This post is not about “the Buffet rule,” but it is. That is to say, the proposal itself is obviously fairly complex and I think does deserve consideration (but Annenberg has found that this argument is fundamentally flawed in that “— on average — high-income taxpayers pay higher rates than those in the middle, or at the bottom for that matter”). What this post is about is rhetoric and morality.

The Democrats such as Barbara Mikulski argue that this is about paying  ”your fair share.”

“I support the Buffett Rule because I do believe in fundamental fairness. That if you live in the United States of America, that you benefit from the United States of America, both its national security and its public institutions, that you need to pay your fair share.

“This is what America is all about: fairness and that we’re all in it together.”

by Chuck Asay - Not sure I agree with or even get at what he is saying here, but given the theme I thought it was worth adding.

I do believe that in America we hold to a fundamental myth about fairness and I think that ought to be our goal. The challenge is in defining what is “fair” and my “share.” There is no doubt that everyone in America (regardless of citizenship or taxation level) benefits from our national security, road systems, and so on. Someone like Warren Buffet is not very likely to be putting much strain on the system nor benefitting from the various government programs. He could take his social security and theoretically could not carry health insurance and simply use the safety nets available to him. If he is like the wealthy people I have known¹ when it comes to health care for them and their family, they do not rely upon government programs. The wealthy get the best healthcare they can find. I cannot afford to do that nor can the vast majority of Americans.

Now we can argue whether that ought to be the case on moral grounds, but my point here is that we cannot say that the überwealthy are not paying “their share.” They tend to take far less from the system and yet their 20% is FAR greater than my 30%. Should a person’s “share” be determined by how much they actually use?

In almost all other contexts that is what we would expect. Let’s say that we go out to dinner at the SBL conference. There are 10 of us and everyone keeps their meal to about $25. I, on the other hand, order the prime rib with garlic mashed potatoes and green beans, followed by a Boston cream pie. My portion comes to $56. I argue that we should simply split the total bill 10 ways, after all there were 10 of us. Would you think that was fair? I doubt it. Or, to follow the Mikulski logic, since one of the other 10 people is actually a CEO and makes more than all the other of us at the table, his “fair share” would be to pay for much more than his $25, say $200 of the total bill since, after all, he earns so much more than the rest of us. Is that “fair”? It is certainly not a “share” in the usual sense of the term.

A moral, even biblical, argument

My complaint is with the rhetoric of “fair share.” That isn’t really what Mikulski, Buffett, and Obama are arguing even though that is what they are saying. Yes, Warren’s secretary is paying at a rate of 30% and Mitt is paying only 16%, but his 16% is a LOT more in actual dollars. Of course that 16% or even 30% is likely be far less of an impact on Warren’s secretary than even 15% would be to her. (Although my guess is that Warren Buffett’s  They are appealing to our sense of “fairness” but they are really making a moral argument. This is actually a biblical argument.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.that says, in effect, to whom much has been given much is expected. — Luke 12:48

The context of that passage is actually quite challenging to those who have been entrusted with “much.” The slave (and in the context the slave is the religious leaders while the master is God) who has been put in charge of the household, i.e., given much responsibility and corresponding benefits such as money and position, is expected to take his position seriously and fulfill his master’s wishes by taking care of the household and treating the other slaves well. If he does not…

45 But if that slave says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk,  46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful.  47 That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating.

This is the fundamental assumption then, that those who earn more ought to pay more.² It isn’t really about it being a “fair share” since the wealthy often use a far smaller “share” of the government services than the middle-income or truly impoverished. This is, in fact, a moral position that says “since you have been fortunate enough to earn/receive a LOT of money you ought to help those who have NOT been able to earn/receive a lot of money.” I think that most Americans would agree with this sentiment. The Republican-Democratic divide arises over how that help ought to be implemented: through the government or private charity.

The sticking points are what taxes should support and the implementation of taxation.³ If we really want to try and get at a “fair share” approach then a flat tax seems reasonable. In such proposals everyone should simply pay a set percentage, say oh, let’s pick 9%, of their income. Mitt Romney’s 9% is going to be a LOT more than my 9%. That would then be “fair” since it is proportional to earnings, even if it is still not proportional to usage. Of course for someone earning $20k that 9% would be a BIG hit and so we have a progressive tax structure. Again, it is an attempt to get at a “fair” system.

Of course none of that gets at the moral question. Should Mitt give more since he makes so much more? His church expects a full 10% and the Christian church(es) expects the same of their congregants.

No one said it would be easy, but it politics you can always count on it being made far more complex through the use of rhetoric.

 

1. That is one aspect of being a dean that is so very curious. I know and am in regular contact with a number of people who earn a million dollars or more, often much more, a year.
2. Of course, don’t forget that Annenberg report I linked to earlier.
3. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was the one who first instituted an income tax? The Supreme Court later ruled it unconstitutional but Congress then enacted the system we now know. Also, Lincoln died on April 15, 1865. April 15 is, of course, Tax Day….

