The day I became a fiscal conservative
It was the fall of 1981. The United States was coming out of a recession. Ronald Reagan had been president since January. Among his first acts in the White House had been to dramatically cut spending for social programs.
And the woman sitting next to me on an airplane was not happy about it.
I was sitting on the aisle, and she had the window. She worked for an organization called Camp Fire Girls, now called Camp Fire USA, and she couldn’t stand Ronald Reagan. I wanted to know why. She described an after-school program she ran that served hundreds of poor children. I remember thinking then that it sounded like a worthwhile endeavor. The program had received about $100,000—almost its entire budget—from the federal government. Reagan had eliminated that funding.
In 1981 I was a young man whose thinking was in a state of transition. In 1976 I had voted for Jimmy Carter, but in 1980 I pulled the lever for Reagan, in part because I thought Carter had shown general incompetency regarding economic matters. I had graduated from college in 1980, in the midst of the Carter Recession. I then spent more than a year in a series of part-time and temporary jobs, all the while looking for full-time employment. I had voted for Reagan not so much because I was a conscious part of the “Reagan Revolution,” but because—like many who voted for Barack Obama in 2008—I was hoping for change.
So when this Camp Fire Girl leader started railing against Reagan, I offered no defense. “That’s terrible,” I said. “Sorry that program got eliminated. What do you do now?”
“Oh,” she said. “I still run the program.”
I was confused. “I thought you said Reagan eliminated the program,” I said.
“We weren’t going to give him the satisfaction,” she said defiantly. “So we started raising money.”
She described how local corporations pitched in. Plus, lots of individuals. They held fund-raisers. They even asked the parents whose daughters participated in the program to pay a little, to give them a stake in what was being accomplished. As she told this story, I could hear the excitement and pride rising in her voice. She said the after-school program now had a budget of almost $250,000, more twice what the federal government had cut. It was serving more girls than ever. In fact, she said she was on her way to speak at a conference to discuss the program’s success.
“Well,” I said, emboldened by her story to make a feeble defense, “it sounds like Ronald Reagan was the best thing that ever happened to that program.”
She became indignant, pointing out how many more students they could be serving with the government money plus all this new money.
“Yes, but would you have gone after the new money if you didn’t have to?” I asked. “Didn’t those cuts provide the motivation?”
“We were planning to start raising money anyway,” she affirmed. “Those cuts had nothing to do with it.”
I was unconvinced. I was raised in the South, where rural wisdom teaches that “fixin’ to do something” and actually doing it are two different things. In fact, there’s an old riddle that goes like this: Q: There’s five frogs on a log and one of them decides to jump. How many frogs are left? A: Five. Because deciding to jump ain’t the same as actually jumping.
Today I am more convinced than ever that Reagan’s cuts likely had everything to do with that woman and her colleagues finding the motivation to go out and find the money. But more than that, those cuts—and what happened next—gave all involved in the process a sense of dignity, empowerment, and self-determination. I could clearly hear it in this woman’s story and in the very tone of her voice, though ironically she could not.
Over the years I have often thought about this chance encounter on an airplane, and today I consider that meeting as the day I became a fiscal conservative. It’s the day I discovered that economics is not just about math; it’s about motivation. Debits, credits, ledgers, and spreadsheets matter, but so do determination and leadership. Sound, moral economic policy must take the foibles and folly of a fallen human nature into account, and must have human dignity—an understanding that we are all made in the image of God—as its goal. It took me years to be able to describe that lesson in this way, but I am convinced that it was on that day in 1981 that I first learned it.
All these years later, I have no idea where that Camp Fire Girl is, but if I did I might ask her to sit around the campfire with me and eat a s’more (if they still do that sort of thing) so I could shake her hand and say “thank you.”

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top85 Comments to “The day I became a fiscal conservative”
It was the fall of 1980. I was a college freshman sitting in an American History class. The professor (teacher’s assistant, actually) was bemoaning the results of the November election.
I’ll never forget his analysis: “There’s a lot at stake in the next few years, and I’ll tell you what. It doesn’t look good.”
Funny thing was, except for his political views, he was a pretty good teacher.
Report comment to moderator
I went to a community college in the early 80s. Our govt textbook was written by an avowed Marxist named Michael Parenti. If you ignore or deny our fallen flawed human nature, the Marxian viewpoint has much appeal.
For reasons very similar to Mr Cole-Smith, I recognized the flawed assumptions of liberalism. I recall seeing Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman on an episode of Donohue. It ultimately came down to Friedman asking the question Phil could not answer. Donohue had bemoaned greed and other vices of free enterprise. Professor Friedman then asked who we all could trust to oversee a benevolent state that would equitably “redistribute” wealth.
There is no such person or group of people. And as Bary Goldwater reminded us “Federal funding equals Federal control”.
Report comment to moderator
Great column! I really enjoyed your insight!
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, good story!
Report comment to moderator
A great pitfall of liberalism’s agenda is no liberal politician will ever acknowledge a program either failed, succeeded or is no longer needed. Once you start spending on XYZ program the expectation is that the program and its GS employees will have a mission in perpetuity. I understand that even in developed urban heavily populated areas the Dept of Agriculture still maintains offices. What percentage of Americans now work in Ag? Enough to justify an entire cabinet office??
Report comment to moderator
It was the fall of 1976. My father, a rare conservative import from Canada, looked forward to the first US election he could participate in as a US citizen. He came home from our small-town polling place, and said he’d pulled the lever for … Jimmy Carter?!?! He sheepishly admitted he’d pulled the wrong lever. I was only 10, so I couldn’t negate his vote with mine. Mom couldn’t either, because she wasn’t a naturalized citizen; besides she’d probably vote for Carter. So his vote stood, and in the next election cycle, he threw his support 100% behind Ronnie Reagan.
