Category Archives: Commentary

Commentary

Obama’s reversal of the Bush tax cuts would cut your take-home pay

1 Comment

Investors Business Daily explains what would happen if Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire. (H/T Ponder With Us)

Excerpt:

Professor Michael Graetz of Columbia University recently estimated in the Wall Street Journal that letting the tax cuts expire will cost the U.S. economy $10 billion a month in added withholding from paychecks.

Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips estimates letting the Bush cuts expire could slash “nearly 10 percentage points” from disposable income growth in the first quarter of next year, and nearly two percentage points from GDP in the first half.

With GDP now at a tad above $14 trillion, the impact could be $280 billion or more in the first six months alone.

In short, the higher taxes could very well push us back into recession — at a time when the economy is struggling under 9.6% unemployment with little if any private-sector job growth.

What’s most worrisome is what it will do to the working taxpayer. His or her take-home pay is about to fall, leaving noticeably less to spend and save.

A married couple without children and an annual income of $80,000 would have an added $221 taken from their paycheck every two weeks, the Bloomberg report says, quoting the H&R Block Tax Institute. That jumps to $558 for couples bringing in $240,000.

Data from the Tax Policy Center show even those with modest family incomes would take a hit. For example, a couple with income of $60,000 and four children can expect to pay $130 more every two weeks to Uncle Sam. It doesn’t get much better for those who make just $40,000. They’ll find about $108 more withheld every other week.

Obama likes to spread the wealth around. You don’t mind, do you? He knows so much better than you do how to spread your money around.

Commentary

Richard Dawkins’ rhetoric about religion and child abuse

6 Comments

Vic Reppert wrote an interesting post a while back on Richard Dawkins’ view that parents teaching their religion to children is child abuse.

First, this is what Dawkins said:

“God Delusion” author Richard Dawkins complains that “Our society, including the nonreligious sector, has accepted the preposterous idea that it is normal and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and to slap religious labels on them — ‘Catholic child,’ ‘Protestant child,’ ‘Jewish child,’ ‘Muslim child,’ etc.”

Dawkins says those “labels” are “always a form of child abuse” and concludes:

“Maybe some children need to be protected from indoctrination by their own parents.”

Then Reppert writes:

The thinking that leads to religious persecution goes like this: those guys over there who are teaching false religious claims are exposing others to a greater likelihood of eternal damnation. So we have to stop these people no matter what it takes. Maybe people need to be protected from false teaching. Believe me, religious persecutors have everyone’s best interests at heart.

So do anti-religious persecutors. Removing eternal damnation from the picture doesn’t eliminate the temptation to persecute. They will say that these religious people may not be exposing people to hell, but they are spreading scientific illiteracy and possibly ushering in a new dark age, and they just have to be stopped.

If I were told that I could not teach Christianity to my children, you can bet I would consider myself to be a victim of persecution. (Unfortunately for Dawkins, we already “indoctrinated” our kids, and they are dedicated Christian adults now.)

Yes, yes, I know, Dawkins says maybe. And the next atheist that comes along will say definitely. And it will be more tempting for these people to say definitely the closer they are to acquiring political power.

I don’t agree with Vic Reppert on many things, but he’s right about this. And I think Dawkins’ views are particularly alarming given the moral relativism, anti-reason and anti-science ideas so dominant on the secular left. I posted recently about the atheist philosopher Arif Ahmed’s denial of moral facts, which is the view that is consistent with atheism and an accidental, materialistic universe. It was interesting to see how Ahmed’s denial of moral realism did not stop him from being politically active on the basis of his personal preferences. And he was perfectly happy forcing his personal preferences on other people despite admitting that morality is illusory when considered objectively.

Atheists don’t believe in moral realism, but they do believe in pursuing pleasure and avoiding moral sanctions from those who disagree with them. And the more militant ones liek Dawkins and Ahmed will use political power to pursue those ends. If you are religious, and you teach your children that some actions are objectively immoral, then your children may grow up and judge atheists or vote in policies that limit their hedonism. Then the more militant atheists would feel bad, or be prevented from doing things that make them happy – like killing inconvenient babies who appear after recreational sex. And the more militant atheists may want to put a stop to you making them feel bad. There is nothing in their worldview that prevents them from using violence to stop you from making them feel bad. On their view, the universe is an accident, and you have no “natural rights” like the right to life, objectively speaking.

So you can see how the denial of objective moral values and duties leads to things like abortion today. Their victims today are weak, and small. Many people are therefore inclined to agree with them that the right to happiness of the strong trumps the right-to-life of the weak, (a right not grounded by the atheism worldview, which denies objective human rights). Tomorrow, if they had more political power, perhaps the more militant atheists would graduate to more draconian acts, like other atheists (Stalin, Mao, etc.) have in the past.

Atheist Aldous Huxley explains what atheists believe about morality and why they believe it:

For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.

Atheism is just the denial of objective moral duties, achieved by denying the existence of the objective moral duty prescriber, also known as God.

Atheists oppose science and evidence

Theists support science and evidence

Commentary

Mark Steyn explains the root cause of America’s massive debt

2 Comments

Mark Steyn says that the spending and debt is just the symptom of a deeper character issue. (H/T The Way The Ball Bounces)

Excerpt:

And, without serious course correction, America is doomed. It starts with the money. For dominant powers, it always does – from the Roman Empire to the British Empire. “Declinism” is in the air these days, but for us full-time apocalyptics we’re already well past that stage. In the space of one generation, a nation of savers became the world’s largest debtors, and a nation of makers and doers became a cheap service economy.

[…]At the lower end, Americans are educated at a higher cost per capita than any nation except Luxembourg in order to do minimal-skill checkout-line jobs about to be rendered obsolete by technology. At the upper end, America’s elite goes to school till early middle age in order to be credentialed for pseudo-employment as $350 grand-a-year diversity consultants (Michelle Obama) or in one of the many other phony-baloney makework schemes deriving from government micro-regulation of virtually every aspect of endeavor.

[…]As I said, the decline of great powers invariably starts with the money. When government spends on the scale Washington’s got used to, that’s not a spending issue, it’s a moral one. There’s nothing virtuous about “caring” “compassionate” “progressives” being caring and compassionate and progressive with money yet to be earned by generations yet to be born. That’s what “fiscal conservatives” often miss: This isn’t a green-eyeshade issue. Increasing dependency, disincentivizing self-reliance, absolving the citizenry from responsibility for their actions: The multitrillion-dollar debt catastrophe is not the problem but merely the symptom. It’s not just about balancing the books, but about something more basic and profound.

I think that the problem is that people, even conservatives, have bought into the idea that life is about having fun – having a good time. It’s like there is no way we ought to be, and that there is no respect for doing what it takes to be cautious, frugal and self-reliant. No one is trying to build a life apart from government, anymore. We are all just pursuing pleasurable experiences – and we want someone else to take care of us. We are not studying difficult subjects in school, not taking on difficult jobs, and we aren’t willing to delay gratification. Somehow, we have decided that it is government’s job to equalize life outcomes regardless of our decisions.

This speech by George Will highlights the dangers of dependency on government.