| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2005/3/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36624 Activity:high |
3/10 Why is it that the perception is that Christians are Republican.
There are many Christian views that fits with Democrat/Liberal
values. Eg. Care for widows and orphans, giving to the poor,
strong dislike for self-righteousness, peace on earth, care for the
environment, spreading the gospel through peaceful means, equality
for all, etc. Why is all the focus on gay and lesbian marriages
and abortion?
\_ abortion has very little shades of grey.
with regards to helping the poor. Do you want to help the
poor by giving money to government who will then enact social
programs? Or do you have tax cuts which give more money
to the poor, or maybe give money to charities who will help
the poor. Either way could be acceptable to a Christian.
\_ This might hold water if recent tax cuts had anything to do with
cutting what poor people have to pay vs richer people. I would
also need to be convinced that they increased money given to
charities (charitable contribution has been down in general the
last few years). I understand the reasoning but the reality
doesn't agree very well...particularly since the nature of more
recent actions by the right are effectively increases on money
the poor must pay. -- ulysses
\_ Tax cuts to the poor? Last I saw most of the tax cuts went to
the wealthy. Or do you really think dropping the capital
gains tax (and dividends taxed at cap gains rate) is something
that really helps the impoverished? Or eliminating estate/gift
tax so their wealthy ancestors can bring them to fortune?
\_ Actually, I think the same applies to abortion - i.e.
how much should the government be involved. I am a
Christian and I don't believe in abortion. If you can't
take care of a kid, don't fool around. I don't buy
the "woman has right over her body ... " crap, at least
not in its most irresponsible sense. However, I also
think that there are certain sins that perhaps are
not for the government / legal system to deal with
eg. infidelity. Perhaps abortion is another one of
these. Perhaps it's a matter for the mom (and her
family) and God. The government should not subsidize
family) and God. i.e. God has given the mother
(or the parents) ultimate responsibility over
over the unborn child. The government should not subsidize
over the fetus. The government should not subsidize
it. Society should discourage it. But we should
not make it illegal. Is my view considered very
conservative / on the right ?
not make it illegal.
\_ As a Christian, can you live in a society where murder
(includes abortion) is legal and accepted and a "right"?
\_ Can you live in a society where infidelity is legal?
\_ Or war?
\_ interesting article here regarding all this:
http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
\_ Much of the Christian == Republican comes from the conservatives
efforts to show its primary issues are the same as Christianity's
primary issues. You choose the other side, you're not a REAL
Christian. Mix this with American mythos of Horatio Alger, the
individualist, and on-going xenophobia, and then other "Christian
value" social issues become Someone Else's Problem best treated
by a charity/local government, not a godless Federal Bureaucracy.
Or even worse, those problems are simply impossible to solve. As an
aside, a large part of the conservative success is that they have
been successful. It gives supporters hope that they can influence
or control the government, an entity most people feel helpless
fighting against. Success breeds success.
\_ I'm not sure I agree that the Republicans chose the Christians
and then successfully courted them. I think a specific group
of activist protestants chose the Republican party as their
vehicle to political power, and the Republicans have just
capitalized on that. The Democrats didn't get to where they
are as a major party without getting vast numbers of Christians
to loyally vote for them.
\_ I agree with your premise, but not with the Democrats gain
as majority party. Their rise came from repercussions of
the Civil War and the Depression.
\_ an pithy quote by John Paul II will give you all a good answer:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1309831/posts?page=16#16
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309831/posts?page=16#16
[URL with IP address replaced. Fuck you.]
There are many many more quotes on this page that fully rebut
your argument on many levels.
\_ Funny how you and your fellow republicans have no qualms about
redistribution of wealth at gunpoint as long as the recipient of
the welfare is a corporation. I wonder what your savior would
have to say about welfare for defense contractors.
\_ Funny how you have no idea what you're talking about.
\_ Yeah, funny that. http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw422.htm
Corporations get a lot more in welfare than individuals.
-meyers
\_ screw you meyers, Christians good, you are bad, and um,
terrorists terrorists 9/11 9/11 9/11 -true conservative
\_ You misunderstand. I didn't say corps don't get
welfare, I say that conservatives aren't in favor of
it. Bush, BTW, is not a conservative.
