's belief despite their personal misgivings, disaster was waiting in the wings. Do not underestimate the power of men to be convinced of what defies their better judgment. Do not doubt the inevitability of disaster when they do.

Wow, Wampum, Win, or Whack?

Yesterday, a L-W regular spotted an intriguing connection: The Obama Administration's "help" for domestic automakers comes from the same mold as Nebuchadnezzar's image. King Neb was king of the ancient world's leading superpower in the sixth century BC. One night he saw a spectacular statue in his dreams. The four sections of the statue represented a succession of four kingdoms. Each was associated with a specific commodity, gold with Babylon, silver with Medo-Persia, bronze with Greece, and iron and clay with Rome.

In a sermon series on the book of Daniel a few years ago, I observed that these metallic associations well captured the leadership philosophy of each empire. Here's my summary from one of the sermon slides. Please note that I have used the tried and true preacher's tactic of beginning each point with the same letter - I'm sure you're impressed:

• Gold /Wow!  Using spectacle and “dazzle” to inspire people to follow
• Silver / Wampum!  Using money to purchase allegiance
• Bronze / Win!  Using superior strength to overcome opposition
• Iron / Whop!  Using terror / fear to crush men’s will to resist

So, which approach best summarizes the administration's plan to limit consumers to "responsible" automotive choices? For the auto manufacturer, the government is using wampum as leverage. Toward the consumer, the government is bent on winning. Consumers want one thing, the government wants another. By using its wampum-based influence over the manufacturers, the administration limits consumers to choices it deems "responsible." Whatever choice the consumer makes constitutes an administration victory. Won't this be fun!

Maybe Moses Could Assist Obama?

On Tuesday night I watched the President's Press Conference in its entirety. The Washington Post has a complete transcript available. In light of what we said previously, let's see if President Obama would have been helped had he included the Moses Initiative in his first 15 days.

Quote One: I'm as angry as anybody about those bonuses that went to some of the very same individuals who brought our financial system to its knees, partly because it's yet another symptom of the culture that led us to this point.

When payment of a "bonus" represents a contractual obligation between two parties, is such anger justified? Isn't that outrage  dangerously close to what Moses prohibited: “You shall not covet . . . anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17)?

President Obama explained how the expansion of government could create an agency like the FDIC for other companies. Quote Two: Well, keep in mind that it is precisely because of the lack of this authority that the AIG situation has gotten worse. Now, understand that AIG is not a bank. It's an insurance company. If it were a bank and it had effectively collapsed, then the FDIC could step in, as it does with a whole host of banks, as it did with IndyMac, and in a structured way renegotiate contracts, get rid of bad assets, strengthen capital requirements, resell it on the private marketplace. And the reason is, is because we have not obtained this authority.

President Obama is seeking this authority. The government would provide "insurance" for the AIGs of the world which would allow the government to "step in" (translation: "take over") companies in trouble. Does this sound like a form of stealing? The government will claim ownership of a company whenever that company is in a weakened condition. How is this not a violation of "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15)? Some might protest that I am over-reacting; the government would be providing insurance in return for the right to "step in." My response is simple: Would you buy an "insurance" policy for your home that allows the insurance company to take ownership of your home when you encounter a crisis?

Quote Three: What we have said is that, for embryos that are typically -- about to be discarded, for us to be able to use those in order to find cures for Parkinson's or for Alzheimer's or, you know, all sorts of other debilitating diseases, juvenile diabetes, that -- that it is the right thing to do.

Moses declares, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). He would tell us this is most definitely NOT the right thing to do. Wrapping embryonic stem cell research in the mantle of noble motives does not change the fact that the destruction of an embryo constitutes the murder of persons least capable of defending themselves. President Obama was criticized for deflecting the question of when life begins by declaring "that's above my pay grade." I think there is truth in his statement. God is the only one up to the job of defining right and wrong. I am grateful He has made his definition available to us. No one, including a President, does the right thing when he defies what God says is right.

Do We Really Want Another WPA?

According to the New York Times, President-elect Barack Obama is studying Franklin D. Rooseveldt. The incoming President wants to have a conversation with the American public, and thinks FDR is a pretty good role model of how to pull it off.

I wish Mr. Obama's FDR studies were limited to "how to be a better communicator" and didn't include emulating his method of getting American back to work. The largest new deal agency under FDR's administration was the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Alas, Rahm Emmanuel, the President-elect's chief of staff, hints that there may be a WPA in our future: "One course is do nothing and continue to shed millions of jobs and the other course is to begin to invest in creating 3.5 million jobs and American competitiveness. And to do it as quickly as possible.”

