Environmentalism

Over the last few decades, I have followed the philosophical twists and turns of the environmental movement. As a student, I participated in the first Earth Day back in 1970 by inviting a Sierra Club leader to speak in my high school. I also noticed how environmentalism became almost a religion. The philosophy of pantheism began to gain more prominence in the movement. And earth worship almost became a foundational tenet of environmentalism.

I also noticed an increasing condemnation of a free market within the environmental movement. And there was always a belief that the only solution to many of our environmental problems was a global government.

Nevertheless, I was always uncomfortable when a speaker at a political event or a guest on my radio program would link environmentalism to communism. You have probably heard the line: the environmental movement is like a watermelon – green on the outside, red on the inside.

The latest environmental declaration makes me think that those observations aren’t so far off target. Environmental activists from 130 different environmental groups call for an end to capitalism and the free market system. The Margarita Declaration, which was drafted in Venezuela, declares that global warming cannot be stopped without ending the capitalist system.

Actually a free market and private property are important tools in dealing with most forms of pollution. If you own land, you are more likely to take care of it. If everybody owns the land (socialism), often nobody takes care of it. Professor Garrett Hardin called this the “tragedy of the commons.” You could also call it the tragedy of the public restroom. Think of a mess in a typical public restroom. Now compare that to the bathroom in your home. When something is held in common, no one feels the same responsibility as when they own it themselves.

We may have environmental problems to address in our world. Ending capitalism is not the way to solve them.

Student Loans

A quick glance at a chart of student loan debt helps explain why this will certainly be a topic of political campaigns and political discussions. One chart at the National Center for Education Statistics shows a startling increase in student loan debt. One report estimates that the average college graduate will be responsible for repaying an average of $33,000. That amounted has tripled in just 20 years.

The increase is due to many factors, but let me mention two important ones. Government involvement in the student loan program has created an atmosphere of easy credit. Students (and their parents) are taking on more debt than they should. A second factor is related to the first: rising tuition costs. More students going to college using more debt to finance college make it easy for colleges to continue to raise tuition. Tuition is rising faster than medical costs, food costs, housing costs, or any other item on a family’s budget.

It is easy to see, therefore, why student loan debt will be the next political football. Already we have the president working to expand student loan forgiveness with the current “Pay-As-You-Earn” program. Students who qualify need only pay 10 percent of their discretionary income for a maximum of 20 years. Some critics have run the numbers and found that it is possible that some students (with high debt and low paying jobs) would not even pay off part of their student loan debt. Their payments wouldn’t even cover the interest on their student loans due during those 20 years.

To put it bluntly, American taxpayers are already paying off the student loans of some students. If this trend continues, it is likely we taxpayers will be paying off other student loans in the future. Is that fair? Students voluntarily entered into these loans. No one forced them. Many of the American taxpayers who will be forced to pay off these loans did not go to college. Is it fair that they should have to pay off student loans?

Soon we will be hearing about the student loan debt crisis. These are some questions that should be added to the debate.

HSAs and Freedom

The Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case continues to be controversial to some as evidenced by an attempt in the U.S. Senate to overturn the ruling through legislation. Critics say that your employer should not determine which birth control you use. Supporters say employers shouldn’t have to pay for birth control that violates their religious convictions.

I would essentially agree with both statements and argue that is why we should get government and employers out of the medical decisions you should be able to make without their interference.

Dr. Ben Carson makes that point in a recent column talking about health saving accounts. He also acknowledges that: “People have legitimate differences of opinion about the appropriateness of various forms of birth control.” He also agrees that we shouldn’t force people or businesses to fund controversial forms of birth control if they have moral objections. He therefore asks: “Wouldn’t it be fairer and make more sense for people wanting some form of birth control to pay for it themselves?”

Health savings accounts can be funded in a number of ways. This would give each of us total control of our health care dollars. We can determine how we want to spend our money and on which drugs and medical procedures. Dr. Carson also explains that family members could also shift money in their account to another family member who may need a particular test or procedure. This is a level of flexibility we do not currently have because of government regulations and insurance company policies and procedures.

