Apr
27
Back on April 9th, Communism Now! was brodcasting from North Carolina and hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez interviewed writer Chris Kromm. The show focused on the way the recession had impacted the economy of the Carolinas, North Carolina in particular. After criticizing South Carolina governor Mark Sanford for opposing the stimulus bill and initially refusing to take any funds, they then began to get fiscally conservative.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your state has also, obviously for years, been known as a military-friendly state, and the presence of military bases there has a huge impact on the economy. And with the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has that been one of the few bright sides, in terms of employment opportunities for the state?
CHRIS KROMM: Yeah, well, as much as you can say that depending on the military for your economy is a bright side.
Kromm added later (emphasis mine):
But yeah, clearly, and this is another way in which—it’s just kind of part of the fabric in many communities in the South, that the military is just part of it. And I think that’s—what people don’t quite understand is, people sometimes assume that Southerners just have a more conservative bent and embrace the military. I think it has more to do with the fact that many of them depend on the military. I know I have lots of relatives who are in the service or are connected to it somehow, and it’s just part of the way of life here. And I think that’s what people have to understand. And until you give people economic alternatives, ’til you find a way out for these Southern states being so dependent on the military, that’s where you’re going to find these situations where these states seem to embrace the foreign policy agenda, where I think in reality they don’t.
Hasn’t it been the conservative argument that welfare does not help the poor because it makes them dependent on the government rather than on themselves? That government spending crowds out investment in more productive areas? That people come to support a particular group of people or a political party not out of ideology but out of rational self-interest?
When South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn (D) insinuated that conservative governors like fellow South Carolinian Sanford were racist because they opposed funding that would in fact bog their states down with mandatory spending expansions, did Kromm object? As he explained in the quote above, “…until you give people economic alternatives, ’til you find a way out for these Southern states being so dependent on the [government program], that’s where you’re going to find these situations where these states seem to embrace the [domestic] policy agenda, where I think in reality they don’t.” By this logic, is Kromm a racist because he wants to cut off funding for the state?
I wrote earlier about the apparent clash of beliefs about government intervention by liberals. I referenced these inconsistencies from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State:
Here’s an excerpt from the Faith-Based Initiatives section, a policy most notably supported by George W. Bush but also by Barack Obama:
Americans in need of social services, such as welfare support, job training, emergency shelter and food/clothing supplies, should be able to get the help they need without being pressured to take part in religious activities. “Faith-based” initiatives, which propose turning the provision of social services over to religious groups, threaten individual rights and could lead to taxpayer support of religious ministries.
Bingo. Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.
I then used this argument for the separation of church and state to advocate the separation of economy and state, warning that this
argument could very well apply to President Obama’s plans for “national service,” which has yet to really be defined. The moral hazzard also exists for whatever kind of “green jobs” Obama wishes to create. Will we really be helping youths and those out of work? No. Their economic livelihood will become linked with that of the state and the re-election of certain officials. That is not empowerment. That’s slavery. As I said earlier, “Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.”
Government intervention harms the entity they are trying to assist by making them dependant on the government. Government aid may, at times, help a person or company get back on its feet, but it never ends there. They are indebted to the state and when faced with a decision between their own interest and those of the state, cannot bite the hand that feeds it.
We can get into the debates about spending, welfare, federalism, and defense another time. All I’m looking for here is consistency. Do government handouts foster dependency? Is this bad?
The answer to both is yes.
Feb
22
Agendas In Voucher Politics
Filed Under Education | Leave a Comment
As I wrote in an earlier post, while I support the separation of church of state, it’s clear that organizations like Americans United pervert the cause in the interest of a liberal, big-government agenda. Believe me, I’ll be protesting as loud as anyone when there is a genuine violation of the Establishment Clause. But there is a clear line between not wanting government intervention in a cultural element and wanting to ban the cultural element altogether. Take prayer for instance. Under no circumstances do I sanction a government official, such as a president or teacher, in leading private citizens in a prayer to a particular religion. But the private citizens, be they constituents or students, are well within their rights to pray at any time they want. But there are many on the left that object to this privately-led prayer, and I suspect that their agenda is to curtail the influence of religion itself rather than government sanction of it. The spiritual decisions of private citizens are nobody’s business but their own.
Another clear case of the big-government agenda is when dealing with school vouchers. School vouchers allow students to take the education funding with them in the form of a government voucher. The student will receive a voucher of, say $5000, that can be used at a private school of their choice (along with having the option of remaining in public school). This creates competition among schools, and, hopefully, will incentivize them to provide the best education for the lowest cost, as opposed to creating the securest jobs at the highest wages for public employees.