Was it story telling time?
Report comment to moderator
If you graduated in Spring 1980 then unemployment was either 7.5% (May) or 7.6% (June). It peaked at 7.8% in July 1980. The following double-dip (July 1981 – Nov 1982) saw a peak of 10.8%, but that was entirely on Reagan’s watch. You can argue that it wasn’t his fault and was impossible to prevent, but then that begs the question of whether the initial recession was even Carter’s fault. Or, for that matter, whether Obama any real ability to do anything about the recession he inherited from Bush.
The lowest unemployment at any time during Reagan’s presidency was 5.4% towards the end. That’s not so very different from the 7.5-7.6% you saw when you graduated. In fact, unemployment was above 7% as late as July 1986 in Reagan’s second term.
Report comment to moderator
Great story. That Camp Fire Girls leader apparently would have preferred to have less money and not have to work for it than to have two and a half times the money but have to work for it. We see much the same mentality among many on welfare programs.
You wonder about which programs were really just deadwood and couldn’t find anyone who really cared if they went on so finally ended.
Sawgunner,
Did you know that most welfare programs are run through the Dept of Ag? (food related) Few of the funds spent by the Dept of Ag are farmer related.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
You are right that the results of economic actions has a lag time. Obama is not responsible for the start of this downturn, just the bad decisions he made since he came to office. I especially fault him for the money he funneled to his cronies through ’stimulus funds’, the uncertainty he has caused in the market, the greatly increased regulatory burden he has forced on business, and Obamacare (which is a great shadow of uncertainty and expense to most businesses.)
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been reading the book Boomerang about the financial collapse around the world taking down whole nations like Iceland, Greece, Ireland and so on.
The fundamental problem is how the financial system works. For example, you can invest with assets you don’t have and can insure yourself on other people’s property. And banks can take huge risks knowing that the taxpayers will bail them out when they fail.
Well, for these smaller countries, the burden was too great. Even the taxpayer could not bail them out and then the whole system collapses.
Lots of candidates are talking about “smaller government”, but only one is talking about fixing the actual problem with the banking system, but Ron Paul can never win. And so, no matter who we elect, America is going down, since they refuse to address the actual problem.
Report comment to moderator
“…and Obamacare (which is a great shadow of uncertainty and expense to most businesses.)”
You can say that again. I hold a great deal of ire for the fools that voted in that stupid bill. My premiums for my former health insurance policy were due to increase 35% this year. As it is, I had to drop that policy three teirs down just to keep it a current premium levels. My agent says that on average, all the premiums on insurance policies he represents have increased 20%.
And the great thing? The “free” screenings that the new healthcare bill mandates, are free…. until they aren’t.
So I’m getting to pay for the free stuff, and the increase in premiums, because of this healthcare bill.
Cheaper?
I ain’t seen cheaper.
Report comment to moderator
Here is and example of the philosophy at the Fed that led to the financial collapse:
Did you catch that? They are still trying to boost the housing market and are specifically calling for taxpayers to bear even greater losses in order to stoke a broader recovery.
Huh? Specifically giving people loans they cannot repay has nothing to do with recovery of anything. It is wealth redistribution pure and simple. Mortgage defaults is not the road to recovery.
Report comment to moderator
I really enjoyed your storyj 5en and can relate completely. I had just graduated with an MBA in 1981. Very bleak job prospects! It took me 9 more months to land just a trainee job. I too had voted in Carter in 76 and voted for Reagan in 80…Carter had such poor leadership and no answers. What I knew about Reagan is that he had spine and lots of answers. I pray to God we can elect another “fiscal conservative with spine” to the WH this year AND a more conservative house and senate to start to get us out of the mess we’re in. We cannot afford another 4 years of Obama nor a weak-kneed RINO presidency. I don’t see another Reagan in the field of Republican candidates. Whoever is elected must be able to work quickly to turn this ship away from the catastrophic results we will see under the current Obama policy direction. God help us!
Report comment to moderator
Great story!
Report comment to moderator
Now if we could only get the Church off “the take”…
Report comment to moderator
Warren’s cute little just-so story is nice and all, but it’s really misleading. Not all needs for money can be solved with volunteer efforts and fundraising.
In his case, he’s talking about a volunteer organization with a wide reach into the community and the ability to talk a lot of donors into donating a little each so that it adds up. It’s nice, and it can happen.
But imagine a different scenario. Imagine the woman on the plane had a mother with a chronic disease who needs ongoing, unending medical care. She’s uninsured because she can’t work, and “Obamacare” doesn’t exist so insurers don’t have to take her on due to her pre-existing condition.
Do you think a few fundraisers is going to meet that need?
Report comment to moderator
Exactly, Conan, you can’t get people to donate to all the projects YOU THINK THEY SHOULD, so you TAKE THEIR MONEY and MAKE THEM “donate”.
Imagine, they might have donated to their own favorite charity, which doesn’t deserve to get money unless the gov’t says so.
Report comment to moderator
Large Problem here, Mr. Smith. Reagan exploded the budget — and for good reason. I was a national lab when it came down that war game models indicated we could end the cold war by driving the Soviets to the verge of economic collapse with massive spending that they eventually couldn’t match.
Money was pulled from everywhere, and then the rest was borrowed, ballooning the deficit. The message was “we don’t care how its spent as long as the Soviets have to match it.” Result was end of the cold war, as the models predicted; and a huge national debt, also predicted.
Reagan’s legacy is winning the cold war, not being a fiscal conservative. You’re living in lala land, Mr. Smith, if you look at Reagan as a model of fiscal conservatism — and clearly, you don’t know your history.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – I don’t understand why you believe that conservatives delight in other peoples’ misery. Beginning with the “widows in need” (1 Tim 5), Christians have made provision for the types of things you are talking about.