Dr. Carson laments that the complex rules of Obamacare severely restrict the use and application of health savings accounts. This is indeed unfortunate because these accounts would answer the two complaints I mentioned earlier. You (not your employer) would determine which birth control you would use. And employers would not have to pay for birth control that violates their religious convictions.

Health savings account would be simple, effective, and allow for greater patient freedom without violating their religious freedom.

VA Scandal

The scandal at the Veterans Administration seems to grow larger each month. A recent audit of the VA showed that more than 57,000 patients are still waiting for initial appointments more than 90 days after requesting them. An additional 64,000 are enrolled, but have never seen a doctor.

This is a scandal that won’t be solved by merely changing one or two bureaucrats at the VA. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explained why in a pointed open letter to Robert McDonald, the president’s choice to head up the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. He argues that what is needed is a transformation of the bureaucracy.

Gingrich illustrates the problem by using the “Red Bead Experiment” constructed by Edward Deming. He used a bin full of red beads and white beads mixed together. Deming would explain to an audience his intention to gather up just the white beads. He would plunge the scoop into the bin and bring up a mix of both kinds of beads. Feigning disbelief, he would then appoint other people to wield the scoop. They would also bring up a mix of red and white beads.

His point is you can change personnel in a broken system and you will still get failure. People will fail one after the other until the system is changed. Gingrich says that: “The range and scale of the misconduct at the VA shows that the corruption there, like the doomed attempt to isolate white beads, is not just a problem of personalities but more importantly of systems, and it goes to the very core of the bureaucracy.”

He concludes that the VA is a “giant, fossilized bureaucracy” that must be replaced rather than repaired. But he also laments that “entrenched bureaucrats, the unions, and the President, along with many others in Congress” all oppose the systemic changes that could actually work.

We need a future president and Congress who are dedicated to making real changes in the VA. Until that happens, we will be hearing about more examples of problems in the Veterans Administration.

LGBT EXECUTIVE ORDER by Penna Dexter

Under the banner of curtailing workplace discrimination against homosexuals, lesbians and transgendered people, President Obama has issued an executive order that concerns all federal contractors and subcontractors. The order states that all companies that do business with the federal government, and companies who help them complete that work, will have to put aside religious and other principles with regard to the employment of people who practice open homosexual and transgendered behavior. This will go into effect next year.

There is no exemption for religiously affiliated contractors other than a very limited protection put in place during the Bush Administration

Businesses will be able to consider sexual orientation and behavior and to hire, promote and fire anyone they like in ministerial positions. For non-religious posts contractors can consider religion in hiring practices, but not sexual orientation or gender identity.

Immediately following the White House announcement of this executive order, the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg stated: “This level of coercion is nothing less than viewpoint blackmail that bullies into silence every contractor and subcontractor who has moral objections to homosexual behavior.” He continued, “People with deeply held convictions regarding the morality of certain types of behavior should not be bound by the dictates of President Obama’s agenda.”

The Left has been trying to pass a bill with the Orwellian title, the Employment Non-discrimination Act — ENDA — for two decades. They haven’t succeeded. But this order ignores Congress and goes a long way toward enacting ENDA by presidential fiat. After the decision in the Hobby Lobby case, it’s clear the Supreme Court, albeit narrowly, will still protect the religious liberty of employers. This did not stop this Administration from forcing companies with religious owners to disregard their convictions about the morality of certain types of behavior.

A senior administration official noted that the Hobby Lobby decision did not involve federal contracts, saying, “We were comfortable moving forward with this executive order in light of Hobby Lobby.” In other words, since the Hobby Lobby decision protected the religious liberties of a narrow subset of companies, the White House was determined to force this agenda on another big chunk of employers, federal contractors.

Folks, it’s becoming clearer by the week: Christians, with their biblical morality and bothersome tendency to insist on adhering to it in all aspects of their lives, are simply in the Left’s way as it tries to make sweeping changes.

