There is something disturbing about Barack Obama. I have been trying to put words to it. It is not merely that I disagree with him on his political prescriptions. There are many people, across the political spectrum, with whom I disagree on political policies and programs, even those for whom I used to work. With only a relative handful of them, however, have I sensed the same disquiet that I feel with regard to this year’s Democrat nominee for President.
After the recent presidential debate between Obama and Republican candidate John McCain I found the right words. Obama is a con artist. Fundamentally, he is acting in a deceptive way to get something from you. He wants you to believe that he has your best interests at heart so that he can get from you your precious vote. He pretends to be what he is not, because if you understood what he is all about, you would not vote for him.
Take, for example, his tax policies. Barack Obama promises a tax cut for 95% of the population. He is offering you a financial incentive for your vote. He is offering to buy your vote. He does not tell you that many of those people for whom he promises a tax cut do not pay any federal income taxes. A tax cut to people who do not pay taxes is just a government hand out. And he usually tries to hide the fact that this hand out to people who do not pay taxes is coming from you. We should not be so willing to believe that you can tax just 5% of the people in order to give a tax break to the other 95%—especially if many of the 95% do not pay any income taxes. You cannot get there, even if you try to take all of the money of the “rich,” and once that is gone what do you do for the next act?
If you own your own business, chances are very high that your business is taxed like an individual and that the revenues for that business will be classified as the “rich” that Obama says he thinks need to pay more taxes. Or perhaps you have some investments in the stock market—half of all Americans do. When those rich companies pay the new Obama taxes, that money comes out of the hides of the companies’ shareholders. Moreover, raising taxes into the teeth of an economic decline is a certain recipe for accelerating the decline. That is what Hoover did, and what Franklin Roosevelt did in order to make an economic recession last for a whole decade (eventually history should recognize that FDR was the worst president of the 20th Century—even if he could talk a good game).
A second example follows directly from the tax example. After he is finished talking about tax cuts (on people who do not pay taxes), Obama starts his litany of very expensive new government spending programs. The price tag for these comes to some $800 billion, give or take a hundred billion dollars. Each program is carefully designed to buy votes. Not only do his tax cuts not work as real tax cuts—taken by themselves—they cannot possibly work in the face of $800 billion of new federal spending.
The third example is really the most prominent. Barack Obama says that this is all “change.” He says you should vote for change, because he thinks that you want change and that his promise for change will get you to give him your vote. If you believe that major tax increases and massive new government spending programs are change, maybe he will succeed in getting many votes. But maybe people will say that they have heard that formula before, and whenever it is applied the nation always becomes poorer.
Barack Obama looks good, talks smooth, promises everything. If he loses this race for President, maybe he could try his hand selling used cars.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Of Guaranties and Reliance
All around the world people are seeking guaranties against the various risks of life. Borrowers want guaranties that they can stay in their houses, even if they cannot pay the mortgage; lenders want guaranties that they will not lose money on bad mortgages; investors want guaranties against bad investments; people living at the water’s edge want guaranties against floods; and even people making guaranties are looking for guaranties that they will not lose money on the guaranties that they have made to others. Guaranties of health, guaranties of wealth, guaranties of safety and happiness, all seem to be in ever increasing demand.
Perhaps what is most disturbing is that people are not just seeking guaranties, but they are looking for others to pay for them. Rather than relying upon their own resources and performance to obtain guaranties, too many are substituting pleas and moans and whines to wheedle free guaranties from others, especially from the government.
In practice, many of these guaranties will fail. Even guaranties from government are unreliable. I recall when a Senator for whom I worked was faced by an agitated constituent, complaining that a government agency reneged on a promise. There was not anything that the Senator could do about the situation, other than to remind the constituent of an important truth about government: they lied.
There is a source of reliable, faithfully honored guaranties. The ancient American prophet Mormon taught a congregation of Christians, “the way whereby ye may lay hold on every good thing.” The way is through faith on Jesus Christ, by whom people from the beginning of time obtained all things worth having, “and thus through faith, they did lay hold upon every good thing” (Moroni 7:21,25).
Unlike many of the guaranties of men and governments, these guaranties are sure, and they also require some reliance by the individual upon his own efforts in order to qualify. In modern times the Savior Jesus Christ has said, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” (Doctrine and Covenants 82:10)
The qualifying requirements are not onerous. They relate directly to the promises sought. For guaranties of goodness, the Lord asks us to be kind. For guaranties of financial wellbeing, the Lord asks us to follow practices of financial prudence. For guaranties of happy family life, the Lord asks that we love and serve each other. That is to say, to obtain the Lord’s sure guaranties, we are asked to rely jointly upon ourselves and upon the Lord.