\_ The post you're arguing with says "Republican",
not conservative. Are you seriously going to
argue that the Republicans in congress do not
support corporate welfare? Is your arguement just
that no one in congress except maybe a couple people
in the House are true conservatives?
\_ Hmm... "Conservatives" aren't in favor of it.
"Liberals" aren't either. Then why do YOU think
it happens SO DAMN OFTEN. You're buying a lie.
\_ Because "Lobbists" are in favor. duh.
\_ "Lobbyists"
\_ Summary and refutation:
(1) Poor people are poor because they are lazy and don't
like to work, so they deserve it.
Ans: According to the Bible, being lazy will lead
to poverty, but poverty does not imply lazy (check
out Proverbs for instance).
(2) Government is bad, we should not help the poor
through government. Christians make lots of private
donations, so we should not help through the govern-
ment.
Ans: Our government is democratically elected. We
allow it to lead us into war spending hundreds of
billions of dollars. We can also allow it to help
the poor. There are laws and practices mentioned
in the Old Testament for helping the poor.
What's wrong in having a safety net?
\_ not everyone will agree with me, but safety net is good.
but the lifestyle shouldn't be encouraged. |
| 7/8 |
|
| www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm Religious Catalogue A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters Fr. Stephen F Torraco, PhD 1 Isnt conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesnt everyone have the right to his or her own conscience? Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience canno t be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from anoth er part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect ba ses its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your h uman nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural mo ral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within your self and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmon y with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Churchs t eaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magiste rium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natura l moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have th e obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Churchs Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with consciences voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will fe el guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are mor ally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a l ax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of con tinually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the lik elihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you wil l act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given co ncrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscien ce is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in t he actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. This would depend on the positions held by the candidates of a single par ty. If any one or more of them held positions that were opposed to the n atural moral law, then it would not be morally permissible to vote for a ll candidates of this one party. Your correctly informed conscience tran scends the bounds of any one political party. If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, suc h as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be m orally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral ev il at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia a nd assisted suicide are examples of a disqualifying issue. A disqualif ying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unaccepta ble regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate i n any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to underst anding the point above about disqualifying issues is the distinction b etween policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legit imate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a societys effort to distribute the goods of health car e to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens a nd political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care pla n would most effectively accomplish societys goal. In the pursuit of th e best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind o f reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective resu lt. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the mora l principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical r eason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the ki nd of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law. As explained in question 1 above, neither your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience. Neither your feelings nor your opin ions can take the place of your conscience. Your feelings and opinions s hould be governed by your conscience. If the candidate about whom you ha ve strong feelings or opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and o pinions need to be corrected by your correctly informed conscience, whic h would tell you that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opi nions to give lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a mo ral evil. It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrin sic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstance s On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and pr eserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the dea th penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the p art of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is rare, if not virtually nonexistent. Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate tempo ral authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a rare case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare ca se does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societa l act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does h ave the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggre ssor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsib le to rule out all such rare possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the pr eferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the d uty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the respons e to question 3 above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can b est serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches prop osed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracin... |