The secular Left wants no accommodation for the religious views of ordinary Americans. This particular executive action is another example of the Left’s bullying of Christians, trying to force their worldview out of the workplace and the culture and confine it to the pews.

So what do we do? Matt Barber law professor and cultural commentator wrote at WND.com, “For 2000 years, whenever such conflicts have arisen, Christians have placed the laws of God above the laws of men.”

The question is will Christians stand? We must.

A Trillion

We have a problem when it comes to understanding the numbers we use when talking about the trillions of dollars in government spending and our national debt. Most of us have no mental category for the word trillion. When I talk about this, I try to explain how big the number is by saying that a trillion is a thousand billion. I don’t know if that helps much. Here are some other ideas.

A few years ago, Jeremy Harper made news when he counted to one million in front of a webcam. He took sleep breaks, so it took him 89 days. But a million is really a very small number. One trillion is actually one million million. If someone wanted to count to a trillion (counting one number per second and taking no breaks), it would take 32,000 years.

Here’s another example: America has not even been around a trillion seconds. Western civilization has not been around a trillion seconds. All of recorded history is less than a trillion seconds.

To understand trillion you probably need to use examples from astronomy. How long would it take to travel a trillion miles? Even traveling at the speed of light, it would take two months. However, if you took a trillion one-dollar bills and laid them end-to-end, they would reach from the Earth to the sun.

While we are using astronomical illustrations, let’s consider our own galaxy. Our solar system is just an incredibly small part of the Milky Way galaxy. Some estimate that our galaxy has about 100 billion stars (though some say it has even more). If we use the number 100 billion, we would need ten galaxies like the Milky Way to equal a trillion stars.

I think you get the point. We have lost track of how big these numbers are. It is worth remembering the next time you hear that the federal budget is $3.5 trillion and the national debt is over $17 trillion.

Christianity on Trial

Will Christianity hold up in court? Trial lawyer Mark Lanier answers that question in his book, Christianity on Trial: A Lawyer Examines the Christian Faith. He has three decades of experience as a lawyer but also has college training in biblical languages. In the book he brings his biblical expertise and his legal background to bear on some of the foundational apologetic questions concerning Christianity.

He makes an opening statement similar to one he would make in a court of law. He argues that we (the jury) should use our common sense in evaluating the statements of the witnesses and the claims of the experts. He also reminds us that we are evaluating evidence like we would in a courtroom. What is the evidence for the proposition? What is the evidence against it?

He then takes us through many of the fundamental questions believers and skeptics have about the Christian faith. In each case he calls “witnesses” to address those questions. For the existence of a god or no god, he calls to the stand such luminaries at G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis. In order to explain the biblical view of God, we hear from the Psalmist, St. Paul, and John the Apostle.

He also addresses two important issues in our world today: truth and morality. We unfortunately live in a postmodern world that denies the existence of absolute truth. That is why he calls witnesses like Plato, Descartes, St. Paul, Anselm of Canterbury, and Augustine.

We also live in a world full of moral relativism. That is why he also writes about “Right, Wrong and the Moral God.” His witnesses here include Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Adolf Hitler.

He concludes with the resurrection. Lawyers like Frank Morrison (who wrote the book, Who Moved the Stone?) have found the evidence for the resurrection to be compelling when examined in the same way they examine evidence in a courtroom.

If you know a lawyer who is skeptical about Christianity, this might be a book you could pass on to him or her. They will find that the claims of Christianity can indeed hold up in court.

Police State

Is America becoming a police state? Veteran journalist Cheryl Chumley believes that we are and argues that in her book, Police State, USA. She is not the sort of journalist given to over-reaction. She is a full-time writer with The Washington Times. You can find her byline in articles she has written for The Washington Examiner, Blaze Magazine, American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Human Events, and Townhall Magazine. She is also a journalism fellow with The Phillips Foundation.