Report comment to moderator
TWH — Christianity and conservatism are two entirely different things. Christianity is all about love for God. Conservatism is all about the love of money.
Conservatism is no more biblical than socialism. I imagine God prefers Buddhist Christians (they do exist) to conservative Christians. Better to mix love of God with devotion to humility than to mix the love of God with the love of money.
Report comment to moderator
JHenley
I assume you are talking about fiscal conservatism since social conservatism is about moral values which in the US closely relates to Christian values.
I assume you are talking about fiscal conservatism when you say ‘Conservatism is all about the love of money.’ But fiscal conservatism is not all about the love of money. Yes it does deal with money (and goods) just as fiscal liberalism deals with money and goods. Don’t forget that Jesus talked about money many times. And there are aspects of both that are Christian.
The problem is when the government (as apposed to individuals) practice liberalism it results in abuse, dependency, laziness and a feeling of entitlement. It is not compassionate to lead people into these states.
When governments practice fiscal conservatism they don’t become a burden on the people. Remember the Bible chronicles the split of the Jewish state when Solomon’s heir chose policies of fiscal liberalism.
Report comment to moderator
Just as I figured. When a conservative hears the truth about conservatism, they got nothing to say. Try reading a bible sometime, how about. James 4/5 maybe. Experts in greed but ignorant of God — that is what a conservative is.
Mr. Smith. If you see Camp Fire Girl, tell her we needed that money to beat the commies. Guess you would welcome taking away all that free cash the defense contracters are still getting to defeat communism, huh. You being a fiscal conservative and all, they can raise money another way, can’t they!
Report comment to moderator
JHENLEY – Sorry I should have been clear that mine were two separate statements:
1. The deeply mistaken belief that conservatives as a group delight in other peoples’ misery (apparently shared by you, “all about love of money”).
2. The provision made from the outset in Christianity for meeting the physical needs of people which is shared by today’s Christian conservatives.
Buddhist Christians, eh? I don’t believe I will rise to that bait on this particular day.
Report comment to moderator
FuzzyFace — I remember the 70’s when christian fundamentalism formed a secular alliance with business interests and took on their name, “conservative”. There is nothing about conservatism in the word of God — it is a man-made secular philosophy that creates a non-bibical image of the Almighty so it doesn’t clash with its money-based mentality.
Remember the first Christians had all things in common, and Ananias and Saphira died for trying to keep a part of their hard-earned money. Let the bible shape your understanding of the world. Don’t let the world shape your understanding of the bible.
Report comment to moderator
TWH — if you are a conservative Christian, you’ve already compromised more than if you were a Buddhist christian. If you study the scriptures, you’ll find this out for yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Ananias and Saphira did NOT die for trying to keep their money – it was theirs and theirs to keep. They died because they LIED about it.
Report comment to moderator
LSHAFFER – Your understanding is clouded by your conservatism; you do not see that love for money is the root of all evil, including the lies you must tell to defend it.
If you read the passage, you will see that Ananias did not say how much he sold the land for. He simply “laid it at the apostles feet.” Jesus teaching + tradition of “laying at feet” implies a gift with reference to how much is being given.
Peter accused him of lying to the Holy Spirit, not to the apostles. Ananias greed caused him to become deceitful before God, because it was his love of the money that was the root of his evil.
BTW, other people in the bible lied and lived. Clearly, the sin of Ananias and Saphira is not only about telling a lie, or even mostly about telling a lie.
Report comment to moderator
I think that an honest reading of this passage reveals its truth and meaning:
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
Report comment to moderator
I agree. An honest reading — unclouded by a love of money — does reveal its truth and meaning. Your conservatism only sees the lie, and not the love of the money.
Same with the Pharisees ( Luke 16:14 ). The same words that brought others to repentance caused them to be angry — because they were lovers of money.
I never denied that they lied. Abraham lied. Sarah lied. Peter lied. Lots of people in the bible lied, even to God. But do you truly believe they died only because they lied, and not because of what they lied about?
Report comment to moderator
you do not see that love for money is the root of all evil
First of all, love of money, not money itself, is the root. Second, it’s not “the root of all evil”, but “a root of all kinds of evil”. Rape? Adultery? Envy and jealousy in the church? The roots of these evils can be sinful or twisted sexual lusts, and a desire for power and/or the esteem of others. Third, conservatism does not necessarily involve love of money. It is a political and social philosophy, with ideas of how government works best, just like liberalism. Both liberals and conservatives can and do fall to the temptation of the love of money at times.
Report comment to moderator
JHenley, to quote part of the passage that LShaffer posted:
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
The land was in their “own power,” theirs to do what they wished with it prior to the sale; after the sale, the money was, again, in their “own power,” theirs to do with as they wished. This shows that their sin did not arise until they decided to lie about it.
Report comment to moderator
In the bible, money=mammon=idolatry. Recent translations say “all kinds” of evil, but that is not necessarily as accurate a translation of the original as is the “Love of money” being the “root of all evil”. When you can see Adam and Eve’s desire to replace God with a secular source of power and knowledge, then you see why money=mammon=idolatry can be the root of all evil (but not the fruit of all evil).
But you’ll have to stop viewing single verses as independent of all else in the Word. And you’ll have to let the bible teach you instead of justifying your conservatism-derived beliefs with single verse interpretations that do not fit the rest of scripture.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, JHenley, I have problems with Ayn Rand’s views, if you’re identifying her with conservatism; but Randianism is not essential to conservatism.
Report comment to moderator
Read the Camp Fire Girl story again. It is not celebrating a soul brought to a saving knowledge of God. It is celebrating Camp Fire Girl being brought into a right relationship with Mammon. Can you feel the arrogance in this story? Is all of life about having the proper knowledge of money and government?