Over at AU’s blog, they wrote with great disdain over a Georgia state legislator’s attempts to implement a $5000 school voucher program:
Georgia’s Senate Education and Youth Committee held a hearing yesterday to consider SB 90, which would make tuition vouchers available to virtually any student in the state.
The bill, introduced by State Senator Eric Johnson, would provide parents of each Georgia child about $5,000 in taxpayer money to be used to defray the cost of enrollment at religious and other private schools.
But as Maureen Downey of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution put it, “What he hasn’t provided — what no one has provided — is a convincing argument as to why.”
That’s something Americans United asks about vouchers all the time. Despite knowledge that vouchers violate state constitutions, don’t work, and hurt public schools, 27 state legislatures have introduced voucher bills or tuition tax credits already this year, according to AU’s legislative department.
When states offer voucher programs, they are using taxpayer money to fund religious schools that are free to discriminate in hiring, discriminate in admissions and indoctrinate children in the tenets of one faith.
Lamenting that vouchers “don’t work,” the post went on to say:
What vouchers have done is hurt public schools systems by taking funding they would have received and given it to religious and other private schools.
The most glaring point of this article was the importance it put on the health of the public education bureaucracy. The well-being of the students is only mentioned in passing. This is where AU gives away their pro-government agenda. In the comments section, I wrote a reply:
When you said that vouchers could be “harmful to public schools,” that is very telling. Nothing about the students, just the school. Just because it is education does not make schools any different from any other governmental bureaucracy. Its interests are in preserving itself - not serving the public. Vouchers are in fact “harmful to public schools” and that is the point - to inject choice for the consumers (students). Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a libertarian and I’m as concerned about the ‘religious right’ as the next guy, but I don’t understand how statists don’t see that vouchers would make secular private schools feasible. The reason private schools today are almost entirely religious is because government has a near monopoly on education and the only organizations that can fund alternatives are churches.
In the end, our chief concern regarding education should be the improvement of the students - not the payrolls of the school board. And, as I mentioned above, can you imagine what would happen to the private school market if everybody in Georgia were running around with $5000? Its supply and demand. With such a strong government monopoly on the product of education, its no wonder that the only organizations willing to get into the market are non-profits (churches).
The second main problem with the article is this inane idea that “government money” is being used to fund religious activities. I concluded my comment by saying:
…money spent on vouchers was the taxpayer’s to begin with, not the government’s. This whole business that we’re worried about vouchers using ‘government money’ to fund religious organizations is fallacious because there is no such thing as ‘government money.’ It is taxpayer’s money all along, and if some states want to return a portion of these funds to its rightful owners and they happen to choose a religious school, then that is their choice.
To illustrate my point, envision this scenario: When my child is in first grade, public schools do not exist and therefore school taxes do not exist. I spend $5000 on tuition for my first-grader in a private school that is run by a church. Then, in second grade, the governments opens up public schools and institutes a $5000 a year tax to fund them. No longer able to afford the private school, my kid goes to the public school. When it comes time for Junior to enter the third grade, the legislature introduces a $5000 voucher program - essentially giving me the money back that I earned. Do you support that coming with strings attached as to where I use it (on top of the stipulation that if I accept it I already have to use it for education)? Is it right to call this “government money”? Nonsense. This was my money to begin with.
Please don’t think that the issue of school vouchers are as simple as the posts on this and AU’s blog would suggest. It comes with a lot of considerations politically, educationally, constitutionally, and economically. But I will always come down on the side of allowing taxpayers to use more of the money they earned, and that decentralized decision-making and competition are better for the end user and society as a whole. But most importantly, when ever someone is ranting about something they don’t like, you have to see who they’re looking out for. In this case, Americans United was looking out for big government and public employees rather than the students.
Jan
22
Liberal Mind Puzzle
Filed Under Liberalism | 2 Comments
Modern American liberalism is probably the most inconsistent set of beliefs in the history of political philosophy. More than an ideological dogma, most mainstream liberals seem to substitute what sounds nice as opposed to a principle based on consideration and thought.
What I mean by this is that modern liberalism holds for somewhat free markets, but at times for large-scale government intervention, and protection of civil liberties but strong state control over economic activities. In a way, I respect full out communists more than liberals, because at least they’re consistent. They don’t try to have it both ways. Communists let you know right up front they are for total control of individual behavior by the state and society. Liberals try to cover this up.