The result was summed up by the counsel of another ancient American prophet, Helaman, that he gave to his own sons:
And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall. (Helaman 5:12)
That is a guaranty worth having, and well within the budget of each one of us.
Perhaps what is most disturbing is that people are not just seeking guaranties, but they are looking for others to pay for them. Rather than relying upon their own resources and performance to obtain guaranties, too many are substituting pleas and moans and whines to wheedle free guaranties from others, especially from the government.
In practice, many of these guaranties will fail. Even guaranties from government are unreliable. I recall when a Senator for whom I worked was faced by an agitated constituent, complaining that a government agency reneged on a promise. There was not anything that the Senator could do about the situation, other than to remind the constituent of an important truth about government: they lied.
There is a source of reliable, faithfully honored guaranties. The ancient American prophet Mormon taught a congregation of Christians, “the way whereby ye may lay hold on every good thing.” The way is through faith on Jesus Christ, by whom people from the beginning of time obtained all things worth having, “and thus through faith, they did lay hold upon every good thing” (Moroni 7:21,25).
Unlike many of the guaranties of men and governments, these guaranties are sure, and they also require some reliance by the individual upon his own efforts in order to qualify. In modern times the Savior Jesus Christ has said, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” (Doctrine and Covenants 82:10)
The qualifying requirements are not onerous. They relate directly to the promises sought. For guaranties of goodness, the Lord asks us to be kind. For guaranties of financial wellbeing, the Lord asks us to follow practices of financial prudence. For guaranties of happy family life, the Lord asks that we love and serve each other. That is to say, to obtain the Lord’s sure guaranties, we are asked to rely jointly upon ourselves and upon the Lord.
The result was summed up by the counsel of another ancient American prophet, Helaman, that he gave to his own sons:
And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall. (Helaman 5:12)
That is a guaranty worth having, and well within the budget of each one of us.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Of New Scripture and Modern Prophets
Some critics of The Book of Mormon and of modern revelation cite Revelation 22:18,19 as warning against any additional scripture beyond the Bible. Those verses read as follows:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
This scripture is clear, and it is important to all of us. There are, however, many things wrong with the argument of those who would draw upon this passage to silence the God of the universe and to quash divine scripture—whether ancient or modern—of which they might not approve.
First of all, it should be pointed out that the Lord through Moses said a similar thing way back in Deuteronomy 4:2:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
This passage of scripture is also clear, and the same principle is as important to us today as it was to the ancient people of Israel. It is the same principle that the Lord spoke through John: no man is authorized to take it upon himself to alter the word of God.
It seems absurd to think that these passages mean that the Lord must be muzzled and that nothing can be added to the canon of scripture. That would make for a very short Bible--not only nothing after Revelation (which was not the last book of the Bible to be written), but nothing after Deuteronomy.
That must have been clear to the early saints in the decades following the Savior’s ascension into heaven, the ones who put the Bible together many years after the Revelation of John was written. It was these who chose to include in the Bible parts of the New Testament written after the Revelation of John.
Second, how could the misinterpretation of Revelation 22:18,19 be applied to object to The Book of Mormon, since most of The Book of Mormon was written in centuries before John wrote Revelation? Would this misinterpretation apply to any other ancient records of the word of God that might be discovered? Much better, it seems to me, to rejoice at receiving more of the word of God.
Which brings me to the real meaning of these passages in Revelation and Deuteronomy. It is also the plain reading of the language. Both of these passages emphasize the principle that man should not add to or take away anything from the word of God. They say nothing against God adding to His own word if He chooses to do so. It would be pretentious, if not blasphemous, to assert that God could not add to His own word.
If, then, man is prohibited from adding to the word of God, but God is not prohibited from adding to the scriptures, how would God do it? He would do it the same way that He gave us Deuteronomy and Revelation and all of the scripture that He has revealed since. He would act through “holy men of God”, as Peter explained, who reveal the word of God “as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21) Who would presume to deny such inspired utterances?
It was exactly through such inspired men that the Bible was written, as was The Book of Mormon. In this same way, God speaks to man and adds to His scriptures in modern times.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
This scripture is clear, and it is important to all of us. There are, however, many things wrong with the argument of those who would draw upon this passage to silence the God of the universe and to quash divine scripture—whether ancient or modern—of which they might not approve.
First of all, it should be pointed out that the Lord through Moses said a similar thing way back in Deuteronomy 4:2:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
This passage of scripture is also clear, and the same principle is as important to us today as it was to the ancient people of Israel. It is the same principle that the Lord spoke through John: no man is authorized to take it upon himself to alter the word of God.
It seems absurd to think that these passages mean that the Lord must be muzzled and that nothing can be added to the canon of scripture. That would make for a very short Bible--not only nothing after Revelation (which was not the last book of the Bible to be written), but nothing after Deuteronomy.
