Skip to main content

Stimuli, Conservatives, and Billionaires

Since details of the new stimulus package began to emerge, the Internet has been abuzz.  Not only was the lengthy bill handed over with far too little time for our representatives to read it, but, like the first bill, it allocates billions of dollars for large corporations and other special interests.  As one would expect, many folks are bemoaning the fact that we are again bailing out the billionaires.  I have seen many of my friends, from both sides of the aisle, upset with this fact, and rightfully so.  

What is frustrating is that many of my liberal friends view this is as Left vs. Right issue.  The woke, socialist-leaning generation seems to think that fiscal and political conservatives are deeply imbedded in a love affair with the Wall Street billionaires that rule the world.  The Left, they tell us, cares about the working class, common man, while the Right cares only about helping the rich get richer.  They look at the poor on the Right and wonder why we don't hate the rich, white elites like they do.  We are, they believe, enamored by our wealthy slumlords, a Stockholm Syndrome of sorts, and are being used to oppress our fellow citizens in the lower classes.

This is, of course, a misconception.  Let me assure you that we don't necessarily love or respect these untouchables anymore than our you do.  Don't mistake our cries for free market economics and personal responsibility as signs of admiration for or dependence upon the elitist class that rules our economy and the world.  Nevertheless, we defend the rights of the Bezoses and the Buffetts.  For the benefit of those who may be confused by this, I want to explain why.

Well, first of all, billionaires are people, too.  This may sound trite, but it's true.  Dehumanizing those we loathe has been a popular strategy throughout history, and it is being employed against the rich today (Eat the Rich!).  Rich people are people, too.  They have rights.  They are not empires or buildings or corporations.  They are living, breathing human beings who are citizens of this country and have the same rights as any other citizen.  If they commit crimes, they should receive the same punishments, but they should also retain the same freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If you wouldn't want Uncle Sam taking all your money and giving it to someone else, you shouldn't advocate for the redistribution of Jeff Bezos's money, either.

Secondly, we trust billionaires more than we trust politicians.  Giving power and money to politicians never solves anything.  Let me say that again for the people in the back--empowering politicians is never the answer!  I trust billionaires, especially trust fund billionaires, about as far as I can throw them.  I sincerely believe that most billionaires are at best materialistic workaholics and at worst murderous criminals, but at least billionaires are productive.  Billionaires enable you and me to have jobs, and the companies they create provide goods and services to the people of the world.  Politicians, on the other hand, are strictly takers.  They do little but create roadblocks to productivity.  Like billionaires, they amass wealth, but they do so off the backs of unwilling taxpayers instead of willing consumers.  Simply put, creating a second group of wealthy elites is not the way to keep billionaires from quashing our rights.

Thirdly, we believe that the free market can regulate more effectively than politicians can.  Prices regulate.  Buying decisions regulate.  Supply and demand regulate.  Billionaires are responsible to investors and, of course, their own bottom dollar, while politicians are held accountable only by an economically illiterate constituency.  Billionaires innovate to compete in a free market; when politicians are in control, innovation is stifled.  Billionaires find ways to produce more efficiently in a free market (ahem, Amazon); when politicians are spending money that is not theirs, they have little motivation to be efficient, and ineffiency is the death knell for any economy.  If you want to protect the rights of the common man, the free market is the best possible solution.  Remember, an economy is not an inanimate entity; it is people.  When millions of people get to decide what, when, and from whom they buy, their rights are preserved and the economy prospers.  Politicians, by and large, protect their own rights and interests.  I would much rather deal with ambitious, self-serving billionaires regulated by the free market than ambitious, self-serving politicians regulated by themselves.  

Finally, don't hate the player; hate the game.  By game, I mean the way our economy (domestic and global) is structured.  Politicians empower billionaires; they do not keep them at bay.  Billionaires have no power without politicians.  That is the way politics and economics have worked for centuries.  The rich elites lobby the politicians to eliminate their competition and to create public policies that are advantageous for them.  If you think that you are being oppressed by the 1%, just remember that the evil billionaires of the world need greedy, feckless politicians to oppress us.  When billionaires like Trump and Bezos pay very little in taxes, it is because they pay their accountants millions to work the system, finding the loopholes placed there by politicians.  It's a big game, and they know how to play it.  Hate the shady billionaires, if you want, but the real problem is the avaricious politicians who line their pockets by making backdoor deals with those billionaires.  In other words, more government is not the answer; less government is.  If you're going to get rid of a rich elite class, let it be the politicians.    

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary