Early Thoughts on Atlas Shrugged

My brother-in-law, Mike, and I don't see each other or converse frequently, but when we do it is always a rewarding experience for me.  Mike often challenges my thinking and makes me dig a little deeper into understanding why I believe what I believe--politically, socially, religiously--you name it.  One of our favorite topics is books.  Several years ago I mentioned to him I had recently purchased Atlas Shrugged, and he indicated his excitement to discuss it once I had finished.  Sadly, as of this past Christmas I hadn't even cracked the cover.  Mike and I spent some time together at Christmas, and I briefly mentioned that I was now seriously considering reading Atlas Shrugged.  Mike, in turn, raved about Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein.  I got so excited about Einstein that I went out and picked up a copy in early January.  I'd been reading it for only a day or two when the following article showed up in my inbox with commentary from Mike included:

Jesse -

As you contemplate digging into Atlas Shrugged, I thought you would enjoy this piece tucked into the very last page of the very last section of today's Wall Street Journal.

As I suggested to you recently, the book has taken on a rather striking, and unfortunate, relevance as of late. 

Enjoy!

Michael

 

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

The article grabbed my attention, and I have been whole-heartedly plowing through novel since.  For those unfamiliar with the novel let me start by saying it is over 1,000 pages long.  So when I say plowing through, I mean it.  I'm just over a third of the way there, and I must say I'm enjoying it immensely.  The characters are so extreme--in every way and in every direction--as to be completely unbelievable.  However, the overstatement of personality serves to drive home the point.  Ayn Rand is the author of the book, and through her usage of character development she seems to be stressing that only black and white exist--gray areas are for the weak who like to hide behind excuses.  At any rate, this approach makes for outrageous and wildly entertaining, if often frustrating, reading.  

Once I got used to the approach Rand took to character development I began to seriously think about the myriad messages she is sending.  I'm not going to take the time to delve into specific messages at this point (I hope to do a few, perhaps several, more posts on this book), but I want to point out that the book has made me think, and think hard.  Truly, this book is making me live up to the title and intent of my blog.  My mind is meandering all over the place--socialism, capitalism, consecration, greed, weakness, sacrifice, charity, money, power, motivation, effort, morality--it's all in there.  

Ultimately, I'm completely captivated by the main thrust (so far) of the novel--which I believe is to expose economic parasites while extolling the virtues of the intellect who applies his/her talent to production.  What happens when economic parasites completely overrun society and productive intellect is forced to carry ever more of the nation's fiscal burden?  An interesting email story on this topic landed in my inbox a few years ago.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.

The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing;

The fifth would pay $1:

The sixth would pay $3;

The seventh $7;

The eighth $12;

The ninth $18.

The tenth man-the richest-would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six-the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.

"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that is the ride Ms. Rand is taking me on.  I'll have to leave it at that for tonight.  I recognize that I haven't included much meat of my own analysis.  But my mind is still rushing in several directions about the contents of the book, and I need to let things percolate a bit more.  Let me note, though, that I have noticed that Atlas Shrugged and Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat share a few similar themes.  Better education is a key to so much.  I must remember to return to that thought in a future post.  

Suffice to say I am enjoying it because it is engaging and provocative, if frequently outlandish.  I look forward to discussing the book with others who have read it.  I'm clearly not a great literary or philosophical critic, but I think we're all entitled to share our thoughts.  After all, I've long enjoyed Edmund Wilson's quote:  "No two persons ever read the same book."

Long Time

Clearly blogging has not been high on my priority list for the last few months.  No real reason, my interest just waxes and wanes.  Given that it has just waned for several months let's hope some good waxing is on the way!

A few things actually compel me to record some thoughts this evening.  First, the inauguration of Barack Obama and second, some changes at church.

I may as well say up front that I did not vote for Obama, but I was not unhappy that he won the election.  And, as I have watched events since election night it seems to me that his presence in the White House may be able to bring this country together in way that hasn't happened since 9/11.  Trying times tend to focus our energies and attentions--just as 9/11 did.  Now, again, we are faced with trying times and Obama has a singular opportunity to take advantage of the nation's collective attention.  When the people get behind a president, the president can make things happen.  The question is whether they are the right things.  And, honestly, it's pretty close to impossible to know in the heat of the moment when something is right from a historical perspective.  Obama has my attention and my admiration.  I hope he will also have my long-term gratitude.

The inauguration itself was beautiful, in my opinion.  I've spent my share of time on the National Mall in DC, and it was simply stunning to see so many people gathered there today.  I loved the camera shots that looked out from the Capitol across the reflecting pond to the Washington Monument and all the way to the Lincoln Memorial.  All of it covered in people.  In Americans there to participate in history and to show support for our new president.  That by itself was very impressive.  Add to that spectacle the significance of the event and the grandeur of the ceremony, and it was a great day, indeed, to be an American.  