Surely, the Lord resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. So let us all pray, including myself, that we do not project such haughty arrogant attitudes derived from non-biblical sources as part of who we are as the image of God; and that such clear arrogance on our part goes no further than these posts.
Report comment to moderator
#9 – “Obama is not responsible for the start of this downturn…”
True. But the Democrat controled congress elected in 2007 is not so innocent. And Obama did much (with the help of his total one-party-power congress) to make it much much worse from 2009 to 2011.
Report comment to moderator
“I was raised in the South, where rural wisdom teaches that ‘fixin’ to do something’ and actually doing it are two different things.”
Good point. I liked the frog illustration too.
Report comment to moderator
JHENLY 25 – TWH — if you are a conservative Christian, you’ve already compromised more than if you were a Buddhist christian. If you study the scriptures, you’ll find this out for yourself.
Love this tactic. “If you don’t agree with me, you haven’t studied scriptures”.
Report comment to moderator
“I am more convinced than ever that Reagan’s cuts likely had everything to do with that woman and her colleagues finding the motivation to go out and find the money.”
With reasonable tax relief, Reagan also helped to free up more actual money available for people to give to causes that they (as free citizens) wanted to promote.
Report comment to moderator
Coming out of college, I was also a Jimmy Carter fan. It took me longer than most to see how healthy and right that Ragan was, but I came around.
Report comment to moderator
#16 – CONANTHELIBRARIAN wrote; “Warren’s cute little just-so story is nice and all, but it’s really misleading. Not all needs for money can be solved with volunteer efforts and fundraising.”
How is it misleading, CONAN??? He never even said that “ALL needs for money can be solved with volunteer efforts and fundraising.” You are challenging a point he NEVER even made. So, who is being misleading, CONAN?
Report comment to moderator
#18 – JHENDLEY wrote; “Reagan’s legacy is winning the cold war, not being a fiscal conservative.”
I disagree. Reagan made huge gains toward fiscal conservatism while winning the cold war.
There was a budget deal that Reagan made with Tip O’Niel and the Dems wherein the Dems betrayed the trust upon which that deal was made. The cuts that were promised were revoked and I elame the Democrats (the actual culprits in congress who did the spending and failed to do the PROMISED cutting) for that.
Report comment to moderator
#18 – JHENDLEY wrote; “Christianity is all about love for God. Conservatism is all about the love of money.”
Such simplistic generalizing either comes from extremely lazy thinking or an active contempt for other points of view that one does not understand.
Christianity is ALSO about love for your neighbor and even for our enemies. It is about honesty in personal and public sectors. It is also about tough love that protects the good and the decent and tells the truth. That fits well with genuine conservatism, but the fact remains that one can be a conservative without actually being a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
The labels we use for ourselves and each other are often so very misleading. I think that Warren Cole Smith was simply saying that It is indeed an “Ah-ha” moment when a person can realize that government is often a hindrance when it is expected to do what private citizens can do for themselves.
We seem to be living in a time when it is common to believe that anything that could be done should be done. From bank bail-outs to health care to changing moral values. Not even God believes that every problem ought to be solved as soon as possible regardless of the costs. Want and need is often the very thing that draws a person to God; or leads a person to realize that we don’t really need all that we want; or to realize that getting what we want or think we need is often detrimental to our life.
Report comment to moderator
#24 – “I remember the 70’s when christian fundamentalism formed a secular alliance with business interests and took on their name, ‘conservative’.”
I remember the 70s too and the word “conservative” with reference to fundamental Christian convictions was nothing new at the time. It had been in usage long long before that.
Also, I don’t recall any formal or informal “secular alliance” made in the 70s beyond what was already in practice and existance among liberals, conservativews, moderates and independents or anyone who had been forming informal and formal alliances already. Christians have “interests” of a wide varity and they are as free to pusue them as others as long as the model of Christ leads the way.
Ananias and Saphira did indeed get punished for lying to the Holy Spirit!
Report comment to moderator
I do see honest fiscal conservatism affirmed in the Bible:
* “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. He who gathers crops in summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son.” Proverbs 10:4-5.
* “The sluggard’s craving will be the death of him, because his hands refuse to work. All day long he craves for more, but the righteous give without sparing.” Proverbs 21:25-26.
* “…for each one should carry his own load.” Galatians 6:5.
* “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Eph 4:28.
* “Work with your hands… so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
* “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
* “We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12.
* “The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.” 2 Timothy 2:6.
The principle of fairness here mitigates against a system by which non-working people can live as a burden on hard-working people. But the word “first” in this verse does leave room for secondary a safety net principle to be allowed.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, but JM, you didn’t read JHENLEY’s note well enough. Forget whatever you believe you (or centuries of Christian scholars) have learned from Scripture. You simply need to keep studying Scripture until you have arrived at the point of enlightenment where you agree with JHENLEY!
Report comment to moderator
I think it one of those too-convenient dismissals to say, “oh, Ananias and Sapphira were killed for lying to the Holy Spirit. It had nothing to do with money. It was only lying to God.”
I say “too-convenient” because it is exactly the thing affluent Christians need to believe in order to “defang” that passage of Scripture. We do similar things with and “sell all you have and give it to the poor” and “it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Oh, we assure ourselves, Jesus just meant that this particular rich young ruler had a peculiar love of money and anything we love more than God can be an idol but I of course don’t love my money more than God so those passages don’t really apply to me.
Reeeaally? How conveeenient.
I mean, if I were to write a Bible that required no hard changes in lifestyle for Americans, that’s exactly how I’d tell that story.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
There is nothing “too convenient” about taking the text at face value and applying a simple honest interpretation of Acts 5:1-11. And did anyone actually say that it had “nothing” to do with money??? No. Of course their lie had a lot to do with money but it was the lie and the pretense that got them killed.
