opa-opines.net

In the last several elections leaders of the “Christian” right have appeared to have significant power by urging voters to seek candidates with “Christian” attitudes and policies. With support of the Christian right, Ronald Regan beat Jimmy Carter, and George W Bush beat Gore and Kerry. The Christian right has controlled 5 of the last 7 presidential elections.

 How does one determine if a candidate is “Christian” enough”? When evaluating a candidate, I was told that I needed to examine his stand on abortion and same sex marriage. Later lower taxes, smaller government, and reducing “welfare” rolls were added to the litany. It has been asserted that the Bible supports these issues. Well, what does the Bible say?

A careful study of the Scriptures revealed no mention of “gay marriage or abortion (abortion may be assumed from the Commandment “thou shall not kill”). I could find no reference to lowering taxes (although people disliked tax collectors) , having a small government, or reducing welfare rolls.

Newsweek, July 14, 2008, noted that during this coming election, a large number of conservative Christians, before committing to a candidate, are focusing upon the demands of the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.

MATT 25: 25:31-46 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations  will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Well, I see a real challenge here for many politicians. A few do help feed the hungry and provide shelter for the homeless, but many fight the concept that the less fortunate should be helped. How many fight having a comprehensive health care plan to care for those “least of our brothers” who are ill? How many are against providing for the welfare of the poor, unemployed, or the elderly? Some of the politicians who push the hardest against abortion and gay marriage are the most adamant about having the disadvantaged care for themselves.

So, who really are the “Christian” candidates?

After listening to Sarah Palin and to John McCain’s anti Obama ads, I finally know what is it to be an American. What follows are a list of requirements.          

Be ready to condemn people

Wear a flag pen

Be a Christian

Even better, be a conservative Christian

Listen to other citizen’s telephone calls

Attack your opponent even if you must lie

Do not enforce laws unless you like them

Invade other countries

Deny the right to vote to those who disagree with you

If you can’t win an election steal it.

If you don’t have a position blame your opponent

If people don’t like what you say – lie

You must be quick to condemn others if they do not speak out against:

Abortion

Gay rights – especially gay “marriage”

Sin

Action on these “core” issues is not required

Strategy:

Always use Fox News.

If you are not in the majority, condemn the majority

If you can’t win the vote of people – deny them the vote

Believe that the end justifies the means

Research your opponent’s life and publicize any mistakes or “bad” associations – remember “guilt by association.”

If your opponent does not have real evil in his life, exaggerate what you do find or invent evil and accuse him anyway (for example, his ninth cousin was “Jack the ripper”.

Have courage, the polls are wrong. Remember: We elected a draft dodger by claiming his opponent was not a true American (Senator Max Cleland – a decorated war hero who lost three limbs in battle). Also we successfully invented the “swift boat” charges that hurt John Kerry. Finally, we used that “doctored” picture of Harold Ford with a white woman, which energized the racial backlash against Ford.

Have courage, we will win no matter what it takes.

In recent years, I have heard numerous complaints about Medicare. Some pundits call Medicare “socialized medicine”. Others complain that it is too expensive. Some physicians say that medicare requires too many forms, has too many rules, pays them too little, and is very slow at processing claims. Many of these complaints are fuel for debates among politicians. Some politicians have suggested eliminating the program.

We must remember why medicare was created in the first place. Before Medicare was legislated in 1965, seniors faced a health care crisis. Only one in eight elder Americans had health insurance and the policies issued to seasoned Americans was not comprehensive. When an older American developed a chronic condition such as heart disease, the cost of their medical care was prohibitive. Insurance companies that provided policies to seniors considered them “illness prone” and “bad risks”. Premiums for elder Americans steadily increased and many insurers refused to sell policies. Congressional hearings during the early 1960′s concluded that private insurers were “incapable” of providing comprehensive coverage for older Americans. So starting in 1965 medicare became available for any American who qualified for Social Security. In 1972 it was extended to the disabled. Not only did older Americans want the Medicare program but, private insurers supported the program, corporations and unions who had policies for their workers wanted their policy holders transferred to Medicare.

The facts reveal a complex governmental program. In the late 1940s and 50s, when Medicare was first conceived, it was directed toward seniors without other medical benefits. Lobbyists became involved and slowly broadened the program. Large corporations with retirement health benefits for their workers persuaded congress to mandate that Medicare would cover their retired employees who were 65 or older. Unions with benefit funds jumped on the bandwagon. Many state governments joined. Finally, the federal government itself legislated that all federal retirees over 65 should be included. Currently anyone who worked at a job that required payment of Social Security Tax, was employed for 10 years, and is 65 or older, may apply for medicare. If eligible people who receive social security, do not apply, they are automatically enrolled.

