Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Enslaving the Next Generation in the Nicest Possible Way and for the Noblest of Motives

There is very often a gap between what people think they are doing and the real consequences of their actions. We kid ourselves about the effect that our actions have on the lives of others. That is why the Prophet Jeremiah, under Divine inspiration, wrote "The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?" God answered that He is the One who knows the heart of man. Which is to say, we can't be trusted to be objective when evaluating the morality of our own actions. We require an outside reference point for that, and there is only one such moral reference point which is truly objective- God Himself.

That brings us to our little controversy in the State Senate recently. When proponents of Medicaid Expansion (under the disingenuous name "Arkansas Works") started questioning the Christian values of those who refused to support the plan, Senator Terry Rice responded by saying, "We are enslaving future generations, our children and grandchildren — to debt that we are irresponsibly putting on their credit card. That to me is ... unbiblical."

While proponents of the plan don't mind insinuating that those opposed to the spending are unchristian, they bristle at the suggestion that they might be themselves. Senator Stephanie Flowers took exception to Senator Rice's statement. She said "I would never vote for a bill that enslaved anybody," and further, "I don't think that's what we're doing when we're providing health care for the poorest Americans. I have a serious problem with that kind of statement. Humanity dictates that we ought to give people an opportunity to have a healthy lifestyle. That's not enslavement. I'm willing to have my son, and any grandchild, help somebody out when they're sick."

Senator Flowers seems like a nice person. I can just tell that she is. I don't question her Christian values. But I do question her objectivity to evaluate her own actions. And I do her no insult when I say that because as I pointed out at the start of this article we all tend to have trouble doing that. Senator Terry Rice is exactly correct when he says that they are making debt slaves of the next generation. And we are doing it to lavish government benefits on ourselves now.

The national debt right now is over $59,000 per citizen. This means that each new child born in America starts off with that much debt hanging over their heads, stifling the economy in which they must live and work. And each and every day over $2 billion dollars of debt is added to the national total as government relentlessly spends more of the next generation's money. The FEDS propose to pay for 90% of the expense of expanding Medicaid, but let's be frank. they are paying for most of it with the next generation's money.

If someone handed you a $59,0000 bill for items that you had no say in, would you be OK with it? What happens when that bill gets to $100,000, or $200,000? These are debts of a size that most people cannot work their way out of. "Debt slavery" at some point becomes the perfect term to describe where today's politicians are taking tomorrow's children with their non-stop generational looting.

Senator Flowers tells herself that she is "providing health care for the poorest Americans". In truth she is not providing anything except access to the next generation's pockets. They are the ones that will be providing whatever health care is given, whether they can afford it or not and whether they consent to provide it or not. Nor is she doing it for "the poorest Americans" as if it is OK for me to steal from your children if you have more than I do. For one thing, the very poorest were already covered under existing Medicaid, along with the disabled. Their funds are now being threatened by this new program. Its called breaking the safety-net due to over loading.

For another thing, those are not the poorest Americans. The poorest Americans are the next generation who come into this world with nothing. No money, no assets, no skills, no education, no jobs. All they have is the $59,000 and growing debt that we have burdened them with in our eagerness to tell ourselves what good people we are for "providing" this or that through government debt.

She continues "humanity dictates that we ought to give people an opportunity to have a healthy lifestyle." Once again, she is not giving anyone anything except access to the next generation's earnings. They are obligated to spend untold hours of their life working to pay for the things she decides that others ought to have at their expense. And they have no say in the matter. How anyone can deny that this is very much like slavery is a testimony to the truth of scripture concerning the deceitfulness of the human heart.

If she feels that we ought to give anyone anything, then she should arrange to pay for it, all of it, through increasing taxes or cutting less worthy spending. At least those of us here and now can vote against her or donate to her opponent if we feel like she wants government to pay for too much. The next generation has no vote to defend itself from the predatory looting of today's politicians whose disgraceful conduct is made worse by their efforts to cover it in religious platitudes and call it holy. It is a swine offered at the alter.

She does offer up her own offspring when she says "I'm willing to have my son, and any grandchild, help somebody out when they're sick." So am I. But I want it to be their choice, not mine. I am the steward of my child's life, not the owner. I am to provide for and train them up only for a brief time before they become their own stewards. It is not up to me to dictate to my children or grand children how many hours they must work each day to re-pay the debt which I used to benefit strangers. They must make their own decisions about who to help out and how much. I hope I train them up so that they are able to do so early and willing to do so generously. This is the right and true way we should be willing to have our children and grandchildren help out the sick people. The sick of this generation are our burden, not theirs.