To say that money itself was the specific criteria for death amounts to saying that one had to buy their way into the early church as a requirement and I do not think that is a good interpretation, especially in light of the view of money seen at Acts 8:20..
Report comment to moderator
Well if Ana and Saph had walked in and said we sold our property for 10,000 and we are giving 5,000 to the church, they would not be dead.
They walked in and said we are giving 5,000, because we sold it for 5,000, when in reality it sold for 10,000.
So yes, they died for lying. The root of that could be multiple reasons, everything from the love of money to just wanting to look good in front of the rest of the church.
They didn’t give out of a cheerful heart, nor to the honesty of that which was required.
Report comment to moderator
The day I became a social democrat. I was in Poland after arriving from the Czech Republic in late 91. Poland had taken the advice of Jeffery Sachs and engaged in shock therapy or took the bitter medicine of immediate market reforms. The results were homeless in the streets, pensioners forced to survive on pennies a day, a wipeout of an entire generation of saving, etc. Meahwhile the Czech Republic ignored the market economists flooding eastern Europe and adopt a process of gradual change from a planned economy to a mixed economy. The Czech Republic still has a higher standard of living, greater political and economic stability than Poland. In addition, an entire generation was not scarificed for bitter medicine. The current demand for austerity is similar; nations which undergo severe austerity policies will scarifice an entire generation but those countries who use good management skills will emerge stronger from the recession and won’t wipe out an entire generation.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
* “Work with your hands… so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
So we should all be labourers or tradesmen. I guess becoming a minister isn’t a biblical career path…. or a teacher.
“The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.” 2 Timothy 2:6.
I agree — sharecropping should be illegal, and the bank can wait for its mortgage payments.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Excessively strict literalism mixed with blindness to the principles invested in the two passages you cited is usually a recipe for poor hermeneutics.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
You show a good example of the difficulty in righting economic wrongs that have been grievous and long lasting. It takes time, people’s minds have to be retrained from the dependency mentality, and a lot of people get hurt in the process.
Compared to that, our subprime fiasco was tame.
Another reason to avoid these artificial economies caused by government mis-regulation.
Report comment to moderator
Joel — my intent is to demonstrate that interpretation is everything.
fuzzyface — my intent was to show the Czech method of gradual change without hysterical ideological austerity works better and thus made me favour the social democratic model rather then the so called Washington consensus model. The dependency mentality was not well entrenched in Poland — they gave up on the state long before 1989, Poles are enterpreurial and risk takers (more than North AMericans). Its the dismantling of the safety net in the early 90s which created the poverty not the people’s mentality.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “my intent is to demonstrate that interpretation is everything.”
Fine, but had anyone implied otherwise? Offering a poor interpretation may well illustrate that interpretation is everything, but it is not wise to let a poor interpretation stand.
Report comment to moderator
HRW – Poland and the Czech Republic may have yielded your “Eureka” moment, but tossing out unsubstantiated “facts” about 2 countries that are many thousands of miles from the US doesn’t shed light on the subject. I am sure there are a large number of complex factors involved in the recent relative prosperity of these two countries. It’s difficult enough for us to develop common understanding of US economic history.
Report comment to moderator
TWH: Conan – I don’t understand why you believe that conservatives delight in other peoples’ misery. Beginning with the “widows in need” (1 Tim 5), Christians have made provision for the types of things you are talking about.
No, they really can’t. Even if the will is there, the resources are not. The primary reason I support government programs, funded by taxes, is that voluntary efforts, no matter how good-hearted they are, just simply can’t fill the needs as well.
I applaud them, and when they do good for people, of course that’s a good thing. But there are simply too many people with long-term, not-cheap needs that put private efforts out of the running for providing a long term, consistent solution.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – Oh, ye of little faith! By saying, “Even if the will is there, the resources are not”, you are stating a belief that the only motivation sufficient to the need is coercion.
It is ironic that the “top-down” government approach that seeks to “share the wealth” has the effect on individuals of “every man for himself”. It also creates a growing group of people who are content (barely) to get by on whatever the government will give them (see the story).
Take away the coercion! Inspire people to be their “neighbor’s keeper”! Expect things from those who would receive charity (see 1 Tim:5)! The situation won’t ever be “perfect” on this earth, but it can be much better, and people will be far more connected to each other.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN wrote; “The primary reason I support government programs, funded by taxes, is that voluntary efforts, no matter how good-hearted they are, just simply can’t fill the needs as well.”
Be careful of utopian fantasies rooted in trusting either the public sector or the private sector. Neither can get the job done for others.
But it is true that the more local the effort, the more effective. When federal gov’t programs are proposed to meet human needs, they are just too far removed to have any personal touch. They tend to just create a sense of entitlement and dependency that ends up in more and more poverty in the long run. But more local gov’t efforts can do a bit more on a long term basis because accountability networks are more possible.
The reason private sector efforts work better is because they tend to be more local and the investments they draw from for these efforts are closer to home and more likely subject to local accountability networks.
The most effective agency for meeting needs that make a difference for the good in the long run is the nuclear family. Nothing beats that. Let’s strengthen the family first! That’s where conservatives have it right and do the most good–by protecting the family.
Report comment to moderator
TWH — like others here I’m merely sharing my Eureka moment and how it has continued to influence me.
Inspire people to be their “neighbor’s keeper”!
Obviously you have a more optimistic view of human nature. Remnants of my Calvinist upbringing leave me pessimistic toward any inspiration. Furthermore, charity and private programs tend to be haphazard.
The most effective agency for meeting needs that make a difference for the good in the long run is the nuclear family. Nothing beats that. Let’s strengthen the family first! That’s where conservatives have it right and do the most good–by protecting the family.
I agree which is why universal health care and paid maternity lave are important and thats just my starting point.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN wrote; “The primary reason I support government programs, funded by taxes, is that voluntary efforts, no matter how good-hearted they are, just simply can’t fill the needs as well.”