I loved Aretha Franklin's "My Country 'Tis of Thee," and the subtle nod she gave to MLK with her quiet inclusion of references to Georgia and Alabama at the end.  I particularly loved the quartet performing John Williams's arrangement of Copeland's Appalachian Spring.  I was struck as much by the composition of the quartet as by the composition itself.  A Jew, an Asian, an African American and a woman combined to elicit from me a sense of wonder and joy based on the music they created.  I thought it was a fantastic tribute both in song and in appearance to what is possible.

I even enjoyed Justice Roberts's bungling of the administration of the Oath.  It simply made it feel more real and memorable.  Then came the speech, which was fantastic as is par for the course with Obama.  I'm really glad that he called us all out and basically said we were lazy and that the blame for the mortgage and financial meltdown belongs with all of us.  We all contributed to this society that idolizes greed and carelessness.  In fact those who were able to combine greed and carelessness often seemed to get most of the public's adoration.  With the mortgage benders so many of us went on simply because we could (never mind whether we should) we all contributed.  Now is our chance to show ourselves worthy to be called the descendants of our parents and grandparents and restore to our economy and this country the dignity and strength which have simply been taken for granted as a birthright for too long.  Yes, the speech stirred something in me as I had imagined it would.

Most of all I enjoyed the moment--I believe it was during the quartet--that showed Obama from behind and above as he sat looking over the assemblage.  Truthfully a tear ran down my cheek as I thought to myself, "I hope he can deliver on all of this goodwill.  I hope he can achieve those things he has set before us all."  I hope we can all work together to effect the change that he champions.

Along with 9/11 this may be the seminal American event in my lifetime to date.

I suppose that is enough on today's events.  Now to something more personal.  Given that I no longer attempt to keep a written journal anywhere but here, I feel compelled to record some feelings about the experiences I have had for nearly the past five years.  

In May 2004 I was called to serve in the bishopric of our ward.  I was very humbled by such a calling and felt wholly inadequate.  I'm guessing many of you can relate to those feelings--not unique or unusual.  It didn't take me long to realize what a tremendous trust individuals and families place in bishopric members.  Before being in the bishopric I would sit in the congregation with my family and look at the people around me and assume their lives were wonderful.  Sitting on the stand provides a completely different perspective.  I learned of people's struggles that I would never have been able to guess at.  I was fortunate to participate in individual and familial triumphs that provided incredible joy.  The experience was a true cornucopia of life lessons and spiritual growth.  

Earlier this month I was released from the bishopric.  People don't know whether to tell you congratulations or not with something like that.  In my heart I felt that I had provided the service in that calling that the Lord needed of me.  I learned many lessons and gained a better understanding of myself and the many things I need to do better.  We all have so far to go, and I gained an appreciation of that fact for me, personally, while I served in the bishopric.  

Our stake president asked me and Brenna to bear our testimonies on the Sunday I was released.  I don't remember much of what I said, but I do remember some of my thoughts.

While serving in the bishopric I saw and heard things that truly broke my heart.  But I also experienced things that brought incredible joy into my life.  And I experienced all emotions in between.  I had personal conversations with so many people--people I never would have made the opportunity to get to know if not for the calling which I held.  I found that I loved conversing with people about the things that were most important to them, and above all I learned that when it comes down to it, people just want . . . to be loved.  And that is what Christ provides for us all--love.  The Atonement is an act of perfect love and enables us to spread the love of Christ to all.  We can love and serve, and if we love and serve, eventually the Father's plan will be carried out.  Love and service coupled with an understanding of our purpose can enable us to achieve amazing things that benefit us as individuals, our families, our neighbors and society in general.  Not surprising that that is how the Father works.

Brenna said some beautiful things and paid me compliments that I don't deserve.  She and the children deserve all the credit in the world for being so faithful and supportive of me as I tried to do what we all believed was right.  I feel that we have been rewarded for the way in which we worked together as a family while I was in the bishopric.  I can't think of anything more precious than having a wife and children who love you.  I believe that is the pinnacle of manhood and achievement.  I hope that I can stay there.

I suppose I should conclude.  I do so by returning to the things I learned while in the bishopric. People deal with struggles we would never guess at.  The power of the human spirit is remarkable.  I love the way Victor Hugo describes it in my favorite book, Les Miserables:

"[T]here are many great deeds done in the small struggles of life.  There is a determined though unseen bravery, which defends itself foot to foot in the darkness against the fatal invasions of necessity and of baseness.  Noble and mysterious triumphs which no eye sees, which no renown rewards, which no flourish of triumph salutes.  Life, misfortunes, isolation, abandonment, poverty, are battlefields which have their heroes; sometimes greater than the illustrious heroes."