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ: Recently the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed Resolution 535 proclaiming 2012 the “Year of the Bible”. In some circles of our community this has been very controversial.  One of the most active protests has been made by American Atheists and Pennsylvania Non-Believers. Among their points of contention is that the Bible is the primary source of validation for all the major social ills of our history. To dramatize this point they hired a billboard dominated by a depiction of a very negroid featured black man wearing a large neck manacle, with the Biblical text “slaves obey your masters” in smaller print. The billboard was in a predominantly African-American community in Harrisburg. This caused another type of protest by citizens of that community and the city (my op-ed, while not printed by the newspaper, is available here).   A representative from the American Atheists was interviewed shortly thereafter on local Public Television, and his anger with Christianity and the Bible was palpable.  While his interpretation of the scripture texts was without regard for or knowledge of context, I was amazed that his literal knowledge of scripture seemed equal to persons who have been nurtured in a fundamentalist tradition. His vitriolic reaction to callers who differed with him, sometimes devolving into personal attacks, caused the host to question his behavior.  As the conversation continued it was revealed that he had indeed grown up in a very fundamentalist, literal Christian tradition and in an unguarded moment intimated something of the hurt to him and his family.   I have no question that the best of our democracy, the inspiration for our rich artistic and cultural life, and also the historic movements to correct social and political injustices (which were often based upon misuse of scripture), have all been directly rooted in the Bible and Jewish and Christian Faiths.  The Founding Fathers, even those who were Deists or non-practicing Christians, clearly found the Holy Scriptures a base of inspiration for their work.  Like Jefferson regarding slavery, they also often found themselves conflicted between their political values and the Judeo-Christian values they sought to exploit in the political and economic compromises made to establish the Constitution. Besides the historic record of the Bible and our particular religious history as the inspiration for our democracy, there are independent sources such as Alexis de Tocqueville, the young French researcher who visited and wrote about the phenomenon of American Democracy. I doubt that there would be the strength of our democracy without the religious heritage which so greatly influenced our ideals, including a call to respect the religious faith (or non-faith) of others.   Having said the above, there is no question that the misuse of religion, particularly Christianity, has deeply hurt and even destroyed many.  As I listened to the angry, bitter representative of American Atheists, my heart hurt for the pain he felt, the betrayal he clearly experienced and his estrangement from the God with whom he continues to invest his life’s energy to deny and debase. But his anger, and that of many, is more rightly directed to us…the Christian Community.  Whether progressive or conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical or mainline—whatever our doctrine or tradition, in our efforts to “Love God with all our heart mind and strength” (cf. Mark 12.30) we too often have not Loved or shown a Godly respect for our neighbor.  I believe the most difficult promise we make in the Baptismal Covenant is “…respecting the dignity of every human being.”  This is especially true within our denominations and congregational communities.  When we differ on theological or political views how do we treat one another in our differing?  When persons are struggling with conflicts of Faith and their personal experience or need, do they sense from us our judgment or grace? Do we know how to speak truth with Love, knowing that Love is the only truth—for it instructs all other truths? Jesus’ chief command for the Christian community is found in John 15: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another…by this shall the world know you are my disciples because you have love one for another.”  Love (or the Greek word “agape”) does not mean agreement with one another or even warm affection for one another. It does mean seeing the other as someone loved by God; and that truth informs and shapes the character of life, even our conflicts, in Christian community.  Without it we destroy one another, the integrity of the Church, and create spiritually wounded souls who, in their pain and anger, may never be reconciled again to the God of Love— until, I pray, they come to the nearer presence of God, who takes away not only the sins of the world but also the sins inflicted by the Church. +Nathan

 

I am protesting SOPA and PIPA not because I think that information wants to be free (in fact, I spoke with Information and it hates being personified and has no volition or wishes) or that I think stealing others’ works is acceptable in any sense. Rather the acts as currently written are too vague, do not give opportunity for due process, and will do nothing to stop piracy, the intended goal of the acts. Pirates Thieves will find a way around the restrictions and the only ones affected will be the average user like you and me.

So if this sort of activism annoys you, relax. It will all be back to normal tomorrow and you can blissfully ignore the issue again. Until you can’t.

 

1. Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) | Protect IP Act (PIPA).

Rather than stick to the core message so well articulated in the cartoon to the right, this leaderless revolution has sprawled into lists of ridiculous demands to such an extent that now Stephen Colbert (a supporter of the original movement) is even poking fun at it. The movement seems to be spinning out of control and becoming the second chance for hippie high school seniors and college freshmen like the “elected spokespeople,” Justin Wedes and “Ketchup,” who appear to be bent on making up for the fact they weren’t elected Student Body President. Or to put it as my wife put it, the current wave of OWS protesters:

…are identifying themselves as the “99%”, but are not demanding that the “1%” end world hunger. They are asking for their college tuition to be paid. They are asking for their credit card debt to be forgiven. They are asking for privileges that only the world’s wealthiest 1% enjoy, and they want it for free.

