Read My Lips! MORE New Taxes?

The top video, of course, comes from the former president George H. W. Bush (or, shorthand Bush 41). He made this promise and terrific soundbite during his successful 1988 presidential campaign.

We've come quite a ways since then. I read recently that state governments are proposing making new or increasing taxes on a wider variety of goods and services. The local example is the governor's so-called "obesity tax" which will tax the stuff that increases that particular health risk. It includes all non-diet sodas. The bottom video highlights this. It's easy for for me to sit here and be OK with that, since I don't drink that much soda, diet or otherwise.

But it does make an interesting point. What are the limits of taxation? When is it too much. (Some may argue that any tax is too much.) Another side of the issue is this: Why are we so surprised and outraged when we hear phrases like "obesity tax" floated?

I should make one thing clear at this point. I am all for paying taxes. It's our duty as citizens to pay our taxes to help the government carry out its business. But this doesn't mean that every tax is necessary and/or fair. And our government gives us the right to peacefully express our disapproval and disappointment at those taxes we feel are unnecessary and/or unfair. So please, dear reader, pay your taxes!

The issue here is why we get upset when ideas like the obesity tax are foisted upon us. I believe there are a couple reasons for this. And, yes, both sides of the political spectrum are to blame.

Let's start with the left. We all know about the stereotypical "tax and spend liberal". You know, the one who wants to raise taxes to fund every government program with a bloated budget, no matter how crazy or unimportant or obscene it may be. Unlike others, this stereotype has a nugget of truth in it. Some of us do see value in a variety of things and feel that the government should help pay for it. After all, we never know what we will learn or the good that will come from it. And without government assistance, the gains will never be made. And the best way to get said money is from the taxpayers.

Moving on to the right. Here we work in the stereotype of the evil conservative who hates just about everything except Big Business. He or she wants to cut funding for things that make the world better and funnel all that saved money into military defense. Like its cousin in the above paragraph, this stereotype also contains a nugget of truth. Some of us do think that while these programs are probably important to somebody, the government has more pressing issues on which to spend its cash. The cash that the government does get does come from taxpayers, who should be giving less of it. Cut spending, reduce taxes.

Both are good valid, arguments. It's not hard to see why people are confused and outraged. From the ratcheted-up rhetoric of both parties, an interesting phenomenon has occurred. A new idea has emerged. Somehow, Americans have gotten it into their heads that you can have everything and you don't have to pay for it. Where did this come from? I argue that it is from the people we choose and elect to lead us. Maybe not on purpose, maybe by design. But, I believe it is their use of "wedge issues" that shift the focus from things of substance to things of style. Prime examples: Flag burning. Flip-flopping. You name it. All designed to act like mental rodeo clowns (or quites, for you bullfighting aficionados).

I see why people are upset. Are our leaders listening?

The "I Don't Get It" List

While I do consider myself to be a garden variety armchair pseudo anthropologist of American culture, there are certain things which I just do not get. This is not to say there is anything wrong with any of the items on this list, I just don't understand their popularity. I have friends, loved ones, and relatives that like these things, but I just can't grasp their appeal. People have tried to explain it to me, but it's just beyond me. I'm sorry if some of what you like is on this list, but I probably have and do things you don't get either (Camo, Woody Allen, etc.). Make-a da world go 'round.

1. Mixed Martial Arts
2. "Sex & The City"
3. NASCAR
4. John Mayer
5. Orlando Bloom
6. Most Anime (with some exceptions)
7. "Lord of the Rings" (books and films; sorry, CSL fanboys!)
8. Monty Python
9. Cris Collinsworth
10. "Dancing With The Stars"
11. "Columbo"
12. Film and Music elitists
13. Elicia's Pizza in the STL
14. Ranch Dressing with Chicken Wings
15. Sushi

Single-Issue Voters- Part 2

I know it might sound like I'm picking on conservatives, Republicans, or other people who vote on "moral values". But I'm not. What I'm decrying is the idea that one of those values is more important than any other.