Differences or Commonalities?

I am just entering the "war chapters" of Alma in the Book of Mormon.  I started chapter 43 this morning, and I was captivated by the information in the first several verses.  As background, the Zoramites had left the Nephites to join the Lamanites, and the two groups were preparing for war.

Now to quote verses 5 - 7:

And it came to pass that the Lamanites came with their thousands; and they came into the land of Antionum, which is the land of the Zoramites; and a man by the name of Zerahemnah was their leader.

And now, as the Amalekites were of a more wicked and murderous disposition than the Lamanites were, in and of themselves, therefore, Zerahemnah appointed chief captains over the Lamanites, and they were all Amalekites and Zoramites.

Now this he did that he might preserve their hatred towards the Nephites, that he might bring them into subjection to the accomplishment of his designs.

As I thought about these verses I noted that Zerahemnah had made a calculated decision to focus attention on the fringe elements of those he led.  The major portion of his people were assumedly moderate in their stance toward the Nephites, but he had a smaller, what I'm calling fringe element, who were murderously opposed to the Nephites and their way of life.  Consequently, Zerahemnah utilized this fringe element to stir up the people by constantly reminding them of how the Nephites were different and how the Lamanites should hate them.  As a result of the Lamanites being force fed such vitriol, they were persuaded to go to war against the Nephites based on the perception of the Nephites as advocated by the fringe element.  Differences were trumpeted at the expense of any similarities and war ensued.

It seems that such is the case with much of society both in this country and around the world.  The groups can be political, racial or religious, to name a few.  Too often in our society we hear only how and why people people in groups other than the one with which we identify ourselves are different from us.  We hear about disagreements and arguments and how one group is unfair to another.  Soon we begin to believe that people in other groups are very different from us.  We then might ensconce ourselves more firmly within our own subculture and not seek to learn more and look beyond what we have been told by those who are, essentially, fringe elements of society.  We hear from them because commonalities are not interesting--differences are.  What a shame.

I believe there is something larger at work here.  I believe that God has a plan for the people of the earth, and that He loves us and wants us to be happy.  I believe that He considers us all His children and that Christ is His son, who came to make it possible for us to return to our Father.  Consequently, we are all brothers and sisters with one loving Father and a Brother who has done everything for us.   Above all else, we have that in common.

Sadly, there is an opposing force, and he seeks to thwart God's plan by promoting the fringe elements to ensure we don't see our similarities, but only our differences.  In his plan there would be no understanding--only fear and distrust.  How can we love someone we don't understand?  

So, how are we doing in our individual lives?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Whites?  Blacks?  Latinos?  Asians?  Muslims?  Jews?  Christians?  What do we have to say for ourselves?  Can we look past the fringe element promotions to see each other as we are--brothers and sisters?  Admittedly, I have a vast amount of improvement to do here, but I really saw something in those scripture verses I read this morning.  There are opposing forces out there, and they do have different aims for the human race.  Hopefully we can seek to find commonalities with others in our lives so as to enjoy the benefits of being part of God's family, for that is what we are.

A Few Musings

Sitting here watching the Lakers beat up on the Jazz so I thought I'd record a few thoughts:

- I haven't played basketball or soccer for a couple of weeks now. I've either sprained or aggravated a previous sprain on my left ankle three times in the last two months or so--twice playing hoops and once playing soccer. It's really annoying, but I guess it's just another sign that I'm getting older. I never used to have problems with my ankles, but now it seems like it's just a routine occurrence--go play ball and hurt the ankle. So, I decided to take a few weeks off to give the ankle time to heal completely. It's not there yet, but it is feeling far better than it did the last two times I went back to play after injuring it. I'm hoping that with another week it will feel completely normal. We shall see. It takes some of the fun out of the game when in the back of your head you're always concerned about little injuries.

- I have really enjoyed the NBA playoffs this year. My favorite part has been watching Chris Paul of the Hornets. I hadn't really seen him play before this, and I am thoroughly impressed with how complete his game is. And, he comes with the added bonus of playing with a playground abandon. I have loved watching him clown the Spurs on his drives to the hoop. It's easy to see how playing with a guy like that would just be a blast!

- Sobering happenings in Myanmar and China. Thinking of the tsunami a few years ago and Katrina closer to home as well as wars and everything else makes me feel incredibly insulated and spoiled here at home. I mean, look at my two previous items--moaning about minor ankle injuries and commenting on a frivolous game. I guess that's the luxury we have, but it doesn't make the events in other parts of the world any less real for those who are impacted by them. On that note, a shout out to Brenna's cousin, Josh Brazier, and his kaiizen.org efforts. Amazing and inspirational guy. Also a shout out to BYU's Center for Economic Self Reliance (http://marriottschool.byu.edu/selfreliance/). I have to get more involved in that.