America, she says, has become the police state George Orwell envisioned in 1984. In fact, the intrusion into our lives is much greater than he imagined many decades ago because we have much more sophisticated technology than anyone might have predicted. The intrusions range from small things like traffic light cameras to the targeting of particular groups of people. We may roll our eyes at a Nanny State that tells us what to eat or be terrified at the militarization of our police force.

The threats come in many forms and from many places. A chapter on “Big Green Takes the Wheel” reminds us how the EPA, the Department of Interior, and the Justice Department use concern over the environment to crack down on businesses and individuals.

A chapter on “Big Business Turns Big Brother” reminds us that the threats to our privacy and the surveillance of citizens isn’t just coming from the government. Not only is government mining Big Data, but businesses are also using this information to gain a competitive edge and intrude into our lives.

In previous commentaries, I have talked about threats from drones, data collecting, and these secret governmental centers that collect such data. She also addresses these issues and adds information that should concern citizens.

Two of her solutions are to pray and to vote. She believes that a spiritual revival and awakening are necessary in America. In her chapter on “Throw the Bums Out,” she makes the case for all of us to vote intelligently for our representatives. We have a responsibility to keep America from becoming a police state.

Millennial Voters

This coming election and future elections will be influenced by the millennials who view the world differently than previous generations. A higher percentage of them have college degrees than previous generations. Because of that they are carrying heavier college loan debt than previous generations. They are also living with their parents in higher numbers because they are often struggling to find good jobs.

If you knew just these few facts, you might conclude that they would favor a free market over greater governmental intervention into the economy. Less government regulation and a free market would translate into more jobs in the private sector.

That is the conclusion you might draw from the recent headlines touting a Reason-Rupe survey of millennials. A typical headline concludes: “64 percent of millennials favor a free market over a government-controlled economy.” But if you look a little closer, you don’t find as much support for capitalism. By a narrow margin, 52 percent favor capitalism and 42 percent choose socialism.

The problem appears to be a lack of education about basic economic philosophies. A CBS/New York Times poll from a number of years ago discovered that Americans in general had a difficult time defining the word “socialism.” And of all the groups surveyed, only 16 percent of the millennials could define socialism as government ownership (or some variation). To put this in perspective, 57 percent of people who self-identified themselves as part of the Tea Party gave an adequate definition of socialism.

Millennials are also divided on whether free markets promote economic growth and development. Only a third (37%) believe a free market is the most effective in promoting economic opportunity.

Educating millennials about economic philosophies is going to be key in this and future elections. If they don’t know what socialism is and don’t know the benefits of a free market, they are unlikely to vote for candidates that will improve the economy, which will give them better jobs.

Immigration Polls

While we as a country are debating the issue of immigration, it is important to evaluate the polls being published. As I have mentioned many times in the past, the answers you receive depend in large part upon how the question is asked. A recent poll by ABC News and the Washington Post provide a good illustration of what I mean.

The headline touted that a majority of Americans support the current immigration plan offered by the president. The pollsters found that 53 percent support spending an additional $4 billion to address the humanitarian crisis at our southern border. That is true as far as it goes. But the implication in the question was that Americans were for spending the money if it is coupled with border security and deportations.

How much of that $4 billion will be spent on border security is still in dispute between the political parties. And it is fair to say that many wonder how dedicated the administration is to border security. Deeper in the poll was the conclusion that a majority (58%) of Americans disapproved of the president’s handling of immigration.

Another example would be the Gallup poll a few months ago that found that “border security and immigrant status were equally important.” In other words, there were as many Americans who wanted a plan to deal with the large number of immigrants already living here in America, as there were those who wanted to halt the flow of illegal immigrants in this country. Typically border security rates at least ten points higher than Congress developing a path for citizenship for illegal aliens.

That poll probably reflected the mistaken belief that the border was secure and that it was now time to focus on what to do with those who are here. Of course, the events of the last few months show that the border is far from secure. When given the choice, Americans still believe that border security is the first priority. That is why we need to view all of these polls on immigration with some discernment.