| 209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1309831/posts?page=16#16 com --- Social ism Isnt Christianity By Thomas R Eddison Dec 28, 2004 On November 2, the American people overwhelmingly voted down the overtly anti-Christian far-left agenda adopted by the Democratic Party leadershi p Now the Democrats have laid out a scheme to win back morality voters by subverting Christian doctrine with the claim that Jesus was a sociali st. "No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor than most of the issues that were talked about in this election," Senator Hillary Clinto n told a Tufts University audience of 5,000 on November 10. The former F irst Lady told the Boston area audience of religion: "I don't think you can win an election or even run a successful campaign if you don't ackno wledge what is important to people." The strategy is to paint fiscal conservatives as un-Christian because the y oppose using the state as a modern-day Robin Hood. Michael Kinsley wro te on November 7 in a house editorial for the Los Angeles Times, "Democr ats seem oblivious to their platform's moral potency: innocent children suffering because their families can't get health insurance; platoons of young men and women dying in a war that didn't have to be; The Democrats overtly advocate a socialist agenda, which lives on today u nder new names, such as universal health care, the social safety net, an d development assistance. And the theme is that leftists who advocate so cialist government policies are generous, and those who refuse to redist ribute the wealth are opposing Christian principles. But the welfare state does not operate by the principle of moral generosi ty: it relies on a legalized form of theft (forcibly taking from some to give to others) and is driven by greed and envy. The welfare state bree ds greed by offering wealth without work and generates envy by promoting class warfare. The Christian principle of special consideration for the poor is a clario n call for the individual, not for the state. Jesus did not have the Goo d Samaritan in Luke's Gospel tell the injured man in the road to seek a government social worker. The Good Samaritan gave of what was his own wi llingly, not under the duress of the state. The welfare state actually e ncourages a spiritual laziness by implying that helping the poor is the responsibility of the state rather than a responsibility of the individu al. Consider the example of a small community of a few people to sharpen the moral clarity of this issue. Two work hard to gather more pineapples and coconuts than they need. A third is unable to work because he has a broken leg, and a four th is too lazy to work. While the working men have a moral obligation to share with the injured man, neither of the two who did not work have a right to take by force what is not theirs. To claim otherwise is to deny all right to property and to make the two w orking men slaves of the other two. The commandments "thou shalt not ste al" and "thou shalt not covet" establish a right to ownership of propert y If we can't own property, giving of ourselves becomes impossible - as does real almsgiving. Back on the island, if the lazy man steals pineapples from the two workin g men by force, then he commits a crime and violates the commandment "th ou shalt not steal." Socialism is the theft and redistribution of wealth through force, whether it's done for a society of four people or one co ntaining millions. That's why all totalitarians, from Lenin to Hitler, a dopt broad socialist policies in order to enslave society. The liberals are misleading people into believing that forcibly redistributing wealth , something that would be a crime if one individual did it to another, i s a moral good and a foundation of "democracy." In fact, the general ele ction strategy of the welfare state is the whisper in the ear: "I'll giv e you more of the other guy's money than you'll pay in taxes." That electoral whisper of the welfare state is the ultimate "big money" i nfluence skewing today's elections, and the prime reason why the welfare state cannot easily be dismantled. Welfare-state recipients always see the crumbs that fall to them from the welfare state. Except for a few who make their entire living off the state, the claim th at you'll be able to steal more than you'll have to pay is always a lie. The cut of the boodle for the welfare state bureac racy can be in the 50 percent range. Additionally, much of the money the federal government gives to "individuals" to assist children are in the form of grants to state agencies, which take another share of the money in the form of bureaucratic costs. In the end, welfare state politician s only bribe us with part of the money they must first take from us. Wor king Americans will never receive as much as they'll pay to the tax man. And therein lies the hope for ending the welfare state in America, so lon g as Christians are not fooled by this latest socialist propaganda barra ge. sid=88 Posted to the CU: 2004-12-28 02:40:04 CST ======================================== We will Pray WHEN we want School - WHERE we want Work - The Street - The Mall - Persecute Us At Your Own Peril! View Replies To: Lindykim On November 2, the American people overwhelmingly voted down the overtly anti-Christian far-left agenda adopted by the Democratic Is voting FOR something the same as voting against something else ? View Replies To: Lindykim Sadly, this is as clear as mud to too many folks. I had a party guest at my 4th of July Bar-B-Q that tried to use the Good Samaritan scripture on me as the excuse for the welfare state, and I tol d him about it being an individual responsibility, and not HIS responsib ility to see to it that MY money went to what HE thought was important. I prefer to give to my church of choice, and to the fund of choice. That, and I like to help so meone that I can check up on and hold accountable for improving himself if necessary. Without having our money taken from us by force(taxes)to give to the soci alist regime, we would have that much more to use to truly help those in need, and be able to discern those that only want to be on the dole. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis, we ha ve to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individua l is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic me chanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual ca n be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and ex clusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. M an is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, th e very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistake n conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which d efines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to priva te property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his own" , and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a pers on, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human c ommunity." View Replies To: Lindykim This is a part of what's been lost thanks to publik screwls. The Founders understood this implicitly, and based our government on it. Separation of church and state is a lie promoted to keep government from having to follow moral, or natural law. David Barton, a contemporary historian and founder of wallbuilders, has w ritten and legally filed an Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments . View Replies To: Lindykim This is a interesting question, as to whether the left can claim a Christ ian basis for social programs. While Christ urged people to give everyth in... |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309831/posts?page=16#16 com --- Social ism Isnt Christianity By Thomas R Eddison Dec 28, 2004 On November 2, the American people overwhelmingly voted down the overtly anti-Christian far-left agenda adopted by the Democratic Party leadershi p Now the Democrats have laid out a scheme to win back morality voters by subverting Christian doctrine with the claim that Jesus was a sociali st. "No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor than most of the issues that were talked about in this election," Senator Hillary Clinto n told a Tufts University audience of 5,000 on November 10. The former F irst Lady told the Boston area audience of religion: "I don't think you can win an election or even run a successful campaign if you don't ackno wledge what is important to people." The strategy is to paint fiscal conservatives as un-Christian because the y oppose using the state as a modern-day Robin Hood. Michael Kinsley wro te on November 7 in a house editorial for the Los Angeles Times, "Democr ats seem oblivious to their platform's moral potency: innocent children suffering because their families can't get health insurance; platoons of young men and women dying in a war that didn't have to be; The Democrats overtly advocate a socialist agenda, which lives on today u nder new names, such as universal health care, the social safety net, an d development assistance. And the theme is that leftists who advocate so cialist government policies are generous, and those who refuse to redist ribute the wealth are opposing Christian principles. But the welfare state does not operate by the principle of moral generosi ty: it relies on a legalized form of theft (forcibly taking from some to give to others) and is driven by greed and envy. The welfare state bree ds greed by offering wealth without work and generates envy by promoting class warfare. The Christian principle of special consideration for the poor is a clario n call for the individual, not for the state. Jesus did not have the Goo d Samaritan in Luke's Gospel tell the injured man in the road to seek a government social worker. The Good Samaritan gave of what was his own wi llingly, not under the duress of the state. The welfare state actually e ncourages a spiritual laziness by implying that helping the poor is the responsibility of the state rather than a responsibility of the individu al. Consider the example of a small community of a few people to sharpen the moral clarity of this issue. Two work hard to gather more pineapples and coconuts than they need. A third is unable to work because he has a broken leg, and a four th is too lazy to work. While the working men have a moral obligation to share with the injured man, neither of the two who did not work have a right to take by force what is not theirs. To claim otherwise is to deny all right to property and to make the two w orking men slaves of the other two. The commandments "thou shalt not ste al" and "thou shalt not covet" establish a right to ownership of propert y If we can't own property, giving of ourselves becomes impossible - as does real almsgiving. Back on the island, if the lazy man steals pineapples from the two workin g men by force, then he commits a crime and violates the commandment "th ou shalt not steal." Socialism is the theft and redistribution of wealth through force, whether it's done for a society of four people or one co ntaining millions. That's why all totalitarians, from Lenin to Hitler, a dopt broad socialist policies in order to enslave society. The liberals are misleading people into believing that forcibly redistributing wealth , something that would be a crime if one individual did it to another, i s a moral good and a foundation of "democracy." In fact, the