- This weekend our stake is doing Play in a Day for the youth. Brenna and I took turns spending time at the church tonight helping out with getting the youth organized. We had more than 30 youth there--amazing! I feel very fortunate to be able to continue to work with the youth. I can't think of anything I would rather do in the church. I spent time with the YM who are working on the set, and it's just fun to interact with them and be reminded of the things that are important to teenagers. What a great time of life! Brenna loved being able to spend time with them as well. It's a breath of fresh air to parents with grade school age children!

- Tomorrow is our 11th anniversary. We're so romantic that we will spend it helping with the Play in a Day and watching the performances in the evening. We figure we did it right last year with our trip to England and Belgium, so a low key anniversary this year is acceptable.

I guess that's enough for now. Nice just to sit down and let my thoughts flow out of my head and onto the screen.

Caucus

Last night Brenna and I participated in our voting precinct's caucus. Never done that before. I'm still not clear why some states use the caucus approach while others use the primary approach, but I did learn a few valuable things last night. First and foremost, I liked the caucus. Though it was definitely more time consuming than just showing up and voting in a primary, it engendered much more of a community feeling. We had about 40 people show up from our precinct, and it was well worth the time to be able to meet some of them and have an open dialog with them. We voted for two to represent our precinct at the county caucus later on this month. Five people wanted to represent us, but we could only have two. So each person took about half a minute to introduce themself and explain why they wanted to be the precinct representative. Then we voted. I got to be the precinct "mouthpiece" during the caucus, which was fun. So I did my best to explain the purpose of the caucus and the items that needed to be decided. A bit humorous as it was something of the blind leading the blind. But a good experience.

All in all, I highly recommend the caucus format. A bit confusing, certainly, but it made me feel more like I was part of America, because I was actually a part of the community. I don't create that opportunity for myself often enough, so I appreciate when it is presented to me.

Freedom requires religion

I've spent a little time reading comments and blogs regarding Mitt Romney's speech this morning. Let me start by saying that when he finished I turned to my wife and said, "I would be happy to hear that speech from any candidate." As a person of faith, I guess that is easy for me to say. Obviously his speech was very friendly to the religiously-minded and to those who like the idea of religion and faith playing a more prominent role in our society--not government, but society.

What has struck me is the number of individuals commenting or blogging who are concerned or outright threatened by Mitt's statement, "Freedom requires religion." That quote is taken from part of a larger statement--"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Many of the opinions I have seen expressed in the public forum indicate Mitt's statement completely devalues atheists or others who don't practice religion. They make him out to be a dangerous theocrat and/or lunatic who will only advance the cause of the religious right and disregard all others. A few examples from posters at CNN.com:

"Freedom requires religion? Grrrr.....So, the faithless don't deserve freedom?"

"True freedom is freedom from religion. Freedom from believing in magical fairy tales with a happy ending and instead pursuing where we came from without mysticism."

"This guy is the same man as what we already have. Open your eyes! We need someone who will acknowledge that you can believe what you want but who won't push their own view upon us. I AM an atheist but yet I have to listen to someone like Mitt tell me that it's wrong? I find that wrong!"

"'Freedom requires religion.' What a stupid statement. If this man gets elected we can expect more of the same stupidity in the White House that we have now. Just as religion is not required to live a fair and just existence, nor is it required for anything else."

------------------

In my mind these individuals have incorrectly interpreted the point Mitt was making. I don't believe Mitt was referring to individuals. Rather, I believe he was referring to society. Individuals absolutely have the right to choose whether to believe in God and/or hold to the tenets of a religion. If certain individuals choose the path of atheism or of abstaining from organized religion then that is their right, and they should be respected in that right. However, to believe that a free society could operate effectively without religion is folly. Freedom does, indeed, require religion. To cite one example the communist USSR pursued a policy of religious intolerance, and we can all agree that freedom is not one of the adjectives that would be used to describe that society.

The point is that people have to be allowed the right to choose whether religion matters to them, and if it does, they need to be able to choose which religion they prefer to follow. That would include the ability to choose no religion at all. A truly free society--like ours--allows, even encourages, people to make that choice. If religion were not allowed or were discouraged in this country, then we would not be free. The same can be said if religion is forced--such action would destroy freedom.

