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.
A question about the first one...
Is it wrong for me to think the same, that it's pretty shady that some of the bailout money went to bonuses? Or rather, is it coveting? One of the prevailing thoughts I had was, "Now they're taking my taxes and use it to pay bonuses!?"
Posted by: Jeff | March 31, 2009 at 03:59 PM
Most of the congressional and Presidential "outrage" over the AIG bonuses was for public consumption. These bonuses were based upon contractual agreements. People were being paid what their employer was legally bound to pay them for work performed.
The decision to use tax-payer money to pay these bonuses was made by the politicians who approved the AIG bailout. If those recommending and approving the bailout didn't know about these contracts, they committed taxpayer dollars without knowing what they were doing. Shame on them! If they did know about them, they could have insisted that AIG break its contracts as a condition of receiving bailout money. But when the government no longer protects the law and becomes an advocate of defying the law and breaking contracts, the ability of a market to function collapses for a lack of trust.
So, the government employed coercion (public shaming and onerous taxation) to take from someone else what was rightfully his. It said, "Yes, you are contractually entitled to what you have received from your employer. But, you should give it to me. I really deserve it, you don't."
This is the voice of envy and covetousness.
Posted by: Jim Fleming | April 01, 2009 at 01:05 AM