I notice there was nothing to back up your claim that good hearted peole just can’t do the job. Every Statist believes the government is the only answer. However, consider this. After the tsunami in Indonesia, the U.S. government pledged $350 million in direct assistance. But individual Americans donated more than $1.5 billion through their private organizations. That kind of puts the lie to the thought that volunteers can’t do the job.
Report comment to moderator
Good post, TERTIUS.
EVERYONE, can we define fiscal conservatism today as the belief that government programs to allegedly help the needy are just fine as long as we can pay for them without constantly borrowing more and more and more money against our children and grandchildren (money we just don’t have)?
The spectrum has shifted so far to the left that even “fiscal conservatives” would probably be fine with using some gov’t money to help the needy as long as we can still balance the budget and pay for such programs with money we actually have.
Or is fiscal conservatism actually the conviction that it is not the gov’t’s role to use public (tax-payer) money to allegedly help the poor AND to point out that such gov’t “help” ACTUALLY hurts the needy unduly?
Report comment to moderator
XION, good post at #12, regarding ObamaCare. It is worth repeating:
“My premiums for my former health insurance policy were due to increase 35% this year. As it is, I had to drop that policy three teirs down just to keep it a current premium levels. My agent says that on average, all the premiums on insurance policies he represents have increased 20%.”
My premiums also went up twice–about the same percentage as you mentioned. And there was absolutely no improvement in service or health care–NOTHING but raised costs. In your case, brother, the care and service actually went down as you had to change your policy to afford it.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, I’ve heard liberal Christians use the argument that personal charity is not enough. To decide personal charity isn’t enough because there are hungry people or people who do not get good healthcare is too simplistic. There are too many variables, possibilities and intangibles.
Theorizing about this reminds me of game theory. Literal mathematical geniuses have spent literal years ruminating over game theory, because it deals in situations in which outcome is based on the choices and inclinations of others. As a matter of fact, game theory is used in economic theorizing.
So, why is Joline hungry? To say, “Well, obviously, personal charity isn’t enough” is too simplistic. Why is Joline hungry? Why is Joline hungry?
I have personal stories that show God’s provision in impossible situations. Psalm 37:25 says, “I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread.” This has been my experience. And I have come to believe I can’t judge God, or someone else, by anyone’s story but my own. Does that mean I don’t want to feed Joline, or that I think Joline deserves to go hungry, or that I don’t care about Joline, or that I think God isn’t angry because Christians aren’t feeding Joline? No, but it does mean I’m leery of saying that grace and charity are not enough to do it.
Report comment to moderator
I began supporting Ronald Reagan for President when I was 10 years old in 1968. I enjoyed every day he was President, knowing when he left office things would begin to deteriorate. After 23 years of decline, I believe historians will regard the Reagan years as the Indian Summer of American greatness.
Report comment to moderator
HRW 60 – “TWH — like others here I’m merely sharing my Eureka moment and how it has continued to influence me.”
Point taken. I apologize.
“Obviously you have a more optimistic view of human nature [speaking about my statement that we need to "inspire people to be their neighbor's keeper"].
Well, that was a “sunny” way of putting it. I am big on carrots and sticks. The carrot is community acceptance/prestige, as well as personal satisfaction/pride (not necessarily “pure” Christian motives). The stick is stigma/ostracism if you don’t do your part. Everyone gets to “say” they were inspired to help. What is in their heart may be another matter.
AND, note my sentence following “neighbor’s keeper”. The receivers also have carrots and sticks!
Report comment to moderator
Tertius: After the tsunami in Indonesia, the U.S. government pledged $350 million in direct assistance. But individual Americans donated more than $1.5 billion through their private organizations. That kind of puts the lie to the thought that volunteers can’t do the job.
If true, that’s a good thing, but there are at least two reasons why it doesn’t refute my position.
1. This was a situation in a foreign country. It’s arguable whether the U.S. government should be spending money on it at all, but the relatively small amount is certainly reasonable. Meanwhile, private citizens are welcome to donate whatever they please.
2. This was a one-time disaster. I always go back to the example of a person with a chronic illness who needs a few hundred dollars every month for medications and doctor visits. A church might cover those costs once or twice, but more than that? I doubt it, and even if there is a church somewhere that does take care of one or two or three people will, say, multiple sclerosis or a spinal injury, there are dozens and hundreds and thousands more that they can’t help or don’t even know about.
Can you seriously say that private charity is sufficient to take care of that kind of never-ending need on a large scale, and do it consistently?
Report comment to moderator
Conan – The most recent estimate (ABC News) is that Medicare fraud is costing $90 billion per year. That’s the equivalent of $90,000 each for 1 million people. That’s a lot of people with chronic needs who could be cared for!
The waste, fraud, and abuse wouldn’t go away in a local, private oriented system, but I don’t think $90 billion even touches the amount of money that would be freed up. It really comes down to whether we put our faith in a top down approach or a bottom up approach. This takes us back to the original story.
Report comment to moderator
QUESTION: Does geneuine fiscal conservatism in America stand in principle against using gov’t funds for social programs (except for a tight safety net that provides only for the truly needy) or does it simply mean that we should not borrow tons of money money we don’t have to pay for such programs for a wide swath of citizens? [Example: 42 million people now on food stamps and growing.]
Report comment to moderator
Conan: Can you seriously say that private charity is sufficient to take care of that kind of never-ending need on a large scale, and do it consistently?
(I really need to learn how to italicize in here)
What a big problem taking care of the poor is! In Deut 15, it says: “…there should be no poor among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey (him).” And then in vs. 11, it says, “There will always be poor people in the land. Threfore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.”
The country Israel was set up to be a God-blessed, God-guided place of blessing, love and care. When someone became poor – due to one of the million reasons someone can become poor in this fallen world – people were to be openhanded.