I believe Mitt understands these things. Freedom requires religion because without that choice it is impossible to say that all members of society are truly free to follow their consciences. So, I applaud Mitt's statement. Perhaps it would have been more palatable if Mitt had said, "Freedom requires religion as well as the opportunity to be unreligious." However, that statement is clunky and doesn't fit with the rest of his speech. The speech was focused on faith and its role in American life. To suddenly turn and throw a sop to the atheists would have been pandering at its worst and would have diluted his message of religious tolerance. A broad mind would accept that religious tolerance as espoused in Mitt's speech includes not only acceptance of many different faiths, but also of those who have no religious faith. To declare otherwise is to simply demonstrate a person's own biases and pre-conceived notions.

It all reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from Dead Poet's Society. Robin Williams takes his students to the courtyard, selects a few and encourages them to go into the middle of the courtyard and do something. Soon, they find themselves marching in unison with the remaining students clapping the time of the march. Williams essentially points out they all fell victims to group think and were willing to be followers rather than leaders and individuals. So, the students then take great pleasure in walking around the courtyard in all sorts bizarre manners. One student, however, simply stands and observes. When Williams asks why, the student responds that he is exercising the right not to walk. Williams commends him by saying that his decision only further serves to illustrate the point.

I believe that is what we can learn from Mitt's speech if we choose to take the broader perspective. Freedom is not all marching in time with one religious dogma. It is having numerous religions--the gait of some of which may be bizarre. Freedom also enables individuals to choose to not participate in religion at all. But it would never force an individual into one camp or the other. A free society absolutely requires religion, but it most certainly does not require everyone to be religious.

Welfare email string from years ago

Several years ago I had the following email conversation with my dear friend and brother-in-law, Mike Gavin. I respect and value his opinion very much. I did take the liberty of editing out several of our pop culture sidebar conversations.

The string (keep in mind you must read the last email first):

Mike,

Thanks for the comments. The BD's commentary on Ecclesiastes is very helpful. Perhaps I am guilty of "wresting" the scriptures, and, if so, I apologize to all. My intent in using the verse (Jed and I have done this before) is to simply say that there are circumstances beyond our control that factor into our lives. Whether it be from a material standpoint or any other standpoint. This life is fleeting, and I think the Preacher captures it beautifully in this scripture.

None of the above colors my thoughts about the perfect society. We should all be doing more to help those who cannot help themselves. I don't believe the government--whether it be Liberal, Conservative or Alien-led--will ever get us to that perfect society. Therefore, we must do what we can in our individual spheres and look forward to the time when the Lord institutes His perfect society.

I believe that can fit in with your idea of doing things that never were (or were only once). We can each make a tremendous difference--if we have the stomach for it.

To have Enoch's society today would require leadership and a general populace that turns to God in all circumstances. All would have to be humble and willing to bend their will to God's will. Clearly, the US is nowhere near there, nor is it currently heading in the right direction.

I think it's up to individuals to fight the fight.

I hope I'm making sense. These are just some of my random musings.

Incidentally, I believe Bobby Kennedy borrowed that phrase from George Bernard Shaw--we used it all the time on my mission.

Thanks for the thoughts. They're great ones. Again, how do we get there from here?

Jesse




Jesse,

I found myself pondering your last email while sitting in sacrament meeting on Sunday. You quoted a verse from Ecclesiastes:

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Ecc. 9:11

While reading that, I decided to turn to the Bible dictionary to try to place more context around this fascinating book in the scriptures. Here's what I found (you may already know this):

"The book of Ecclesiastes seems permeated with a pessimistic flavor, but must be read in the light of one of its key phrases: 'under the sun,' meaning 'from a worldly point-of-view.'... Thus, the Preacher laments that as things appear from the point of view of the world, everything is temporary and soon gone - nothing is permanent..."

Then I turned to the book of Moses... to one of those scriptures that puts me in a deep and pensive mood:

Moses 7:18 - "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them."

Both scriptures, of course, are true. But the Preacher refers to the world as it is right now, while Moses speaks of the ideal society found among the people of Enoch. This dichotomy brings to mind a wonderful quote from one of my favorite liberals, Bobby Kennedy:

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask 'why'... I dream of things that never were and ask 'why not?'"

I would amend this slightly, of course, to reflect the reality that was Enoch and his people... thus, I dream of things that once were and ask "why not again"?

Of course, there are a million reasons "why not," and the question we're still left with is "how do we get from here to there?" I've no idea, but wanted to share this group of muddled thoughts anyway.

Hope you're well.
MG




So, more government = more taxes; less government = fewer taxes. That makes sense. It's probably about as black and white as you can make the issue of taxes. However, the overriding question is still supporting those who do not (for whatever reason) support themselves at this point. State/philanthropic support for those who are incapable; teaching to fish for those who lack
opportunity/knowledge. In my perfect world, the government would not need to be directly involved in either. Philanthropy for the former, independent business ventures (as discussed) for the latter. I know the needs of both groups will not be met in the current system without government intervention. So, how does the government distinguish between the incapable and the capable but uninformed? I know of no good way to do that. And so we have an inflated system of social
welfare. People have seen that it's offered, so they avail themselves of it. And when you're down and out--why not? But then it seems it becomes a crutch. The ideal in the current system is temporary assistance, but even that is loaded with pitfalls. As you've said, Mike, round and round we go...