But if she will not listen to me, perhaps she will listen to a prominent Democrat: Thomas Jefferson. He wrote "spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."  Now one might be willing to dismiss Jefferson because he was a slave-owner. What one should see instead is that even though he was willing to own other human beings, he was not willing to make debt slaves of the next generation. By all accounts, as slave owners go and by the standards of the times, he was good to his slaves. How good are we being to our own slaves? That is, the debt slaves we are creating by this wanton deficit spending so that we can feel good about ourselves?


Blogger George Pritchett said...

Well said. But, the current politicians don't see things this way; rather they have the "pie in the sky" belief that we will grow our way of the problems. The problem with the "pie in the sky" philosophy is that historically this hasn't been the case and the result is each generation/group/newly elected/etc. always seek more revenue by increasing taxes and fees or adding new taxes and fees and use the excuse the citizens want more. But, it is the politicians and their cronies that lobby and provide services that grow wealth and it is all done at the expense of the populace of which a large amount are poor. Taxes and fees may appear minor to the wealthy, but the poor must choose between paying them or buying food and medicine and necessities. At the city, county and state level we hear over and over the increases or new taxes are only a "little bit", but what if you don't have the little bit or it reduces you resources to the point you can't pay your way.

2:21 PM, April 12, 2016  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Thanks. It is debt overhang that is killing our growth now. Consumers have too much debt to buy. Businesses have too much debt to invest, plus they see their customers are in debt as well.

The ARKTIMES tried that "it is just a little bit" too. Only its not. What if the next generation only has to work a week each year just to pay for our Obamacare spending now? Does that make it OK? What about ten weeks? And that is not all we are in the red for. Pretty soon there are not enough weeks in the year to provide for themselves and the needy around them because they are working to pay the bills for our needy that we passed onto them.

2:36 PM, April 12, 2016  
Blogger Andrewfm said...

Everything in the post is true, but how come military spending is never considered when it comes to the growing debt? The military budget is 54% of the budget verses all of Medicare at 6% of the budget,

6:45 PM, April 18, 2016  
Blogger George Pritchett said...

Andrew, You raise a good question. We have taken on the role of peacekeeper for the world and much more. Our country cannot afford to be the "police force" of the world nor can we continue to be the primary source of funding for NATO. Medicare is something those eligible pay for and have paid into during our working years and the problem is the government hasn't reserved it/invested it to grow rather they have relied on current workers to supplement the payments made by those on Medicare; not a good plan considering people are living much longer. There's a train wreck coming with Medicare Funding and the solutions will be difficult.

As I have said many times: Governments at all levels must learn to live within their revenue stream, rather than to continually look for new revenue sources.

8:25 PM, April 18, 2016  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Andrew that needs to be reduced too imho. I was a Ron Paul guy. Our military is being used for things that are not "national defense" but "international meddling". That said, where did you get your figures? I get 18.8% for the military and just under 8% for Medicaid. And that 8% is deceptive because the state also pays a share- up to 30%, of Medicaid bills. http://media2.picsearch.com/is?nOKUYUB9dVeBJ4ccy7f_DHVLY-mEPANsAagFQnCPNMQ&height=229

11:22 AM, April 20, 2016  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

We were running a deficit when Obamacare was proposed. So the question is, do you fund new things with more debt when we can't pay our debt now? Go back and cut whatever you want cut first, then fund the best program you can afford with what is left. Let's pay for the amount of government that we want ourselves, not send the bills to babies who can't protect themselves.

11:25 AM, April 20, 2016  
Blogger Andrewfm said...

Mark, I got the budget numbers from this site, https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/
I know it's a national budget chart and not a state.

7:31 AM, April 23, 2016  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Those numbers are "discretionary" spending. Total spending is what you need because it is somewhat arbitrary what they consider "mandatory" spending. Sure if you consider all defense spending "discretionary" and 90% of social spending "mandatory" then military spending will look bigger than social spending, but that is just playing with the labeling, not a reflection of actual national spending.

11:35 AM, May 02, 2016  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home