I am also not saying that SIVs were the only ones responsible for economic meltdown. Please understand that.

I'm thinking merely in practical terms here. After all, how much comfort can there be in knowing your elected representative is pro-choice when the schools suck when and if that kid is born. How great is it to have an elected official that is rabidly pro-gun, when you might not have a house in which to store your firearms? All I'm saying is that practicality sometimes has be the deciding factor.

This brings us to an interesting subset of SIVs. Those who vote on "character". Again, I'm not saying that it's an important issue. However, to make that the single issue which will decide your vote is not a good thing for 2 reasons. First, it has been established that using any single issue as an electoral "trump card" can have dire consequences. Second, it is really impossible. Not to perpetuate a stereotype, but a good many of the "character" voters I've met, are good, Christian people. Being such, they should know better. They should know that people are imperfect and sinful. Before God, we are all of shady character (to put it mildly). But even in a purely secular context, they should know better. In a purely secular context (or in a left-hand kingdom context, as a shout out to fellow Lutherans), they should know that decent, moral, hard-working, and honorable people exist in both parties.

Third, it sets the expectant voter up for colossal failure. Here's what I mean: It could (not saying WILL) turn out that the candidate has some very bad skeletons in their closet. Like we all do. But if it it made public, that person who voted on "character" will be disappointed that their vote went to such a scumbag. For every John McCain, there's a Mark Foley feeling up pages. For every Daniel Patrick Moynihan, there's William Jefferson stacking money in a freezer. Did either of these men get elected because they made character an issue? So, there's bound to be disappointment. We know this in our own lives. Why should we not anticipate it from our elected leaders?

I hope this sheds a little light on why I believe it pays to be politically interested in more than just one issue.

Again, I must add:
Disclaimer: I am writing this as a private citizen. My views are totally my own. These views do not necessarily reflect my congregation, my church body, other clergy, etc. I am solely responsible for the content of this post.

Single-Issue Voters- Part 1

Not too long ago, Barack Obama said something (and I'm paraphrasing, hopefully correctly) along the lines of: the current economic crisis is the final verdict on the failed economic policies of George W. Bush. I offer a slightly different take. Yes, President Bush is the guy in charge. And yes, there is a Congress (albeit a spineless one) controlled by the Democratic Party. But who put those people in those positions? The American people, that's who. It may sound a bit callous, but some of the fault lies in certain segments of the voting public.

I'm writing about Single-Issue Voters (or, SIVs). There are folks who vote for certain candidates based on their stance on a particular issue. This is most often associated with the pro-life movement. But, the SIV phenomenon is not limited to them. No, it spans all political ideologies and has infiltrated both parties. Anything can be an item for a SIV: abortion, 2nd Amendment issues, the environment, gay marriage, you name it. Even general angst with a political party can work in this capacity.

This is not a good thing. It implies that that issue is the only thing that matters. Life is much more complex than many SIVs would have us believe. The current economic crisis is proof of that. The collapse happened for many reasons. However, none of the reasons include gay marriage, abortion, or guns.

This is why I say that single-issue voting is not good. True, the economic crisis could be construed as an extreme example. But, I believe it does serve as an indictment of such voting habits. Plenty of good, decent hard-working, innocent Americans are affected by this economic crisis. Why? I believe part of it is due to too many people with tunnel vision.

To be continued...

Disclaimer: I am writing this as a private citizen. My views are totally my own. These views do not necessarily reflect my congregation, my church body, other clergy, etc. I am solely responsible for the content of this post.

A Brief Rant-Golf Etiquette

I played 18 holes of golf today. I did much better on the back 9. The front 9 was pretty much a disaster. But, I ran into the same problem that I've been having as of late, whether I play with my usual partner or alone.

Will somebody please tell me why people on the golf course (as of late, it's been primarily old guys) are so dead-set against having faster people play through? I just don't don't get it. I thought that was one of the primary roles of golf.

Apparently not.