Back to the tax issue and the interesting thought string of taxes as a cost of doing business related to success or opportunity. There is no such thing as equal success or equal opportunity on a nation-wide scale (thus a flat tax rate because we're all blessed with the same opportunities is ludicrous. A flat tax rate for other reasons is palatable--tithing seems pretty reasonable as does the
fast offerings model for welfare. But people have to believe and want to contribute first). Therefore, any tax system based on opportunity or success will be inherently questionable. It seems, then, that taxes based on success (defined as material wealth in this conversation) is the more logical because it is quantifiable while opportunity is not.

Besides, Gates' billions are not necessarily a direct result of all his hard work, etc. Much of it is due to simple chance/fortune/luck (choose your terminology). I know of many smart, ambitious, hardworking individuals who are not as materially successful as the far less deserving--based on credentials alone. Too many variables are in play.

To take the discussion to the extreme, we can compare it to the atonement. We can work as hard as we want, but without at least some level of good luck, our efforts may not lead to incredible material wealth--even if that is our goal. With salvation, we can work as hard as possible, but qualifying on our own merits will ever elude us. Something has to be there to make up the difference. In the case of the atonement, the difference maker is Christ. In the case of material wealth, the difference maker is luck/fortune/being in the right place at the right time. Many would say that God plays a hand in that as well.

In short, regardless of what we do in our lives, there will always be factors at play that we cannot control. We do all that we can to get to where we want to be and trust to God for the rest.


Ecclesiastes 9:11

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.


Don't get me wrong. I believe we get where our efforts take us, but I don't believe that everything a person receives is strictly due to him/herself. There are larger factors at work, and I hope Bill Gates is not too self-congratulatory with his wealth. He has probably worked harder for it than most people in the world would have worked for it, but I'm sure he's not the smartest/hardest working/most capable person going.

Time and chance were on his side in the case of material success. In the case of salvation, "it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do."

Jesse



Jesse,

I knew what you meant.

I read this last night in Newsweek and figured I would pass it along to the two of you. Samuelson frames our recent conversation quite well. Enjoy.

MG

The Rich and Everyone Else
Robert J. Samuelson

IT'S TRUE that the wealthy would receive a huge part of President George W. Bush's proposed tax cut. The top 1 percent would get more than a quarter of the cuts. But it's also true that overtaxing the rich poses dangers. It encourages self-serving and cynical politics. Government is tempted to tax the few and distribute to the many without considering the long-term consequences.
Here are the facts of today's system:

(1) Federal taxes come increasingly from the rich and upper middle class. In 2001, the richest 1 percent of taxpayers (incomes starting at $373,000) paid 25 percent of all taxes, including income and payroll taxes, says the Center for Tax Justice, a liberal group. The share paid by the richest 20 percent (incomes starting at $72,000) was 68 percent. In 1979, these figures were 16 percent and 57 percent. The concentration of taxes mainly reflects a concentration of income. In 2001, the richest 1 percent received 18 percent of income, up from 9 percent in 1979; the share of the richest fifth went from 46 percent to 58 percent. But tax cuts have also favored people in lower brackets. In 2001, the poorest 60 percent of Americans (incomes up to $44,000) paid 14 percent of taxes, down from 22 percent in 1979.

(2) Federal spending has shifted from defense to payments for individuals (Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicare). In 1955, military spending represented 62 percent of the federal budget. Payments for individuals were 21 percent. By 2001, the figures were reversed: defense, 17 percent; payments for individuals, 61 percent.

(3) Not surprisingly, these transfers go heavily to the bottom half of the income spectrum. In 2001, about 60 percent of federal cash payments (retirement, disability, unemployment benefits) went to the poorest 40 percent of Americans, reports the Census Bureau. Noncash programs (food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, public housing) are similarly skewed. Conventional wisdom holds that the wealthy rule politics through hefty campaign contributions. Not so. If the rich are so powerful, why are they taxed so heavily? Even after Bush's tax cuts, they would still pay most of the taxes. In our democracy, votes count for more--much more--than dollars. Rightly so.

This raises another question: if the rich are so outnumbered, why aren't they taxed even more? The common answer is that Americans don't loathe the rich. People want to become wealthy. They don't want success punished. Wealth is--if legally and ethically earned--seen as a reward for hard work, talent or risk-taking. True. But again, votes count. These values resonate politically because the rich and near-rich vote more than everyone else. In 2000, half of those with incomes under $35,000 voted compared with three quarters of those with incomes exceeding $75,000. The electorate has an upper-middle-class bias.

