A bomb goes off in Oslo, then a madman in a police uniform shoots up a youth camp. Shortly after the attack, a Jihadist organization that may or may not exist claimed responsibility for the act of terror. Then, a 180 degree turn occurs: Breivik, the "jihadist", isn't a Muslim, but a Christian! The news spreads like wildfire.
So, is Breivik a Christian? Clinton said it best, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Breivik claims he's a Christian. His Facebook page said he is (before it was taken down). So I guess we could call him a self-described Christian. But does calling oneself something make it so? I could call myself a millionaire, but I don't think it would make my bank account any fatter. But Christianity isn't really objective, like dollars in a bank account. It's subjective, it's a belief, interpreted differently by every person who claims to be a Christian.
Do Christians think Breivik is Christian? The answer seems to be a somewhat wobbly "not really". Time after time after time opinion writers, scholars, and talking heads and denounce the act and define it as un-Christian, but many of the attempts to define Breivik himself as not a Christian seem almost petty. Why?
What he did in Norway last week was anything but Christian, and it certainly wasn't "Christ-like", and in the end, Breivik's level of Christianity is something that will be settled between himself and Christ.
While there are days when my Christianity is not as manifest as others, and times when I don't act very Christian at all, that doesn't make me "not" a Christian. Judas Iscariot was a Christian, too. Christianity is a belief structure, a theology, a religious inclination, not a guarantee of Christ-like action.
So I'll say what so many seem to be hesitant to say:
Breivik is a nut, a loon, a maniac, a killer, a despicable person, scum of the earth, disturbed, hateful, and....a Christian.
About the Author
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
50% Surtax on Former Government Employees Say What!?
The other day I came across a suggestion that was posted on Pajamas Media's Instapundit blog by a Glenn Reynolds.
The author jokingly suggested that perhaps a good way for Obama to raise revenue would be to place a 50% surtax on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay $12,500 in excise tax (half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years. While I must reaffirm that the author said this jokingly, I assume that his suggestion was posted with the intent that it would "scare" people out of going to work for the government.
While it is obvious that there is quite a bit of fat that can be trimmed from the government's payroll, I take strong issue with that suggestion. This guy seems to imply in his post that working for the federal government should be penalized. If you read between the lines, it seems like he thinks it is a bad thing or that it is offensive for somebody to work for the federal government.
I'm not exactly a lobbyist for federal workers. For example, in a recent post I said:
While I actually have a hard time believing that government employees deserve a better retirement than everybody else, I can understand the argument. Firemen rescue, policemen protect, sanitation workers sanitize..., etc. I understand that our lives would not to be the same if public employees didn't show up to work. Then again, our lives might change just as drastically if all the nation's Walmart employees decided to stay home for a week or two.
But arguing that public employees are not any more crucial to society than private ones is not the same thing as degrading them by implying that their existence should somehow be penalized.
Ben Stein, one of my favorite commentators, stated once:
There is a basic assumption among many of us conservatives that bothers me. Basically, the assumption is that if a person is a government employee, then he or she is lazy and shiftless, a parasite just eating up tax dollars without doing anything...To put it mildly, this is unfair and not even in the ballpark of what's true...I am sure there are many government employees who waste money but so are there wasteful private sector people. Let's take our conservative noses out of the air and stop sneering at the people who serve us in the civil service. We would be awfully sad if they were gone, even the ones in the Department of Motor Vehicles.
While we were arguing from different directions. Our point is the same, I believe. Employees in both private and public sectors serve vital roles in our society. Without them, our lives would undoubtedly be more difficult and both groups should be treated well.
I do still believe, however, that since the private sector basically funds the public one. Everybody's best interest is served in increasing effiiciency and lowering costs within the public sector - as long as effectiveness is not lost.
So in rebuttal to the condescending suggestion of Reynolds, I suggest the following:
A 50% deduction on the taxable income on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. This deduction would be applicable to up to 50% of that employee's actual salary in his former government position. For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay income tax on $62,500 of his income ($12,500 less, or half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years, but is not eligible for a tax deduction of more than $25,000 (half of his original $50,000 paycheck). Of course, in order to qualify, they would have to be hired before today's date and leave their position in the government after today's date.
I contend that this solution would have a more positive impact on our economic situation. We all know that it is tax revenue that pays for the government worker's salary, so incentivising a departure from the public to private sector would in the end save the taxpayers money and in fact increase revenue to the government. There is also no stigma against public employees created by this kind of a policy. It's in effect a way of saying, "Thanks for your service to your country, now let me give you a head start on your venture into the private sector."
What say you?
The author jokingly suggested that perhaps a good way for Obama to raise revenue would be to place a 50% surtax on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay $12,500 in excise tax (half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years. While I must reaffirm that the author said this jokingly, I assume that his suggestion was posted with the intent that it would "scare" people out of going to work for the government.
While it is obvious that there is quite a bit of fat that can be trimmed from the government's payroll, I take strong issue with that suggestion. This guy seems to imply in his post that working for the federal government should be penalized. If you read between the lines, it seems like he thinks it is a bad thing or that it is offensive for somebody to work for the federal government.
I'm not exactly a lobbyist for federal workers. For example, in a recent post I said:
While I actually have a hard time believing that government employees deserve a better retirement than everybody else, I can understand the argument. Firemen rescue, policemen protect, sanitation workers sanitize..., etc. I understand that our lives would not to be the same if public employees didn't show up to work. Then again, our lives might change just as drastically if all the nation's Walmart employees decided to stay home for a week or two.
But arguing that public employees are not any more crucial to society than private ones is not the same thing as degrading them by implying that their existence should somehow be penalized.
Ben Stein, one of my favorite commentators, stated once:
There is a basic assumption among many of us conservatives that bothers me. Basically, the assumption is that if a person is a government employee, then he or she is lazy and shiftless, a parasite just eating up tax dollars without doing anything...To put it mildly, this is unfair and not even in the ballpark of what's true...I am sure there are many government employees who waste money but so are there wasteful private sector people. Let's take our conservative noses out of the air and stop sneering at the people who serve us in the civil service. We would be awfully sad if they were gone, even the ones in the Department of Motor Vehicles.
While we were arguing from different directions. Our point is the same, I believe. Employees in both private and public sectors serve vital roles in our society. Without them, our lives would undoubtedly be more difficult and both groups should be treated well.
I do still believe, however, that since the private sector basically funds the public one. Everybody's best interest is served in increasing effiiciency and lowering costs within the public sector - as long as effectiveness is not lost.
So in rebuttal to the condescending suggestion of Reynolds, I suggest the following:
A 50% deduction on the taxable income on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. This deduction would be applicable to up to 50% of that employee's actual salary in his former government position. For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay income tax on $62,500 of his income ($12,500 less, or half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years, but is not eligible for a tax deduction of more than $25,000 (half of his original $50,000 paycheck). Of course, in order to qualify, they would have to be hired before today's date and leave their position in the government after today's date.
I contend that this solution would have a more positive impact on our economic situation. We all know that it is tax revenue that pays for the government worker's salary, so incentivising a departure from the public to private sector would in the end save the taxpayers money and in fact increase revenue to the government. There is also no stigma against public employees created by this kind of a policy. It's in effect a way of saying, "Thanks for your service to your country, now let me give you a head start on your venture into the private sector."
What say you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