Is this a simple choice between "A" and "B?" Is "quickly" using tax dollars to pay wages for projects of questionable necessity the only alternative to "doing nothing?" There are more than two possibilities. The opposite of doing nothing is doing something. A certain something will either make things better or make things worse. So now we have three possibiities: Do nothing, do something that makes things better, and do something that makes things worse. According to a recent article from the Heritage Foundation, the "something" FDR did would fall in the latter category. Unemployment levels did not improve until the US became the producer of war materiel for her allies. Prior to WWII, FDR's WPA economic stimulus plan was a bust. Do we really want to head down this path?

The Preferred Way to Lose Stuff

Here's a recent snapshot from our ministry partners in central India. The people in this picture serve Jesus in a place where doing so can prove costly. But despite damage to property and time in jail, they are still smiling. Why? They understand the meaning of this passage: But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one (Heb. 10:32-34).

In the current economic crisis, lot's of folks have suffered losses, too. But they're not smiling. Why not? When your treasure is on earth, it's depressing when you take a big hit in the marketplace. But when your real treasure is safe and secure in heaven, and you're using all the disposable stuff here on earth for Jesus, then who cares when you lose some stuff! It's all going to burn up anyway! So here's a simple choice - EITHER accept the loss of earthly benefits for Jesus sake and you can keep smiling (because your real treasure is safe). OR, live for earthly treasure and fight depression when your portfolio takes a beating (because your hoard is vanishing). I join our Indian partners by choosing the former as my preferred method to lose stuff.

A Glimpse of the Forest and Lemming Dollars

Can't see the forest for the trees? The dramatic events in the current economic crisis have been blocking our view. But here are a few charts that take a long view and should help you get a sense of what the forest really looks like. These are very basic charts that give you forest view information. Take a look.

The first comes from James Turk, the founder of Gold-Money, in an article titled "Gold Climbs Eight Years in a Row." What it shows is that gold has posted double digit average annual gains against EVERY major currency over the last eight years. For example, if you took $100 dollars (USD) and bought some gold at the beginning of 2001 and then sold that gold for dollars at the end of 2008, you would receive $324 dollars for your original investment. In other currencies, the specific yield would vary. But regardless of the currency you used to make your original purchase, you would come out way ahead if you bought and held gold for the last eight years. The current crisis is starting to make people THINK about gold. For eight years already, it's been more than just a a good thought!

Here is a link to a series of charts prepared by Michael Maloney from GoldSilver.com. I consider his entire article required reading for any member of the Light-work fraternity of economic awareness. Let me show you just two of his charts to get your attention. (By the way, both of these charts are built on data from the Federal Reserve itself. )

The first one shows you the total amount of coins and paper dollars that have been created since 1919. I have noted in red and blue what ought to jump out at you: It has taken us 200 years to create the first 800 billion dollars - it has taken us only a few months to create the second! Have you noticed that the $100 bills the bank is giving out these days are all fresh and new? No surprise, according to the chart. There are tons of them looking for new homes. But you ain't seen nothin', yet. Take a look at a second chart presented by Mr. Maloney.

This one shows you how much of this money is circulating. If you want to seize some VERY SPECIAL INSIGHT, you need to compare this chart to the previous one. Ask yourself, "How much of the money that has been printed or coined (previous chart) is actually circulating (this chart)?" Notice the modest little up-tick at the very end that probably shows about a 50 billion dollar increase. That ain't peanuts, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the 7-800 billion dollar vertical line at the end of the previous chart. Conclusion? While the amount of money that has been created in the last few months is staggering, comparatively little of it has entered the marketplace, YET! When those dollars show up, there will be twice as many of them chasing the same amount of goods and services. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but it doesn't take that kind of insight to see what's coming. Those dollars will be like lemmings headed for the cliffs.

I am not giving out financial counsel, but a stroll through the above forest shows me something quite plainly: Gold good, dollar bad. I cannot tell when all those newly printed dollars will "come to market," but when they do, escalating prices cannot be far behind.

What Scrooge McDuck Thinks of the Bailout

Duck Tales was the first Disney cartoon series produced for syndication. 100 episodes aired between Sept. 11, 1987, and May 6, 1990. I remember watching one striking episode with my (at the time) young sons about exponential expansion of the money supply. (Yea, I know - this was supposed to be a kid's cartoon - but I really liked this episode!) The Mises Institute, has assembled some poignant excerpts to provide a handy guide for anyone who wants to study what Huey, Dewey, and Louie learned about money. With the "multi-phonic duplicator" currently running at full speed, are we getting closer to hearing mom's say, "Wipe your feet kids, I don't want you tracking in a bunch of money again?"