There is now a consensus that the rich should pay more than the poor and middle class?but not a consensus on how much more. In 1906, Teddy Roosevelt said: "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantage from the mere existence of
government." This is the classic case for the progressive income tax?higher rates on higher incomes. Government promotes social stability and protects property; it enables the rich to get rich. Why should the rich get tax relief, ask Bush's critics, when their higher taxes mainly reflect higher incomes? Government should narrow the gap between rich and poor. (There's also an issue of timing. In the boom, some of the rich profited unethically.) Here are competing ideals of tax justice. One says that taxes shouldn't penalize success; the other says people should pay their "fair"
share. The argument is endless, because there is no obvious dividing line between a legitimate levy and confiscation. If redistribution is the government's main purpose, then none of this is a problem. The rich should pay more; the poor should receive more; tax breaks?if affordable?should go to the middle of the middle class. But there is a problem if (as this writer worries) too much redistribution
becomes politically corrupting and economically destructive. Under the guise of "meeting national needs," politics becomes an exercise in buying votes because burdens (mainly taxes) fall narrowly and benefits are spread widely. The economic danger is suffocation under an excess of taxes,
government subsidies and welfare programs. It's insidious because it creeps up slowly over time. Think Europe.

The case for spreading the tax burden more evenly is not to reward or punish. It is to restore political discipline. Politicians and citizens ought to weigh the promised gains of government against the costs. They won't if the direct costs are borne only by a tiny minority. No one then needs to make hard choices. It becomes easy to forget that taxes are the price of government. If people want more (less) of one, they ought to want more (less) of the other. This is an exacting standard that politicians of both parties would gladly evade.

------------------------------

When I wrote "The poverty level here is much higher than it is there," I meant, of course, that the demarkation line for determining who is living in poverty is much higher here than it is there.

Sorry for the seemingly inane statement.

Jesse




Mike,

I actually remember reading an article or hearing on NPR or gaining the info through some other medium about the small business loans in developing countries. I had forgotten all about it until you mentioned it. I am happy to be proved at least anecdotally wrong that the material rewards are not
available. It's a very encouraging sign, and the prospect of bringing that type of program to urban America is tantalizing if somewhat dubious. In the US, many of the folks in Urbania (?) receive the oft-discussed governmental support. I hazard a guess that similar individuals in developing countries do not receive the same level of support from their government. The poverty level here
is much higher than it is there. I suppose I'm saying that I worry about the number of individuals in Urbania who will go for the program when there is a perpetual "free lunch" available. I'm sure my wording there is extremely unfair, but you get the idea.

Does that mean I think the idea is no good? No. I hope there are many, many people out there who are able to take the opportunity and run with it. I just wonder...

So, I guess I also will be watching the proceedings with interest.

Jesse



Jesse,

Your friend actually copied me on his original email back to you (I was honored to be looped in with such company and have done him the service of copying him on this).

Cost of doing business? Sounds logical... though the point of the "10 guys go out to dinner" anecdote was to highlight that, in our society, the cost of doing business is a function of success, not opportunity. Should the cost of doing business for Gates be higher (on a percentage basis)
than, say, my own cost of doing business? If his tax rate is higher than my own, isn't he essentially being penalized for being smarter / more aggressive / (choose your own adjective) than I am? (That is vintage Rand, by the way).

If we were taxed as a function of opportunity, on the other hand, Bill Gates and I might be looking at paying the same flat tax rate (enter Steve Forbes, stage left). I say that we "might" be taxed at the same rate because taxing citizens as a function of opportunity must surely imply that we all have similar opportunities, similar brain power, similar access to education, etc.. And there's the rub, in its most basic, boiled down, foundational form. I don't know anyone that espouses to the naive
notion that we all come into this world facing the same odds, though many conservatives appear to hold fast to the "pull yourself up by the boot straps" philosophy that does not recognize the plight of the "underpriveleged." And around and around we go...

You made an interesting comment in your last email... "Unfortunately, there's precious little material reward in teaching others to fish..." That got me thinking... I wonder if that's true. Two examples
that call that assumption into question:

1) I can't recall specific data off the top of my head, but there are financial services entities out there in the world that specialize in micro-loans to small businesses in developing nations (it's somewhat
reminiscent of the Perpetual Education Fund, though its focused on commercial loans and operates as a for-profit company). The default rate is shockingly low, the money-lenders are profitable, and small businesses in third world countries are beginning to prosper (slowly). Could that
idea be transplanted to, say, urban communities in the U.S.?