In my life, I have seen God use government. But I’ve seen him, at least equally, use a million different ways to solve impossible financial issues. One time, we took five years to pay off a hospital debt, at $50/mo. My son was hospitalized twice with Crohn’s and no insurance. The first time, the hospital came to him and said they had donors who gave money to pay bills of hard-working people with no insurance, and they wanted to do this for him. The second time, TennCare paid it. Then TennCare fell apart, because there was no way the state could continue funding it (we have a balanced budget amendment). It went from being for all the people, including the chronically ill, who couldn’t get insurance to being only for children of the needy. My friend, whose husband was a hard-working construction man, got braces for her children through TennCare, all the chronical, welfare people got money for their children, and my son was excluded from the TennCare roles. We watched the news with protests against Gov. Bredesen’s decision, and my son turned to me and said, “I don’t understand thinking you’re owed this. I’m just thankful they paid my bill when they did.” Not long after, my son got a new job, with wonderful group insurance (which, thank God, he hasn’t had to use!)
I believe God allowed our problems to be solved in so many different ways to show us that it wasn’t government, it wasn’t our hard work, it wasn’t the goodness or cleverness of people, etc. It was Him who met our every need.
The truth of the matter, Conan, is that in this fallen world, government can’t even do it. You wind up like TennCare, and it becomes an ever-down-spiraling mess.
What would be wonderful would be if we as believers in Jesus could do what is set before each one of us. It would be so wonderful to see if the welfare rolls could be reduced.
Godly principles put someone on the path to prosperity, and then, of course, God is the trump card. You give money to the drug addict so that her children won’t go hungry, and Monday morning, they show up for school hungry. In a racist, hate-filled culture, you give people money to subsist, but the projects are filled with the spirit of hopelessness. You give single moms money so that she can stay home like the other mothers and raise her children, and all the other mothers have to get jobs to pay for it. And look at what’s happened to all the children on welfare. Ask any teacher who works at a school with welfare children.
Report comment to moderator
That last sentence sounds mean-spirited against welfare children, and I apologize. I just know that friends and family who work with children on welfare have many horror stories to tell. Many come to Kindegarten not knowing their colors or how to hold a pencil. The worst was a child who didn’t even know his name, even though he was not mentally challenged. I don’t think paying so that single moms can stay home and raise their children has broken the poverty cycle yet. Probably for a million different reasons, just like all aspects of poverty. Nevertheless, again, it seems like a task that even government is incapable of.
Report comment to moderator
Clayvessel: To learn how to italicize, check out the top left sidebar – Customer Support, then Website Help.
Report comment to moderator
@69 JoelMark, I’ve wondered about that myself. Personally I don’t necessarily object to some sort of safety net, but I do think it’s problematic—for more than financial reasons. I suspect I know where libertarians stand on the issue, but I’m not sure about ‘fiscal conservatives’ in general. That’s one reason I have been hesitant to label myself a fiscal conservative, though I’m definitely an unapologetic social or cultural conservative. I would also be interested in knowing how people on the blog define fiscal conservatism in practice–and where they draw the line on spending and social programs.
Report comment to moderator
The best safety net in history I have ever seen was the Salvation Army. Smashed the human trafficking industry, provided for the needs of the unemployed, orphans, and disabled, and taught the gospel and practical job skills to improve the plight of the poor. They were so effective, Marx’s dream of communist England failed because the lower classes did not resent the upper classes and had a drastically improved quality of life. Now, if the Church could unite and do her job, social security, medicare, and medicaid would not have anything to do.
Report comment to moderator
Anotherwords Debra I am libertarian because the Gospel and the Church are the answers, not the gov’t. Thus I seek to limit the damage the government can do, and to promote the Word, unity,teaching among believers to fulfill the Great Commission in their neighberhoods.
Report comment to moderator
ROM116 – I don’t want to be critical about language and typos, but just for future reference in case you only know the phrase from hearing it. It isn’t “anotherwords”. It is “in other words”.
Report comment to moderator
Debra 73 – I would also be interested in knowing how people on the blog define fiscal conservatism in practice–and where they draw the line on spending and social programs.
Good question! There is only space to talk about major themes here. My opinion is primarily based on 60 years of living and observing. I believe I would be a lot better informed if I had read 10% of the books Marvin Olasky has written on the subject.
First, it is well established that Christians are much more charitable than non-Christians. This is, of course, primarily due to spiritual factors, but also touches the non-spiritual through the positive Christian message.
Covering an entire, mixed society, social policy needs to be firmly rooted in an understanding of human nature. We all respond to carrots and sticks (givers and receivers). It’s when we “pretend” that human nature is good (or that we are “evolving” to be better and better) that we get in trouble.
Government policy over the last century has moved us all away from bottom-up responsibility – self, family, community, government – to top-down responsibility – reversing the process. This has desensitized us from each other to the point that it is hard for many to imagine how we could take care of ourselves, and each other.
I don’t think this can be “unwound” immediately; therefore I am not a Libertarian. We got into this mess over time and we need to work our way back out of it over time. Enough said!
Report comment to moderator
Rom 116: Now, if the Church could unite and do her job, social security, medicare, and medicaid would not have anything to do.
And if that ever happened (and they provided help to all who needed it, not just fellow Christians), I’d be much more willing to let go of those programs.
But historically, they never have done it. They do some things, they do some very good things, but they have never been willing or able to do all that is needed.
Report comment to moderator
But the damage done by the government solutions usually far outweighs its success in plugging the holes.
Report comment to moderator
Once again, Conan – $90 billion per year in medicare fraud. That’s $300 per year for every man, woman, and child in America. That’s just one of the inefficiencies of our social welfare system. And, in my opinion, the monetary costs are only the surface of the problem.