The Adding Machine Says It Ain't Chump Change

Finally, someone has discovered how to use an adding machine as we herald the "bailout of the day." Here's the scoop from Bloomberg. If you want to see the research behind the article, click here. Bloomberg did what, to my knowledge, no one else has done. They simply added up all the commitments, lines of credit, and guarantees being put forward by the Fed, FDIC, Treasury, and FHA to "solve the economic crisis." The total is $7.7 trillion and counting!

Here's an illuminating quote: "The money that’s been pledged is equivalent to $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. It’s nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country’s mortgages."

Oh, how my confidence soared at this inspiring gambit from Ben Bernanke:  “Some have asked us to reveal the names of the banks that are borrowing, how much they are borrowing, [and] what collateral they are posting,” Bernanke said Nov. 18 to the House Financial Services Committee. “We think that’s counterproductive.” Huh? It's counter to whose productivity? Certainly not mine. We, the taxpayers, are supposed to fork over $7 trillion but without knowing to whom and for what. This sounds like the kind of scam a Somalian pirate would drool over!

By the way, the largest share of this $7.7 trillion came from the New York Fed, where Timothy Geitner is President. Yup - He's Obama's appointee to be Secretary of the Treasury. So I guess that "change we can believe in" will involve more than chump change.

I am so glad that God's economy is never strapped for cash: And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed (2 Cor. 9:8). Credit may be tight, the market in turmoil, and main street in distress. But if you know Jesus as your Savior, you have a ready supply of grace, more than enough to do good to those around you. You are flush enough with grace to lavish good deeds on others. God's got you covered. Get out there and spread the wealth!

Trashy Cash

As any L-W wonk knows, I am into econ. I came across something that I would put on everyone's "must read" list. It's an article by Judy Shelton titled Stable Money is the Key to Recovery that appeared in The Wall Street Journal on Nov. 14, 2008. It's clear, straight-forward, and on target - clink the link and read the whole thing! Sometimes you can be staring straight at all the data but be blind to the logical conclusion. When it smacks you in the face, you reel from your own obtuseness in the face of the obvious.

Ms. Shelton has definitely slapped me good. I have thought along similar lines before - here's a recent post as proof. But I did not see that the newly discovered "strength" of the dollar argues against its suitability as an instrument of economic recovery. As long as we cling to our fickle paper, we CANNOT restore health to the market.

The dollar had been in a multi-year pattern of erosion. In March of 2008, that trend hit bottom. Then in late summer, the dollar took off, reclaiming lost ground with a vengeance. "Why?" is not the issue. Volatility is. From April, 2006, to April, 2008, the dollar lost over twenty percent of its value. Since July of this year, it has regained almost all of the ground it had lost. Here's Ms. Shelton's point, but in my words: Markets don't work when you can't read the price tags. When currencies are moving all over the map, especially when they are doing so at high velocity, you do not know whether you have made a smart or stupid trade. How efficiently will a market work when every purchase is a pig in a poke? Now I am quoting the writer: "Price signals in the global marketplace are hopelessly distorted."

There is a simple solution - reconnect currencies to a stable store of value. I say again: Solomon was no slouch economist. He viewed the importance of standardized weights and measures as a matter of utmost concern. A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight (Prov. 11:1). Money, which is a measure of value, serves us ill when it becomes a sliding scale. An "inflating dollar" or "deflating dollar" is simply another way to describe a balance that reads false, a weight that keeps changing its heft.

Now more than ever - we need a scale that reads true and weights that are fixed. Without them, the economy cannot be fixed.

The Hungry Man Advantage

Campbell Soup hit the advertising jackpot in the late 60's with it's jingle, "How do you handle a hungry man? The Manhandlers." (If you are older than 50 and were raised in America, you know the melody that goes with the lyrics.) Embedded in the slogan is the assumption that a hungry man is a force to be reckoned with. One of the world's wisest economists and an ancient King of Israel understood the concept that lies behind this ad.

During Solomon's 40 year reign, he unleashed an unprecedented season of national prosperity. My suspicion that Solomon could help us out of our current economic crisis led me into a 60 day study of his opus, the book of Proverbs. In its pages, I have discovered a collection of bedrock principles for a nation that wants to put it's financial house in order. One of those principle's could be called the "Hungry Man Advantage." It's found in Prov. 16:26: A worker’s appetite works for him, for his hunger urges him on (Prov. 16:26). Hunger is a worker's ally. It drives him to engage in pursuits that promise the satisfaction of his need. But Solomon is not just talking about "what's for dinner;" When compensation and performance are connected, a lack of results serves a beneficial purpose. 