That’s not to say that modern conservatives don’t have their contradictions when standing for freedom. There are many on the religious right who hold very statist views in regards to personal behavior and the basis of law on biblical doctrine. However this is more often a knee-jerk reaction to progressives who seek to demonize social conservatives. Left alone, these types will usually come down on the side of freedom.
That leads me to the point I alluded to in the title. For any self-described liberals reading this, I’d like to try a little thought experiment on you.
Liberals like to fancy themselves as staunch defenders of civil liberties and the separation of church and state. Yet they will then support strong government action in economic affairs, motivated by some sense of compassion. Don’t they realize these are two wholly inconsistent positions?
Let’s go with the separation of church and state. Americans United for Seperation of Church and State is an organization making several very good arguments to protect this sacred barrier between public and private institutions. On the Our Issues page (specifically the government-sponsored religion section), AU states:
When the government or government officials get behind one religious message, it sends the message to adherents that they are more valuable, and all others are less valuable, members of the political community. Leaving religious expression to private citizens ensures that the government will treat everyone equally.
Bravo. No libertarian or freedom loving conservative could disagree. I certainly don’t. Essentially what the above quote is saying is that when government picks a certain organization to serve the people, not only are the competing organizations prevented from succeeding, but the very people the government planners are trying to help are left with less choices. Here’s an excerpt from the Faith-Based Initiatives section, a policy most notably supported by George W. Bush but also by Barack Obama:
Americans in need of social services, such as welfare support, job training, emergency shelter and food/clothing supplies, should be able to get the help they need without being pressured to take part in religious activities. “Faith-based” initiatives, which propose turning the provision of social services over to religious groups, threaten individual rights and could lead to taxpayer support of religious ministries.
Bingo. Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.
So up to this point, I hope liberals and I have found a good deal of common ground on the ills of government intervention in matters of the soul. This is because even when government is trying to act in the best interest of its citizens, Calvin Coolidge’s warning rings true: “Government control cannot be divorced from political control.” That is, that which is under the sphere of government influence will also fall prey to the political whims of the time.
But can’t the arguments made in favor of the separation of church and state also be made for the separation of economy and state? Take my first argument above, about government picking one organization over the interests of another. Both potential competitors and regular people are harmed. So when liberals wish to protect the auto companies with bailouts, seek regulation over banks, give unionized workers an advantage over efficient businesses and those who are unemployed, and raise the minimum wage and therefore price the lowest paid workers out of the market, aren’t they always going to favor their political allies and campaign contributors? One need only to look at the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle or this article to see the answer is yes.
My second argument could very well apply to President Obama’s plans for “national service,” which has yet to really be defined. The moral hazzard also exists for whatever kind of “green jobs” Obama wishes to create. Will we really be helping youths and those out of work? No. Their economic livelihood will become linked with that of the state and the re-election of certain officials. That is not empowerment. That’s slavery. As I said earlier, “Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.”
Government intervention harms the entity they are trying to assist by making them dependant on the government. Government aid may, at times, help a person or company get back on its feet, but it never ends there. They are indebted to the state and when faced with a decision between their own interest and those of the state, cannot bite the hand that feeds it. The same argument could be made for churches. For instance, the AU site warns about church electioneering:
Every weekend, millions of Americans attend houses of worship to hear sermons, study scripture and participate in other religious activities. If some politicians and Religious Right activists have their way, however, people in the pews might soon be doing other things during services — listening to partisan political speeches, being solicited for campaign contributions and getting instructions about whom to vote for on Election Day.
This can happen not only because a particular candidate agrees with the church’s views, but because the church will become dependant on more government support. I must take issue with AU’s singling out of “Religious Right activists” however. I seem to remember a little liberal church electioneering going on during the 2008 election.
In the end, whether its government intervention in religion or the economy, the key question to be asked is who should be left to make decisions. Whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, you have to support decision-making by individuals or the state. Because, like it or not, statists always believe they know how to run people’s live better than the person them self. A statist will support a national religion because people cannot manage their own soul, and a statist will also support social security because people cannot manage their own retirement. A statist supports regulations on what kind of content in movies we can see because we shouldn’t be exposed to sinful messages, and a statist will also support regulations on what kind of mortgages we can buy because we shouldn’t be exposed to ‘predatory lending.’ In any case, the statist always believes we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves.
You cannot have it both ways, liberals. You are either on the side of the individual, or government. I hope you will join me on the side of the individual and that of freedom.