general ele ction strategy of the welfare state is the whisper in the ear: "I'll giv e you more of the other guy's money than you'll pay in taxes." That electoral whisper of the welfare state is the ultimate "big money" i nfluence skewing today's elections, and the prime reason why the welfare state cannot easily be dismantled. Welfare-state recipients always see the crumbs that fall to them from the welfare state. Except for a few who make their entire living off the state, the claim th at you'll be able to steal more than you'll have to pay is always a lie. The cut of the boodle for the welfare state bureac racy can be in the 50 percent range. Additionally, much of the money the federal government gives to "individuals" to assist children are in the form of grants to state agencies, which take another share of the money in the form of bureaucratic costs. In the end, welfare state politician s only bribe us with part of the money they must first take from us. Wor king Americans will never receive as much as they'll pay to the tax man. And therein lies the hope for ending the welfare state in America, so lon g as Christians are not fooled by this latest socialist propaganda barra ge. sid=88 Posted to the CU: 2004-12-28 02:40:04 CST ======================================== We will Pray WHEN we want School - WHERE we want Work - The Street - The Mall - Persecute Us At Your Own Peril! View Replies To: Lindykim On November 2, the American people overwhelmingly voted down the overtly anti-Christian far-left agenda adopted by the Democratic Is voting FOR something the same as voting against something else ? View Replies To: Lindykim Sadly, this is as clear as mud to too many folks. I had a party guest at my 4th of July Bar-B-Q that tried to use the Good Samaritan scripture on me as the excuse for the welfare state, and I tol d him about it being an individual responsibility, and not HIS responsib ility to see to it that MY money went to what HE thought was important. I prefer to give to my church of choice, and to the fund of choice. That, and I like to help so meone that I can check up on and hold accountable for improving himself if necessary. Without having our money taken from us by force(taxes)to give to the soci alist regime, we would have that much more to use to truly help those in need, and be able to discern those that only want to be on the dole. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis, we ha ve to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individua l is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic me chanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual ca n be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and ex clusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. M an is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, th e very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistake n conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which d efines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to priva te property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his own" , and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a pers on, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human c ommunity." View Replies To: Lindykim This is a part of what's been lost thanks to publik screwls. The Founders understood this implicitly, and based our government on it. Separation of church and state is a lie promoted to keep government from having to follow moral, or natural law. David Barton, a contemporary historian and founder of wallbuilders, has w ritten and legally filed an Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments . View Replies To: Lindykim This is a interesting question, as to whether the left can claim a Christ ian basis for social programs. While Christ urged people to give everyth in... |
| www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw422.htm last week, the Democratic Party has recently discovered that most Americans are "treading water" economically --barely avoiding drow ning. The common bond that once held the nation together --an expectation of a brighter future for every one who worked hard and played by the rules --has all but disappeared. A s a result, street crime, violence, drugs, white collar crime, dubious p ractices on Wall Street, and a general attitude of "I got mine" have bee n steadily growing. The Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, says that since the mid-1970s membe rs of the middle class have turned into the "anxious class," afraid of l osing their jobs and their health insurance, fearful for their children' s future. The underclass has been steadily growing, permanently mired in the inner cities, cut off from good jobs and hope. In 1993, in the mids t of an economic recovery with an expanding economy, an additional one m illion Americans fell into poverty. Increasingly the overclass is questioning its connection to the rest of society --moving to elite suburbs, living behind iron gates, protected by private armed guards and Dobermans. The Secretary of Labor says the main factors destroying the middle class' s jobs are high technology and global trade. He says we cannot turn our back on these problems: we must confront them and overcome them. He says that we cannot wish away technology --we must retrain ourselves, prepar e ourselves for "lifelong learning" as we constantly adapt to a changing world. Nor can we close our borders to trade and fall back into the "protectioni st" trading mode of years past when we kept foreign goods out with tarif fs and quotas. These two ideas --retraining the workforce to get the good jobs to rebuil d the middle class --and preparing our commercial organizations to compe te in world markets --come together in Secretary Reich's call for an end to "corporate welfare." As a political program, the idea of ending corporate welfare originated l ast year inside the Democratic Party's Progressive Policy Institute, or PPI (which the WASHINGTON POST describes as "moderate to