That must have been clear to the early saints in the decades following the Savior’s ascension into heaven, the ones who put the Bible together many years after the Revelation of John was written. It was these who chose to include in the Bible parts of the New Testament written after the Revelation of John.
Second, how could the misinterpretation of Revelation 22:18,19 be applied to object to The Book of Mormon, since most of The Book of Mormon was written in centuries before John wrote Revelation? Would this misinterpretation apply to any other ancient records of the word of God that might be discovered? Much better, it seems to me, to rejoice at receiving more of the word of God.
Which brings me to the real meaning of these passages in Revelation and Deuteronomy. It is also the plain reading of the language. Both of these passages emphasize the principle that man should not add to or take away anything from the word of God. They say nothing against God adding to His own word if He chooses to do so. It would be pretentious, if not blasphemous, to assert that God could not add to His own word.
If, then, man is prohibited from adding to the word of God, but God is not prohibited from adding to the scriptures, how would God do it? He would do it the same way that He gave us Deuteronomy and Revelation and all of the scripture that He has revealed since. He would act through “holy men of God”, as Peter explained, who reveal the word of God “as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21) Who would presume to deny such inspired utterances?
It was exactly through such inspired men that the Bible was written, as was The Book of Mormon. In this same way, God speaks to man and adds to His scriptures in modern times.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Of Borrowing and Saving
The basic rule is, if you are not already saving, then you are not ready to borrow. This may sound paradoxical, but it is the only safe way to approach borrowing.
You may wonder, if I have savings, then why would I borrow? That question may be answered in any number of ways. Asking it suggests some lack of understanding of the proper purpose of borrowing.
The proper purpose of borrowing is to manage your income. You should never borrow to spend beyond your income.
Most people receive income in lumps, like once a month or twice a month. Expenses do not always behave themselves that way. First, there are the every day expenses, such as for food, transportation, and a wide range of miscellaneous minor expenditures that quickly add up. Then there are other expenses that occur monthly and may more or less happen at about the same time as your income. A third category is the big expenditure, that may come once or twice a year, such as tuition, taxes, major purchases, insurance premiums. Since the timing of our income and outgo often do not line up, we use borrowing to help bring the two into line.
For example, the tuition is due in September, but you plan to pay for college by working through the school year. A student loan or other borrowing arrangement with the college can line your income up with the expense.
Another example might involve a big appliance. Your refrigerator breaks down and you need a new one. You may not usually have several hundred dollars of unallocated income available in any one month to pay for the new refrigerator, but you likely will over the course of a year. Borrowing lets you draw that income from the course of the year into your current month and match it against this large purchase needed today.
Here is a bigger example. You need a new car, both for family transportation and perhaps even for travel to work. Very few people have enough ready income to buy the new car with what will be received in any one month. Most people, though, can draw upon funds available from their income over the course of a few years to pay for the car, and borrowing is the tool that they can use to do that.
Of course, this borrowing from the future to pay for something today can be abused. There is a natural temptation common to man to seek gratification today and worry about tomorrow’s problems tomorrow, even while causing them today. Two things can help counter this potential for abuse. One is interest, and the other is saving.
Interest is what we pay for borrowing. While rewarding the lender, it is a penalty against anyone who borrows in order to spend beyond his income. As you spend beyond your income, the interest mounts. In the end, it will bring down the abuser once the abuse has gone too far and gets out of hand.
Saving is a more benign and effective check on the impulse to borrow in order to spend beyond income. If you are regularly saving, you are doing something even more important than preparing for the future and reaping the rewards from lending to other borrowers. By definition, if you are saving, you are living within your income. You are taking part of your income and putting it aside. That discipline is what is needed to prevent you from using borrowing to exceed your income. You have a proven practice of spending less than you earn.
That is why I say that if you are saving, then you are prepared to borrow, and if you are not saving, then you are either living right on the edge—spending your income as fast as it is received—or you are going beyond, borrowing to spend beyond what you earn, and that leads to trouble. Then you will be spending to consume something that you did not earn and do not deserve. The eventual price for that is loss of freedom, as you must in the future consume much less than you earn in order to satisfy the debts.
You may wonder, if I have savings, then why would I borrow? That question may be answered in any number of ways. Asking it suggests some lack of understanding of the proper purpose of borrowing.
The proper purpose of borrowing is to manage your income. You should never borrow to spend beyond your income.
Most people receive income in lumps, like once a month or twice a month. Expenses do not always behave themselves that way. First, there are the every day expenses, such as for food, transportation, and a wide range of miscellaneous minor expenditures that quickly add up. Then there are other expenses that occur monthly and may more or less happen at about the same time as your income. A third category is the big expenditure, that may come once or twice a year, such as tuition, taxes, major purchases, insurance premiums. Since the timing of our income and outgo often do not line up, we use borrowing to help bring the two into line.