2) That brings me to example #2. Chris Gabrielli is a Boston venture-capitalist whose name you might recognize: he was Shannon O'Brien's running mate in the gubernatorial election here in MA (and now,consequently, a hated foe of Mr. Mitt Romney). Anyway, Chris is doing something really interesting now... he's just started a venture capital firm focused exclusively on early stage companies that promise to employ and educate urban workers. The implicit goal, of course, is to get people off of welfare and into paying, productive jobs. I don't know if the idea has legs, but this is a guy trying to make money off of teaching people to fish... I'll be watching closely.

Food for thought.

MG



So, a person not capable of learning to fish? Definitely state/independent philanthropic support. But, where is the line drawn between incapapble, unwilling and slow learner? I guess that becomes the real issue. And so I suppose we err on the side of conservatism (meaning we completely support a lot of people who fall into the unwilling category, so as to avoid cutting off the incapable). Some might think we should err even more to the side of conservatism, others might think we should cut back on our support.

But the issue for me still remains that we do too little to teach people to fish (those who can learn, anyway). Instead, we've mostly decided to lump the whole into the category of incapable of learning.

Unfortunately, there's precious little material reward in teaching others to fish--whether through state sponsored programs or your own individual efforts. There's limitless satisfaction and pleasure from a personal standpoint, but that doesn't put bread on the table for your own family.

Sticky, sticky stuff.

Jesse




Jesse,

On the economic policy front: You made mention of the old "teach a man to fish" aphorism. It reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a friend of mine here in Boston. We were discussing a topic similar to this one and we reached a point in our conversation where he thought it was necessary to whip that out and share it with me as if I had never heard it before (high UIC rating on that one). At any rate, I left him with the following question: "Are there people in this world that, for one reason or another, cannot learn to fish?" Of course, there are. And then the question becomes, as you and I have pointed out, who takes care of them? And how?

And around and around we go... I just thought carrying the "teach a man to fish" analogy one step further was interesting way to highlight the issue.

MG



Mike,

Your statement below is exactly where I see the issue:

On the flip side, is it really government we want taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves? Who else will? Who else can?

I am not a heartless conservative. I believe the scriptures, and I believe it is up to us to "lift up the hands that hang down." Unfortunately, that is not easy to do. I try to give a fair amount of money to the Church, and I know they do good with it, but beyond that--helping the poor becomes extremely
tough.

It's the whole issue of wanting to teach someone to fish rather than giving that person a fish. How does a person do that? I don't think being a financial analyst at Sun is the best way. However, being a financial analyst at Sun does give me some of the material means to help in a "third-party" type of
way. But providing up-front face time is difficult, indeed.

I don't like the government dictating who gets help and how much, but I'm not sure there is a better way at this point. If we could put the prophet and the might of the Church (and God) behind it, that would certainly be the best solution. But I'm supposing that's not going to happen anytime soon
(though not even the angels in heaven know when the Millennium will arrive). So for now, I try to do what I can in my corner of the world, and settle for getting irritated when the government dictates to me that I should be doing more or less.

I know that's not offering a solution, but it's only because I don't have one.

Jesse



Jesse,

Essentially, that is the premise of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (which I've just learned from your latest email that you've ordered). What if the proverbial 10th man decided to not show up for dinner? What would the world look like? How long would our economic system persist? How
long would be survive? The answer, of course, is not very long. And Rand proceeds to take simple economics and turn it into a 1200 page moral manifesto about the power of man's mind and his right to all the bounty of his creations.

Back to the tax story... Compelling stuff, actually. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page makes that argument on a weekly basis (literally... they have at least one editorial every week that makes
mention of flaws of the progressive tax system... it's like clockwork).

As a quasi-liberal, I'm left asking the eternal economic questions: What is it that makes the poor... poor? Are they lazy? Some probably are.

But might there be inherent flaws in the system that prevent some people from ever being able to achieve that which they are capable of? Does the progressive tax system penalize the rich? Or does it provide for those who cannot provide for themselves? On the flip side, is it really government we want taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves? Who else will? Who else can?

I'm still trying to sort all of this out myself.... I wonder if its possible, sometimes. Bottom line (for now): I recognize the flaws of the current system.... but all I see in the anecdote below is criticism.

What I'd like to hear is proposals for alternate solutions.


MG



All,

I'm asking for your forgiveness in advance, but I'm in a terribly mischievous mood today. You all are likely too busy to respond anyway. I have no data to backup whether the info is correct, so I guess I'm somewhat irresponsible, but I found it an interesting way to look at the tax cuts other than the ways that are normally presented.

We must need to look at it both ways, because looking at it either way in isolation lends to the "lies, damned lies and statistics..." rathole.

Anyway, good times!

Jesse

------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------

The Income Tax Story:

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.

The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
The sixth would pay $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man-the richest-would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six-the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.

"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, is how the tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.