Would private insurers be more efficient than Medicare? No, private insurers spend and average of 15-20 percent of their assets on administration, leaving only 80 percent for benefits. Medicare spends 2 percent on administration, leaving 98 percent for benefits. Some opponents claim that “hidden costs” raise the administrative costs of Medicare to 5 Percent. If they are accurate that still means 95 percent for benefits, a 15 percent efficiency gain over private insurance. Finally, those who wish to privatize medicare must remember that private insurers formerly offered such insurance and wanted out of the business as it was not profitable – it was too much of a risk.

My brief research suggests that Medicare must be here to stay. Instead of complaining about the program, why not suggest changing the portions of Medicare that are not effective? Streamline the forms and possibly computerize them. As “socialized medicine” the VA solved numerous problems in medical practice. For many years the VA has used a system where a physician writes a computerized prescription which automatically is available to the pharmacy or to any other treatment or diagnostic service in the system. If it is “socialized medicine” then we note that the Veterans Administration provides some of the best care possible, provides research and development that generates improved medical devices and procedures to society. The VA may be “socialized medicine” but as a veteran I can attest that it is wonderful competent medical care. If opponents claim some other “evil” then we fix it. Let us accept a program that works instead of making the huge mistake of killing the program because of politics.

So, lobbyists and members of Congress, let us cease to complain, recognize that Medicare is a jewel, maybe streamline it a bit and stop making it a political football.

As I explained in an earlier commentary, I believe that the real culprits in the current credit crises are the financial companies.

Their actions in creating and using CDS (credit default swaps) and in essence “cooking their books” appears at least dishonest. The federal government has no law regulating CDS but the intention of the law requiring capital reserves to support loans to corporations and governments is clear and CDS does not meet the spirit of that law.

Conservative politicians learned to believe that the private sector was the best solution to many of our problems. They believed our capitalistic system could self-regulate and could be trusted. Republicans assumed it is in the best interests of corporations to keep our country safe and profitable. These big business executives violated that trust. Since the average American can not create their own economy, we must trust business as well. Business has violated the trust of the American people.

An investigation is clearly needed, and if, as I believe, executives of big business violated the people’s trust for their own financial gain, they should be prosecuted.

John McCain wants me to be concerned that Obama has been associated with William Ayers of Chicago. Obama’s forces want me to be concerned about McCain’s close relationship with Charles Keating. Both sides claim that associating with such men is a matter of poor judgment. That it is a matter of judgment is very true, but what sort of judgment are we discussing? Was it that they did not have all “associates” investigated, or is it that they accepted the people without judging them? I am concerned about this situation for several reasons.

First, I have been associated with a lot of people in my life. I was affiliated with and worked with hundreds of people when I taught at various universities. For example, at the University of Central Arkansas I sponsored Omega Psi Phi fraternity without asking for background checks for each member. I did not stay in close contact with those men and have no idea whether any of them were ever in trouble with the law. Accordingly, I and anyone else who worked at a university, should never enter politics as we are very vulnerable to such attacks.

Second, in our legal system a person is innocent until proven guilty. William Ayers admits he was a member of the “weathermen” group in the nineteen sixties. The weathermen as a group claimed responsibility for bombings in several federal buildings. Some of the group were found guilty of those crimes and sent to prison. William Ayers was never convicted of anything. Seems to me that I have a choice to either not judge Ayers or to reject our concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Third, in my faith I am told to forgive. In Matthew 18:21-22, Jesus suggests that I always forgive no matter how many times I am injured. So I have a choice to either revise my image of someone like Ayers who may have sinned, or to reject the teaching of Jesus on this matter.

Fourth, is it possible for people to sin, be redeemed, and amend their life? Jesus said that He came to redeem and to forgives us our sins.  So, McCain was involved with the Keating scandal and the financial crises that resulted, but he apologized and vowed to change his life.   Again, I have a choice to either revise my image of McCain, or to reject the teaching of Jesus concerning our ability to amend our lives.

Fifth, with what types of people should I associate? In my faith Jesus sets the example and is criticized for it.     Matthew 9:10-12 While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples. The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.”      Jesus is criticized, not for his words, deeds, or character, but for associating with undesirable people. How can I, as a Christian, condemn a politician for associating with people who I may not approve?   