I have noted before that while Christians can and will do wonders, we are an increasingly small segment of the population. In the UK there is a Humanist movement. In America, Atheists and Agnostics seem to limit their sense of “responsibility” to pushing the government to do more. I guess it keeps their hands nice and clean.
Report comment to moderator
ROM 116 wrote; “I am libertarian because the Gospel and the Church are the answers, not the gov’t.”
I agree that the gospel (and churches that are true to the gospel) is where the ultimate anwers are found, not the gov’t. But that conviction does nothing to point me to a particular political party like the Libertarian Party. I have some agreements and disagreements with the Libertarian Party but none of that (either way) changes the priority I give to the gospel.
I put the gospel above politics. Still, I am a Republican but I do NOT presume that to be some gospel driven necessity. It’s just that the Republican party platform is friendlest to conservatism and I prefer it on political and organizational grounds.
Report comment to moderator
Warren I very much enjoyed your article and very much agree. Some of the best fiscal decisions people and even corporations make are sometimes made because they were pushed into having to do something. Like the lady in your article with the Camp Fire Girls, most of us/them get angry when we are put in that situation. But even God gently nudges us to do things that are responsible, and then later we say “Well I was fixin to anyway”. And I guess that is my problem with the Occupy movement. They want but they don’t even seem to be fixin to. They just want someone to give to them. I think that has been tried before and has failed. Most Communist and Socialist countries are not shining examples of fiscal responsibility.
I particularly liked the part about the pride and ownership she had because she and others had something invested, be it their time or money or both. Dad always told me when he was trying to teach me to do something that yes he could do it for me but I would be prouder of whatever I was attemping at the time if I did it myself. He would guide but I would do. And I really don’t see that others are much different from me. We are proudest of the things we work for or toward. Be it a financial goal of paying things off or raising money for the Camp Fire Girls. So in many ways, I miss people like Reagan that will push people into being fiscally responsible. Hopefully, we will find some more in government but it isn’t looking too promising.
Good article….keep it up.
Report comment to moderator
Warren Cole Smith offers a story of his conversion to fiscal conservatism. The event to which he points is the conversation with a woman who worked for Camp Fire Girls (CFG). At the time CFG had a $100K budget, nearly all of which came from the federal government. Reagan era cuts decimated CFG’s budget and so the organization took the initiative to replace these funds and, in fact, raised (donations and fees) a total of almost $250K. This story lead to the conversion to fiscal conservatism as the author “discovered that economics is not just about math; it’s about motivation.” I am an economist and find motivation to be important piece of economic outcomes.
I can understand how someone would make the politically conservative argument that government(at any level) should not fund organizations such as CFG and not finance college student loans. What I do not understand is how this is the conversion example of becoming fiscally conservative. I tend to be fiscally conservative. That is, deficits, debts and financing matter. Just ask Greece about this. What bothers me is that fiscal conservative seems wedded not to financial responsibility but to selective budget cuts and a yet-to-be-defined set of tax rates applied to a yet-to-be-defined tax base.
Motivation is important to economic outcomes. Why then did Reagan agree to increase the Social Security tax in 1983, as we were running federal deficits? Why not say, “the fiscally conservative thing to do is cut Social Security payments and this will bring about human motivation to work in ‘retirement year’”? Why would Reagan advocate increasing military spending and not commensurate increases in tax revenues (generated by supply-side growth and/or increasing tax rates)? Instead, we went into debt.
A fiscal conservative would pay for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by increasing taxes, else we incur very large deficits and add to our national debt. And yet I do not recall fiscal conservatives arguing for this.
I’ve concluded that fiscal conservative does not mean fiscal responsibility. Plenty of fiscal conservatives were and are willing to support Medicare Part D (more debt), but not support increasing taxes to finance our wars (also more debt). Isn’t debt the issue?
Report comment to moderator
Dear BuddyGlass:
I would like to provide a couple of facts about economics, specifically concerning the years from 1980-1988, also considering the years that Carter was in office. All percentages and labor force statistics were taken directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. To begin, It is agreed by most that the stagflation of the late 1970’s was due to the OPEC oil embargo. This was the first time that there had ever been a case of true stagflation, which is high unemployment teamed with high inflation. When Reagan took office in 1980 he was faced with a very difficult issue. Despite the fact that the oil embargo ended in 1974, stagflation remained a big issue throughout Carter’s time in office. As you well know, Reagan and his “supply side economics” proposed three different policies to combat this stagflation: One, to cut Marginal Tax Rates; two, to reduce regulatory burden on business; and three, to reduce the amount of government spending. The tax cuts were put into effect, but the first major cut in taxes was not passed until 1982, and the second in 1983. And as you can see, from 1983 to 1988, the unemployment rate did nothing but drop. But what about those nasty deficits. Yes, indeed there were strikingly large deficits during the Reagan administration. But before the entire blame is cast on to the president take a look at government spending, was it cut? No, no it was not. And why? Because congress did pass the tax cuts, and reduced the regulatory burden, but government spending was not cut. In fact government spending increased. The problem with that is simple enough to understand. Cutting taxes, and raising government spending will obviously lead to more borrowing. Though I would not say the policies were flawless, you can see for yourself that from 1983 on, unemployment fell, reaching its low of 5.5%. And for your last statement, that the difference between an unemployment rate of 7.6 and 5.5 are of no consequence, the difference in jobs, considering the labor force of each of the years, and the unemployment rate would be a difference of 2,355,000 jobs. Also take into account that the size of the labor force increased by almost 15,000,000.
Report comment to moderator
Tim Essenberg @83 Thanks for that very insightful comment. You directly addressed some of the things that have puzzled me. And I have to say, I’m inclined to agree with your conclusion: “I’ve concluded that fiscal conservative does not mean fiscal responsibility.”
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!