Solomon discerns a vital connection between need and motivation. When you satisfy needs irrespective of labor to meet those needs, you remove a man's reason to work. When compensation is disconnected from performance, you destroy initiative. This is what makes handouts dangerous. And this is what makes our resort to "bailouts" a reminder of medical ads on TV. You know the ones I'm talking about, where they market a drug to relieve some malady and then cite a list of "possible side effects." The side effects sound worse than the original condition!

Here's an illustration. Assume you are a college teacher and in the first day of class you announce that you will give everyone who remains enrolled in the class an "A," regardless of attendance and performance. Now ask yourself these three questions: How many will drop the class? How many will attend the class? How many will work at mastering the material? If you answered "none" to all three, you see what Solomon sees: Everyone (perhaps with one or two exceptions) will do the minimum: They will stay on the roll expecting to do nothing beyond this and to receive an "A" for their "effort."

There is a place for compassion when it is informed by wisdom and extended to those who encounter hardship not of their own making. But handouts and bailouts have dangerous "side-effects" when extended to those reaping what they have sown. Wise up! Allow the lack of compensation resulting from poor performance to be an asset. Allow it to lock in some vital lessons on "things I should do differently." Handouts and bailouts might answer an immediate need but will diminish the reason for men and women to be productive and make wise choices. We will never get out of the hole if our "solutions" teach men and women to do less while expecting more. Pay people to be stupid and stupidity will start popping up everywhere. Won't this be fun.

Will Obama Make A Believer Out of You?

Check out the map at left and you get a sense of just one of the problems facing President Elect Obama. A majority in the heartland of America do not believe "Yes, we can." In his victory speech (click here for a copy of the complete text), he addressed those who would disagree with his decisions and policies: "But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you [to] join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."

I am not trying to be cynical (Ok, maybe just a little - but I AM trying to make a reasonable comparison). This sounds like something Pharaoh could have honestly said to his Israelite work force. When the Israelites filed a labor protest, Pharaoh listened, went ballistic, and swiftly cut off their supplies of a vital raw material. He was honest about the new challenge the Israelites now faced and unrelenting in his requirement that the Israelites meet their production quotas and remake Egypt "brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand." At face value, Obama offers me little more: The hope of registering complaints with fat chance of changing anything.

I am trying NOT to go negative here. I have declared my intention to respect the laws and leaders of our nation and I detest the "he's-not-my-president" bumper sticker bologna that showed up after the election of President Bush. But I think it's important to make a fair assessment of the environment in which that response must be worked out "brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."

The map above is somewhat misleading. It shows a greater geographical area in red than in blue. If we adjust the size of each state according to its electoral vote, we get a different picture. The area in blue now dominates the map and makes the red states much less of a force to be reckoned with. How much value will Obama attach to listening to the red states?

I think he is going to have his hands more than full placating the blue monster. "It's the economy, stupid," was a key campaign slogan in Bill Clinton's defeat of George H. W. Bush. The slogan was missing but not the sentiment in Obama's victory. Pundits and exit polls are calling economic concerns the engines driving his victory. People want Obama to make everything all better, and the blue monster thinks he's the man to do it.

I have heard folks talking about Obama as the leader we "deserve." I find Sam Mathid's sentiment more to the point: “People do not get what they 'deserve', they get precisely what it is that they are prepared to put up with.” If the blue monster becomes disappointed with President Obama's economic progress, they might not put up with him for long.

I think Mr. Obama gets this. In his victory speech, He cautioned, "We may not get there in one year or even one term." He is trying to buy time in the knowledge that the blue monster is fully expecting those changes-we-can-believe-in to arrive, if not on inauguration day, shortly thereafter.

Bailout Measures from the Coinage Act of 1792

When our country was founded, the recent experience of the framers of our Constitution gave them a healthy fear of unbacked paper currencies. The Coinage Act of 1792 sought to establish a sound monetary foundation for the young country based upon gold and silver coins. The Bill included provisions for private citizens to bring their own silver and gold bullion to a US Assay Office in order to be minted into coins, coins which could be used as legal tender. This provision allowed silver and gold to lubricate the workings of the marketplace by transforming these hard assets into readily recognized and portable stores of value. The coins became a handy device by which to capture and retain the value of a man's accumulated labors.