By making demands of “free college education” (elite schools of course, not state schools), “open borders migration (anyone can travel anywhere to work and live),” and “Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all (Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books”),” the OWS movement leaves itself open to ridicule and charges of naïveté, disorganization, idealism lacking practicality, and insensitivity to those who are trulysuffering around the world.

 

CHE has a very interesting little piece about presentations given at TED conferences. He contrasts two speakers, one who “got the whole nerdy hipster thing going” and another who wore a blazer (but cut brains into thin slices like deli meats. I was the MC for TEDxPSU last year at Penn State and I may offer a presentation this year, so I have been thinking about what makes a good presentation myself.

Part of the enthusiasm for these talks is the fervor of the moment, face it, TED is a geek rally, a sort of Burning Man for those who don’t want to get naked, paint themselves, and do pot (or at least none of those things while sitting in an auditorium). Still, there is great value in TED talks, they can be marvelous gems and I have found them very useful in classes. But should we go for the O or the HMMMM. I think I would rather make folks think, have them still sitting in their chairs saying to themselves, “wait a minute, he might have a point.”

Slavin [hipster] got a standing ovation, while Jones [brain butcher] received fairly enthusiastic but still-seated applause.

So what does that indicate? Well, here’s what a blog post on the TEDActive site has to say:

The standing ovation is the original test of crowd wisdom. The audience reaction (and soon the online reaction) seems like a good predictor for which ideas at TED will stick and have a lasting impact on large scale.

Really? I enjoyed Slavin’s presentation and thought it was entertaining and insightful. I enjoyed Jones’s presentation, too—though, to be honest, not as much because he’s stiffer on stage. But the dude is thin-slicing the brain, people. I’m going to argue that what he’s up to has the potential to have a more lasting impact on a larger scale than the clever stylings of an app maker.

The rise of TED in recent years is amazing. Asking smart people from diverse fields to present their most brilliant ideas in 18 minutes is, in itself, brilliant. It’s awesome that there can be viral videos, like this one, that are about education and creativity rather than overly dramatic chipmunks.

But I think whether TEDsters leap from their seats and slap their palms together says more about the polish of the performer than the staying power of a particular idea.

 

Perhaps we should have a new category, “The National BiblioEnquirer” for those who post solely about other stories that inflame, irritate, or otherwise make their undergarments get scrunched into uncomfortable shapes.

Anyone remember Phil. 4:8?

 

Appalling: The Supreme Court Sides with Westboro Baptist…

Disgusting.  Freedom of speech should never trump what’s morally right.  Never.  The Court blew it yet again.

(Christian Salafia agrees with him as well.) I replied via twitter pointing out that such was the price of free speech. Jim respectfully disagreed saying, “hate speech isn’t covered by the first amendment.” And then posted later today,

Many American Christians utter the phrase ‘freedom of speech’ with more love and adoration than they have ever cited Scripture.  ’Freedom of speech’ as a dictum is the new American Idol.  And it is idolatrous precisely because too often it trumps Scripture and silences its voice (in a most peculiar and ironic twisting).

Those who know me certainly know that I am not one of those whom Jim is describing (and to be clear, I am not suggesting that I am in his mind as he wrote this). My view of Scripture is very high indeed and freedom of speech is not an idol for me. But Jim has some facts wrong and all of it is ironic given recent comments regarding the tenor and tone of Jim’s own blog.

Freedom of speech has routinely defended religious expression rather than silencing its voice. That is not to say that the position has not been challenged, but individual rights to preach, proclaim, and post Scripture has regularly been upheld by the Supreme Court through the invocation of the First Amendment.

Second, as I said on twitter responding to Jim, Westboro’s speech is hateful but it is not hate speech. Partly this is a tautology, because the Supreme Court ruled that what they have done is acceptable behavior/speech, it is by definition protected speech. (“Hate speech” and whether it is not also protected speech is still much debated, so to say that it is not protected under the First Amendment is not yet proved.)

It is almost a maxim now but the speech that most offends us and that we most dislike is that which most needs protection. Consider Jim’s own blog. As observed in recent debate, there are many who consider his posts hateful, ugly, and offensive and would just as soon see him close shop again. Of course Jim rightly responds, “don’t read it.” The irony of this is clear for all to see, I will comment no more on that.

Finally, I feel I must make this absolutely clear: I abhor what Westboro does and I find no justification for it. My deepest sympathies go out to the families of the fallen soldiers. The death of any loved one is tragic and wrenching no matter when and under what circumstances occurs.

 

Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

The article goes on to point out two examples where scholars pointed to social difficulties or challenges (women in higher ed and single mother homes in African American communities) and then were labelled pariahs by the academic world because their analysis did not fit with the dogma of the day. Their positions have since been largely vindicated and, more importantly from the perspective of those concerned with making positive change in the world, valuable time was lost in terms of helping others because the warnings of these scholars were ignored.

The challenge for the academy is, of course, to provide a forum for all thoughts and ideas. Every doctrine and dogma ought to be open to challenge, even this assertion.

I hope you will read the whole article and discuss it on your blog, here in the comments, or simply with those around you.

Location:Oxford,United Kingdom