conservative"). The PPI argues that decades of free handouts from Uncle Sam to wealthy corporations should be ended because the money would be more product ive if it were invested in retraining the workforce, and free handou ts to corporations shield them from competition in the global market, ul timately weakening them. The argument goes like this: In a world of global production, capital and commerce, government subsidies to corporations eventually erode the com petitive position of both the industries that receive them AND those tha t don't. Unsubsidized companies find themselves at a comp etitive disadvantage relative to subsidized companies. And, in a global economy, companies at a competitive disadvantage will often move some op erations and jobs abroad, where labor and materials are cheaper or subsi dies are available. Spending and tax subsidies, along with trade protections and certain form s of economic regulation, all shield domestic industries from the global competition that drives foreign rivals to upgrade their products and pr oduction. Subsidies and protections, therefore, leave their beneficiarie s LESS able to succeed. Most of these subsidies and protections stem not from economic logic but from political influence, says the PPI. From farm supports and tax break s for oil and gas firms, to textile quotas and telecommunications regula tion, these special industry entitlements force taxpayers, consumers and businesses to transfer more resources to influential sectors than marke ts alone would require. These subsidies are also profoundly regressive, since the ultimate beneficiaries of these spending and tax handouts are the shareholders of the subsidized industries, who tend to be wealthy al ready. Corporate welfare has created a culture of dependency that has encouraged certain industries to live off the taxpayers. Year after year, these co mpanies receive subsidies or handouts from the federal government and ne ver learn to fend for themselves in the competitive marketplace. And, un like the vast majority of individuals who receive public assistance, mos t corporate welfare recipients are not particularly needy. The federal Bureau of Land Management rents out public lands t o ranchers for cattle grazing. The low grazing fees amount to a food stamp program for livestock belonging to wealthy ranchers. In 1992, the government's below-market r ates cost the taxpayers an estimated $55 million in revenues. A typical beneficiary of this subsidy is JR Simplot of Grandview, Idaho . He paid the government $87,430 for the privilege of grazing cattle on public land, according to the National Wildlife Federation. If the gover nment had billed Simplot at free-market prices he would have had to pay $410,524. And it's not as if Simplot is going to suffer without public a ssistance. He is on the Forbes' 400 list of richest Americans with an es timated net worth of just over $500 million. Another federal handout to corporations is the Department of Agriculture' s Market Promotion Program. This year the program will give American com panies $100 million to advertise their goods and services abroad. The co rporations with outstretched palms include some of the biggest names in American business. received $450,000 to promote V-8 Juice and M cDonald's took $465,000 to promote Chicken McNuggets. Another form of corporate welfare is the government's failure to charge r easonable fees or sales prices for mining minerals on publicly-owned lan d Perhaps the biggest beneficiary is the American Barrick Resources Cor p, based in Toronto. According to the Natural Resources Com mittee, the federal government is now preparing to sell the land to Amer ican Barrick for all of $15,000. By the way, the company's founder paid himself $32 million in 1992. Vince Borg, a vice-president of public affairs for American Barrick, reje cts the idea that Barrick has benefitted unduly. Deadbeat corporations also take advantage of the taxpayers. The corporations claim that they are justified in breach ing the contracts because of falling lumber prices. But there's no reaso n why taxpayers should have to protect companies in pursuit of profits f rom normal business risks. Major pharmaceutical companies are on the federal dole too. While the gov ernment pays for a substantial portion of the research in developing new drugs to fight disease, private drug makers are provided exclusive righ ts to market and profit from them. US taxpayers had spent $32 million over 15 years to develop Taxol, an anti-cancer drug. Bristol-Myers Squib b was provided extensive government data and exclusive commercial rights to Taxol in 1991 at which time it began charging patients $986 for a th ree-week's supply. Our federal we lfare programs favor corporations more than people. Some subsidies and regulations serve compelling social purposes. PPI argues that the need for economic growt h does NOT dictate, as many so-called "conservatives" suggest, that gove rnment should stop supporting childhood immunization, end tax incentives for middle-class home ownership or suspend health and safety regulation . These are government programs intended to promote socia l goals that benefit everyone, not a wealthy few. Such programs are need ed to compensate for market failures. For example, federal spending to protect bank depositor s, and tax incentives for basic research, compensate for failures of the free market. In January, Congress will immediately begin debating these issues, which will have a profound influence on environmental policy. It seems doubtfu l that either the Republicans or the Democrats will be willing to cut co rporate welfare. After all, the corporations ante up the hundreds of mil lions of dollars needed to win elections. Until we get corporations out of our elections entirely, we probably will not be able to end corporate welfare. As citizen activists, we can achieve clarity about one thing: our chief adversary is the corporate form, which has poisoned much of ou r land and water, harmed our health, polluted ou... |