Jean Gentry, Chief Counsel for the US Mint, was kind enough to answer my related questions. Click on the thumbnail above to read a full size version of her reply. She recounts how subsequent actions of Congress effectively rendered the Coinage Act into a relic by 1878. In the years since, we have seen the rise of paper currency which, at first, was tied to gold and/or silver. Decoupling from hard assets was finalized by 1971. Since then we have used simple pieces of paper, IOU's called Federal Reserve Notes, as money.

Solomon was no slouch economist. He viewed the importance of standardized weights and measures as a matter of divine concern. A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight (Prov. 11:1). Money, which is a measure of value, serves us ill when it becomes a sliding scale. An "inflating dollar" is simply another way to describe a balance that keeps changing, a weight that keeps losing its heft.

The guys who authored and approved the Coinage Act had a good idea, one that served our country well for decades, and one that could help us get out of the economic mess we are in. I am under no delusions that we can turn back 150 years of monetary drift in one swift turn. This will take time. But I think Ron Paul has outlined a viable plan for a healthy transition. Just give Americans a choice. Let them decide whether they would prefer to store their wealth in a stack of IOU's or in a stack of gold and silver coins. Here's what he is proposing:

The first practical measure that should be taken is to legalize competition. Restore to Americans their right to use precious metals as a medium of exchange – a simple and reasonable initial step if we believe in freedom.  It is essential that Americans be given the chance to escape from this system and protect themselves from possible financial ruin, by being able to use gold and silver if they desire. If anyone would rather continue to transact in the depreciating dollar, he would be free to do so. But anyone who prefers a currency that holds its value and won’t become worthless before his eyes just because his government ran the printing press one too many times would have real options. Right now, various disabilities make it difficult for gold to be used in market transactions. Sales and capital gains taxes on precious metals should be promptly repealed, and the enforceability of gold clauses in private contracts definitively reaffirmed (Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, pp. 154-155).

All the huffing and puffing about how to rescue the economy leaves me bemused. How is a problem created by the proliferation of credit going to be solved by an increase in the proliferation of credit?   Our future is better served when we become LESS dependent on credit, not MORE. Remove the hindrances to becoming a nation of savers. Who would not want to save money in the form of hard assets if it was exempted from capital gains taxes? Removing this "inflation penalty" against hard asset saving makes great sense. Let's move forward by going back to 1792!

Batten Down the Hatches

I watched the 2nd Presidential debate at Belmont University on Tuesday night. I am still processing the absence of anything new to process! What a boring blame-fest. And stop leading me in circles repeating "I know how to fix this" as your proof that "I know how to fix this." The "report card" for Obama and John, according to Time, is B+ and B, respectively. Time is being too kind! On the economy (the main topic for the night), I give them both a failing grade. They don't get it.

We are in an economic meltdown. McCain and Obama are each trying to convince us that they have what it takes to fix the problem. So what was their strategy to prove it?  Pin the tail on the donkey (or elephant). They were blame-casting, "My opponent can't fix it, because he caused it. I, the blameless one, am your only hope."

I am sorry to be the harbinger of more bad news - but their resort to this tactic (both of them) gives me 100% assurance that NEITHER of them can fix the problem. In the matter of the current economic crisis, it doesn't matter who gets elected. Both of them will succeed in making matters worse.

How do I know this? Simple - you cannot solve a problem when you refuse to admit your own contribution. If you helped get us into a pickle, but cannot admit it, then you will never fix it. Your efforts will be focused on blaming someone else and exonerating yourself. Fixing the blame is not the same as fixing the problem!

The current crisis was brought about by various misdeeds and miscalculations of Republicans AND Democrats. (To be fair, it wasn't just them. Wall Street, Main Street, Central Banks, local banks, the Fed, the Treasury, consumers, borrowers, and a host of others all played a role.) The President who will solve the crisis (if such a thing is possible) will be one who has enough guts to say, "Here's where I blew it. Here's where my party blew it. Here's where others have blown it." If his analysis gives a fair representation of the causes, including ones that reflect poorly on himself, we might have found someone who can look past himself to intelligently and even-handedly address the crisis.

If either candidate had taken such an approach, I might be inclined to sit up and listen. Alas, didn't happen! Batten down the hatches - stormy economic weather is ahead. How bad will things have to get before our next President will acknowledge, "I made things worse than they already are?"

Please don't misconstrue my economic vexation to be voter fatigue. I will march smartly to the polls and vote for McCain/Palin without hesitation. McCain is clear and unflinching in his position against abortion. This is THE defining issue. On this stand, he gets an A from me that matters more than all the rest.  Alas, what a disappointment to vote for a candidate who cannot match that A with a passing grade in economics.