For example, the tuition is due in September, but you plan to pay for college by working through the school year. A student loan or other borrowing arrangement with the college can line your income up with the expense.
Another example might involve a big appliance. Your refrigerator breaks down and you need a new one. You may not usually have several hundred dollars of unallocated income available in any one month to pay for the new refrigerator, but you likely will over the course of a year. Borrowing lets you draw that income from the course of the year into your current month and match it against this large purchase needed today.
Here is a bigger example. You need a new car, both for family transportation and perhaps even for travel to work. Very few people have enough ready income to buy the new car with what will be received in any one month. Most people, though, can draw upon funds available from their income over the course of a few years to pay for the car, and borrowing is the tool that they can use to do that.
Of course, this borrowing from the future to pay for something today can be abused. There is a natural temptation common to man to seek gratification today and worry about tomorrow’s problems tomorrow, even while causing them today. Two things can help counter this potential for abuse. One is interest, and the other is saving.
Interest is what we pay for borrowing. While rewarding the lender, it is a penalty against anyone who borrows in order to spend beyond his income. As you spend beyond your income, the interest mounts. In the end, it will bring down the abuser once the abuse has gone too far and gets out of hand.
Saving is a more benign and effective check on the impulse to borrow in order to spend beyond income. If you are regularly saving, you are doing something even more important than preparing for the future and reaping the rewards from lending to other borrowers. By definition, if you are saving, you are living within your income. You are taking part of your income and putting it aside. That discipline is what is needed to prevent you from using borrowing to exceed your income. You have a proven practice of spending less than you earn.
That is why I say that if you are saving, then you are prepared to borrow, and if you are not saving, then you are either living right on the edge—spending your income as fast as it is received—or you are going beyond, borrowing to spend beyond what you earn, and that leads to trouble. Then you will be spending to consume something that you did not earn and do not deserve. The eventual price for that is loss of freedom, as you must in the future consume much less than you earn in order to satisfy the debts.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Of Change and Repentance
An observation or two about change and repentance are in order. I say this in light of the unethical exploitation by Democrats, liberals, and their allied media voices, of the sorrows of a teenage girl who happens to be the daughter of a candidate for vice president. The young girl—who is not a candidate for any political office—deserves nothing but concern, support, and an encouraging hand, which are best provided by her family and those close to her. That is where the matter should be left, and the rest of the world should bow out.
Similar situations are faced by many families today (without the political exploitation), so in that general context I offer a thought about our attitude toward those who have confronted and overcome life’s sorrowful missteps. One of the greatest gifts that God has provided to His children is the opportunity to change. Change for the better is called repentance. It is made possible by the atonement of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I penned a brief allegory that goes something like this.
A runner once broke his leg, which was broken through a careless act of his own. Understandably, it greatly pained him. He was also deeply disappointed. He went to a doctor to have it treated. The doctor set the bones and put the leg in a cast.
Of course, everyone knew he had a broken leg, because they could see the cast. There was some embarrassing chatter about how the leg was broken.
After some time the bones healed. The doctor removed the cast.
Is it not right for the man to run and jump and walk upright? Or should he continue to hobble as if his leg had never been mended? Shall he not once again enter the race, and if he wins should he be denied the prize?
Putting behind us the memories and reminders of overcome errors is an essential part of repentance, a part that allows us not only to change but to go forward fully healed. As Jesus Christ has said in modern days, “Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42)
What the Lord has forgotten, does man have any business remembering?
Similar situations are faced by many families today (without the political exploitation), so in that general context I offer a thought about our attitude toward those who have confronted and overcome life’s sorrowful missteps. One of the greatest gifts that God has provided to His children is the opportunity to change. Change for the better is called repentance. It is made possible by the atonement of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I penned a brief allegory that goes something like this.
A runner once broke his leg, which was broken through a careless act of his own. Understandably, it greatly pained him. He was also deeply disappointed. He went to a doctor to have it treated. The doctor set the bones and put the leg in a cast.
Of course, everyone knew he had a broken leg, because they could see the cast. There was some embarrassing chatter about how the leg was broken.
After some time the bones healed. The doctor removed the cast.
Is it not right for the man to run and jump and walk upright? Or should he continue to hobble as if his leg had never been mended? Shall he not once again enter the race, and if he wins should he be denied the prize?
Putting behind us the memories and reminders of overcome errors is an essential part of repentance, a part that allows us not only to change but to go forward fully healed. As Jesus Christ has said in modern days, “Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42)
What the Lord has forgotten, does man have any business remembering?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)