The Best Way to Visualize the U.S. Debt

Recently, Power Line ran a contest to award $100,000 to the person who could best show the federal debt through visual, audio, or other media. They have yet to publicize the winner, but I think the one I would choose is from a website called usdebt.kleptocracy.com.

The size of U.S. debt is staggering.

I was recently joking with my brother-in-law that I have become so cynical about this issue, that I just hope society is still functioning in December 2013 so I can see the complete movie of The Hobbit.

A Theological Case for a Low Tax Rate

There is no phrase that is more of a trojan horse in the religious arena than "social justice". It’s a term that is used to give cover to groups trying desperately to bring left-wing political ideas into the church. Most “contemporary” Christian churches have social justice groups that are always trying to convince their congregations to the political left. I’ve read quite a bit of the Bible, and I’ve attended weekly mass my whole life, and I’ve never heard anything that makes me think it is the church’s business to ask politicians to take money from person A and give it to person B. In fact, I think there is a clearer theological case to be made for a low tax rate.

My argument starts with the biblical idea of tithing: giving to God 10 percent of what you have. Though the tithe has not been uniform throughout the years, the idea of giving to God has always been a part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Also, though some argue for a giving that is less than 10 percent, I’ve never seen evidence that a tithe was ever expected to be more than 10 percent of anyone’s income, whether rich or poor. When the state extracts too much of our income, it makes it difficult for the conscientious believer to give 10 percent to God.

Along with tithing, I think the first commandment has some bearing on this argument: “I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me.” As a child, I thought that this is one of the easiest commandments to keep. Who in the modern world would ever make a golden calf and dance around it? As an adult, it occurs to me that this is the most often transgressed commandment: everything I desire I get. My question, then, is this: does the state become a kind of god when we are forced by law to give it more than we give to God? It seems to me that the answer to this question is yes. How do we change this? By advocating for a moral tax rate that places our priorities in order. God comes first, country comes second.

In the United States, most people pay a federal income tax, a state income tax, and various local taxes (city and county). I would like to make the theological argument that in any one area—federal, state, or local—taxes should be less than 10 percent. I am all for a progressive tax rate, but I also believe that taxes should be paid by anyone that makes any money during a particular year. Therefore, my tax proposition would be a federal rate on income between .5% and 9.5%; a state tax rate set by each state, but not exceeding 10%; and local taxes not exceeding 10%—no tax credits, no loopholes, no deductions. Added together, this would make top earners pay up to 30% of what they make in a year in taxes, depending on where they live. I think that is about all a government can take from any person and still consider that person to be a citizen of a free country.

Thoughts on Looking at a Graph

Sometimes there is clarity in looking at an image. In a recent case for me, it’s in looking at a graphic. The Federal Spending Chart shows two lines on an X/Y graph: dollars and the last 45 years. In this graph, we can easily see federal spending and compare it to federal revenue. When the blue line is above the red line, we have a deficit. When the red line is above the blue line, we have a surplus.

If you track the first nine years, spending and revenue are very close to each other. It seems that there was a general consensus that we spend what we bring in. The next eight years show a slight separation between the two lines—we are spending more than we are taking in, but the deficit still looks reasonable. For the next sixteen years, there is quite a large deficit. Spending is rising, but revenues are not keeping up. Then around 1994, revenues jump up and spending slows, allowing us by 1997 to begin a time of surplus, which lasts about 5 years. Around 2002, with revenues nose-diving, spending increases quite a bit. The gap closes a again toward 2007 before going completely out of whack. Revenues dive and then flat-line and spending jumps dramatically.

I often argue that debt itself is not the worst thing. Like a family with a credit card, we can sometimes be in debt. The key is that the debt cannot be overwhelming. It’s never been at a crisis situation until the last four years. I think it is shocking to see the yearly deficit over the last four years.

It would be interesting to see this graph extending back before 1965, but even without that shown, I can still guess that the last four years are unprecedented in our history. I cannot think that this can continue for very long.

Conservatives are often maligned as being against government entirely. We are presented with the false choice of being for Democratic levels of spending, or being for no government whatsoever. But in looking at this graph, I can easily argue for increased spending year after year. I just want spending to stay in line with revenue. I truly believe that if we keep spending to things that are necessary and keep tax rates low, we will have plenty of money to cover all our debts and to balance the budget each year. The green line on the chart is my addition to show a reasonable, or even generous, growth in spending.

There is nothing moral about kicking this can down the road. It seems to me that our succeeding generations will not think very highly of the mess we left them to clean up.

Researched-Based Idiocy

I've been thinking recently about the "genderless baby" in Toronto. The parents have three children, and they've decided not to reveal the gender of the youngest to anyone, including parents and aunts and uncles. After an article appeared in the Toronto Star, it became a fifteen minutes of fame item that was linked and commented on around the Internet and talk shows. Shortly after all this attention, the mother, Kathy Witterick wrote an editorial that was very interesting.

In it, you can see all the idiocies of the modern, clueless leftie. These are people that actually believe the theoretical crap that is spouted by the modern university. In particular, she kept coming back to the idea of research-based ideas. It is so important to understand that research is often done to back up a preconceived idea, and especially in the soft-sciences you can make the research say anything you want. I generally agree with Dennis Prager: if a study doesn't confirm what common sense tells me, then I don't put much faith in the study.

But even more so, it is interesting that as the modern liberal gives up on traditional values and mores, they have to put their faith somewhere, and that somewhere is science, even when the "science" is laughable. So you end up with the canon of research-based idiocies and an idea that centuries of common sense is nothing more than ingrained prejudices.

Here are a few bits from her opinion piece:

I re-read the research and approaches of Alfie Kohn, Barbara Coloroso, and Adele Faber to find ways to support him. The firm rule around self image became: it has to be clean and healthy, but you can choose the colours and the lengths.

When encountering a parenting question, go to research of credentialed goofballs, and then call their conclusions a "firm rule."

And if you really mean what you say about being kind, honouring difference, having an open mind and placing limits thoughtfully where they help children develop competencies and be safe, then you better walk the talk.

Maybe instead of having an open mind and honoring difference, you should act like a parent. You are the parent of these kids, not their friends and not their difference-honorers.

It is true and demonstrated in research and in the day to day world that strict gender stereotyping causes suffering to both men and women.

Here is the seed of all her confusion. Witterick takes it as a self-evident truth that "strict gender stereotyping causes suffering to both men and women." She builds her parenting on this idea. Common sense says that this is idiocy, but I'm sure she could point me to countless, research-based articles that would back up her claim. More is the pity.

More accurately, we have received many letters that include intelligent, heartfelt, research and experience based support for the idea.

Along with the elevation of research is the elevation of experience. Experience is important, no doubt, but you can travel the world and still not know anything—or gain any common sense.

In my heart of hearts, I squirm when my son picks a dress from the rack (won’t people tease him?), even though I know from experience and research that the argument that children need a binary gender orthodoxy taught to them in order to feel safe is simply incorrect.

Here, we see that even in someone as far gone down the leftward path as Witterick has gone, still has the kernel of common sense deep in her heart. I can only hope that in time that her "heart of hearts" wins out, and she puts her blind faith in "experience and research" about binary gender orthodoxy aside, and becomes the best mother she can be for her kids.

I certainly couldn't say it any better than a commenter "Jacob" did.

Sex determines the nature of our minds just as it determines the shape of the body. Whatever it is between the child's legs, what is between the parents' ears is certainly bollocks.