Can I judge these candidates, not on the people they encountered in their life, but upon their character, the issues they discuss, and the philosophy they represent?  I certainly pray that I can.

We are enduring an economic crises that John McCain says is caused by greed. I can understand his opinion, but wonder at his wisdom on the matter. The current crises may have been caused by actions of greedy people, but it is being sustained by panic and fear.

How is it that with the federal government announcing it will devote 700 billion dollars to the mess, the stock market remains volatile? People are still dumping stock despite losses to their portfolio. Is it the government they do not trust or the companies in which they hold the stock? By selling some are losing more than 60 percent of the stock’s value. Is it that the economy is so bad or is the seller’s trust too low? What should our leaders be doing?

FDR gave the banks a holiday in 1933. Maybe Bush should give the stock market a holiday in 2008 – now, not later. Several prominent economists have suggested a such a business holiday. 

I remember wondering why Bush did not ask Americans to join our fight against terrorism after 911. Americans will sacrifice if they are given a reason. I believe that Americans would stop the panic and reluctantly focus away from wall street if the President explained how actions were for the good of the country and then he asked for our help.

The current crises in out economy was difficult for me to understand, but I have spent some time researching the situation and have a perspective. I believe that the real culprits are the financial companies. The process is very complicated but I will try to explain. 

1. The problem did not start with the sub-prime mortgage loans. It started in 1996 when J P Morgan conducted a strategy retreat for its employees. 

J P Morgan was cash strapped. Their books were loaded with billions of dollars in loans to corporations and foreign governments. Federal law required that they keep huge amounts of capital in reserve in case any of the loans went into default. That reserve capital was not available for other operations which lessened their ability to make more money.

During the brainstorming sessions a new idea surfaced. Why not attempt to guarantee the loans using a third party? So they devised a program resembling an insurance policy. A separate company would guarantee the loans in exchange for a regular payment, like an insurance premium. With the loans secured J P Morgan could utilize the “reserve” funds for other investments. They named this strategy “credit default swaps” (CDS).

These CDS plans grew massively over the years. Many other businesses adopted the strategy. According to Janet Morrissey of Time Magazine CDS grew to 45 trillion dollars by mid 2007. And according to Michael Panzer of seekingalpha.com, world wide derivatives grew to 681 trillion dollars.

With the CDS concept, increasingly the monetary worth of Investment institutions, like AIG and Bear Stearns, was on paper instead of property or actual capital. So when an insured company failed, the financial corporation was short of cash. If the failing company was very large, or if several businesses failed, the insuring establishment did not have the assets to meet their obligations. CDS led directly to the AIG bailout.

2. Then comes the sub prime loans to marginal credit customers. With money to invest, financial institutions needed an outlet, so they turned to real estate. They devised new loans, which like CDS, were inventive. The mortgage companies noticed the home prices continued to increase over time. A homeowner could buy a house and several years later it could be worth twenty percent more, providing the owner with equity. They also noticed that people traded homes every three or four years. In the image of CDS, they decided that if they loaned 100 percent of the assessed value on a home loan and kept the initial payment low, people who usually could not purchase a home would do so. Since the homeowner would be moving or refinancing in a few years, they could make the loan palatable to major investors (the CDS insurers) if the interest rate would increase after the first three years. Since the house would be worth more, everyone wins, and if the mortgage holder defaults, the company makes a profit from the increase in value.

When homeowners were unable to refinance, experienced difficulty making the increased monthly fees, and got behind in their payments, mortgage companies decided to foreclose and get the equity increase for themselves. But the result was too many homes on the market. So home prices went down instead of up and everyone lost. Many mortgage companies looked to their CDS insurer who defaulted in their guarantee, so the mortgage company went bankrupt because of their actions.

3. Essentially the current problem is a lack of credit. As a result of CDS, with so many corporations vulnerable, lenders are nervous and reluctant to lend money to corporations. Many financial institutions are short on capital and unable to do business. Since even healthy corporations are unable to get loans to finance their operations, a panic has ensued. How do investors trust corporations again when they have demonstrated their lack of responsibility.

Some Sources:  Janet Morrissey, Time.com March 17, 2008:  Dr. Ellen Brown, Global Research.ca, April 11, 2008;  Engdahl, editorial, financialsense.com, 06062008;  AP report, Business Week, October 8,2008.  Investopedia.com, seekingalpha.com.