Reaganomics

Brother Onesimus recently posted an interesting graphic comparing tax-rates during Presidential administrations of the last 40 years.

https://onesimusfiles.wordpress.com/cost to the poor for rewarding the rich?

I'm woefully ignorant about economics. All I can say is that, subjectively, the U.S. economy seems neither as stable nor as equitable as I remember it being before Reaganomics.

I do know that Reagan appointee Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and disciple of Ayn Rand, testified to Congress after the economic crash of 2008 that the theory he'd pursued the past 20 years was "partially" wrong, and that, "The whole intellectual edifice...collapsed in the summer of last year.” Greenspan doubtless knows infinitely more about the subject than I do; but his mea culpa does seem to coincide with many of my subjective impressions.

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0

The signature policy of Reagan's governing philosophy was what he called "de-regulation." Government itself being (as he famously proclaimed in his first Inaugural Address) "the problem," it followed that citizens would be best served by government ceasing to "interfere" in their lives. In economics, the premise was that "the market" would sort everything out, and produce a more stable prosperity than government regulation ever could.

(It's worth noting that the Reagan administration instituted "de-regulation" in many other areas previously under federal oversight: environmental actions, air-traffic control, broadcasting, education, housing, food-safety, civil rights law, etc. Again subjectively, it seems we've seen dire consequences in those areas as well.)

What I have to come back to, as the "intellectual edifice" of Reaganism in toto, is its counter-scriptural foundation. Reagan's conviction that "government IS the problem" seems to flatly contradict the teaching that governing authority "...is a minister of God to you for good." (Romans 13:4). His policy of "de-regulation" flowing from that anti-government stance seems the opposite of God's mandate that rulers "...bring wrath upon the one who practices evil." (ibid)

Subjectively, those anti-scriptural teachings have done the U.S. and its citizens a great deal of harm over the last 40 years. That harm continues today in the beliefs of Reagan's followers.

The Problem With Donald Trump

What bothers most people about Donald Trump is his arrogance. Or maybe his demagoguery. Or I should say, "what bothers some people about Donald Trump."

Quite obviously, what the crowd of his followers like about Donald Trump is his arrogant demagoguery.

But there's a bigger problem with Trump's mindset that makes him completely unqualified to be President.

Trump's pronouncements about what he'll do as President should be a warning. They betray his belief that being President is like being a hard-charging business executive: tell underlings what they should do, and they'd better damned well do it...or else.

I think most of us know being President doesn't work that way. I'm quite surprised Trump doesn't. Maybe he hasn't been paying attention.

But Trump's biggest problem is that America's government was set up to NEVER work that way. More than anything else, the founders tried to protect America from one-man rule. That's why our Constitutional government has the toughest legislative, judicial, and popular-vote "checks and balances" they could devise against arbitrary executive power.

Of course, the founders' reference-point of executive power was George Washington. I'm sure they never could have imagined a President like "The Donald" . . . but I'm grateful their foresight formulated our governmental system to make sure there'd never be one.

Ted Cruz

NPR interviewed Ted Cruz this morning. We can't help hearing politicians' sound-bites on the news, but I usually try to avoid listening to that level of "information" as much as possible. So today was the first time I've heard Cruz talk at length, and I listened with interest to form an idea of the man.

He is certainly argumentative. By that I mean a person whose guiding personal motivation is quite obviously to be right, on his own terms. By that I mean a person whose guiding motivation is not objective truth.

It was clear too that his pronouncements all came from a primary operative belief (probably what he'd consider his "truth") that government is evil. Somehow the illogic of that Reaganite principle never deters some politicians' ambition to part of that evil, if they can be in control of it.

None of us in the general public can know what Cruz is like as an individual. I suspect that, like many politicians, his public persona IS to a large extent his personhood. But as a public figure and a politician, the only terms on which I'm able to evaluate him, I wish Cruz "bad cess." His disregard for truth tells me what spirit he operates in: contrary the Spirit of Jesus, Who IS "the Truth." His hatred for government likewise tells me that Cruz is, in scripture's terms, a rebel and a "man of lawlessness." It would be a curse on our nation and people to be led by such a man.

I'm sure his spin-doctors and many of his followers would assert that Cruz is somehow a "Christian:" that is, after all, the politically-correct requirement for all of today's Republican politicians. Cruz' supporters are welcomed to their opinion . . . or the opinion "spin-doctors" craft for them. I say being a Christian means loving Truth and forsaking evil ways, in public or in private life. Cruz doesn't meet that standard.