You Didn't Build That!

Obama's recent remark about successful Americans has stuck a nerve, spawning reams of replies.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back," the president said. "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen," he said. "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

But what's sparking this reply is not so much his remark as the responses of many who are rightly critical of his theology, but not critical enough. Are businesses helped by roads, the rule of law, and other government provided infrastructure? Does this mean that the government should get some (very small) amount of credit for helping people build their business? Not at all. 
Courts, police, firemen, and roads are all paid for by people who build things and do things to provide goods and services. The  just marketplace enforced by courts (obviously very imperfectly today) is a direct result of the labor of people who build things and do things. It's their labor that generates the money to fund these services. Roads, bridges, and Intellectual property (IP) enforcement are all provided by the labor of working people. In fact, in a just society, any benefit they derive from these services is less than the cost they pay because the people who build things and do things provide these services not just to themselves but to all the other people who are too old, or too young, or too sick, or too lazy to provide these things for themselves.

"But," a typical Obama defender replies, "the point Obama was making is that the business did not have to build the road. Other people built the road." True, but irrelevant to this discussion. Suppose a growing business erects a building - did they mine the ore and make the steel? Did they grow the trees and make the lumber? No, of course not. But they still built the building - all by themselves. It was their capital that funded the labor of all the other people that did do those jobs. That's why the Business owns the building at the end, not the smelter or the sawmill. The same is true of infrastructure. If there is anyone to thank, it is the generations of laborers who went before us, not the government.

This is not to deny that there are many who live off the labor of others - from big businesses to welfare recipients. But even these freeloaders are living off of the backs of those who build things and do things - not the government. The government can only give people what it first took from them. Anything the government provides comes from the labor of working people. If Obama's logic, that successful people owe a part of their success to the government, was correct, a thief who robbed a store at gunpoint of $10,000 and then gave back $9,000 to the store, would become partly responsible for the success of the store. 

Even if the Government acted like that thief, confiscating the fruit of our labor and using the funds to help us, it would not validate Obama's claim that we didn't build our businesses solely by our labor. But the situation is actually even worse. Congress and Executive office, enabled by the courts, take our wealth from us and use it to destroy us. They are like the thief who steals $10,000 from the store and then uses it to hire vandals to throw rocks through the store windows or hackers to crash their computer system. 

But there's a second area where Obama is dead wrong,  He's actually right about the fact that people have not gotten wealthy because they were so smart. But he's dead wrong about how they did get wealthy. No, they didn't get wealthy because they were so smart or because they were helped by government funded education or enabled by the "great American system." In fact Scripture directly warns against such thinking. 

Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: 

Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; 

Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint; Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end;

And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth.

But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. Deuteronomy 8:11-18.

If you have be acquired wealth, it is because the Lord has favored you and has been gracious toward you, giving you something you did not deserve.
Do you thank him for this goodness and use his gifts for the advancement of his kingdom?

Taxes Not Needed For Revenue!

(Full article published in 1946 can be downloaded from above link)

According to Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the federal government no longer needs to tax its citizens in order to generate revenue. At least that is what he told the American Bar Association during the last year of WWII.
And you thought the Federal Government taxed us in order to raise the funds necessary to conduct the business of government.
Silly you?
Well, hardly. That is, after all, not an illogical thought.
But as unbelievable as it may sound, the government has apparently not had to tax the citizens for over 70 years. This begs the question, if they don’t need our money to operate the government, why do they go through the hassle and trouble of collecting billions of dollars from millions of citizens who really could use the money for their families? Mr. Ruml answers this question, telling the lawyers of his day:

The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements. The first of these changes is the gaining o f vast new experience in the management o f central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.
The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements.

He goes on to explain the real purpose of taxation. In so doing he removes all doubt about the existence of a free market economy in these United States.

He says:
What Taxes Are Really For
Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:

1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.

As we knew all along, the real purpose of taxation is to manipulate our economy to discourage productive labor by taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who won't work.
This doesn't sound too far removed from God's pomises in Deuteronomy 28.

Deu 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
Deu 28:31 Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them.
Deu 28:33 The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway:

Taxing An Unfriendly Church

An editorial in the NY Times noted today that:

Shortly before the last election, a former rector at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., gave a fiery antipoverty and antiwar sermon. He did not endorse a presidential candidate, but he criticized President Bush's policies in Iraq and at home. Now the Internal Revenue Service has challenged the church's tax-exempt status.
I.R.S. officials have said about 20 churches are being investigated for activities across the political spectrum that could jeopardize their tax status. … The I.R.S. argues that freedom of religion does not grant freedom from taxes if churches engage in politics.

Important Correction: Freedom of religion does not grant freedom from taxes if state sponsored churches engage in politics. The tax code says nothing about churches that are not state chartered entities.
26 USC Sec 501 (c) 3 is quoted in its entirety below:

CITE-
26 USC Sec. 501 (01/19/04)
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter F - Exempt Organizations
PART I - GENERAL RULE

-HEAD-
Sec. 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.

-STATUTE-

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

This section of the code claims to apply only to corporations, community chests, funds, and foundations. It says nothing about churches. The only way a church could be included in this prohibition is if it is incorporated by the civil magistrate.

Churches that are incorporated as 501(c)3 organizations are legal entities created by the state and put in the same category as your local society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or diabetes foundation. Legally and effectively they are state churches and the content of their preaching is controlled by the state.

Many reformed pastors today would argue that the church shouldn’t be trying to influence legislation. It should be preaching Christ and Him crucified. Therefore this restriction poses no problem to the church.

There are two problems with this approach:

1. It ignores the legal fact that incorporated 501(c)3 churches are legal entities created by the state and institutionally inferior and subject to the state. If the church of Jesus Christ is not an institution created by the state, then how is it acceptable for it to exist as one?
2. Is it really biblical that the church should not try to influence legislation?

Scripture says (Mtt 5:19ff) that the church is to make disciples of all nations, teaching the people to observe everything ("all things whatsoever" are the KJV words) God has commanded. In fact this passage is even referred to as the Great Commission given to the church. In other words, teaching the people what God has commanded is the job of the church. Let’s apply this. God has commanded that we respect the life of other humans. Are we going to teach that? Are we going to help the congregation see that abortion is murder and a law allowing abortion is a law allowing murder?

God has ordained marriage between one man and one woman to be a picture of the union between Christ and his Church. Should we teach that? Should we teach husbands that their love for their wife is to be like the sacrificial love Christ has toward us? Should the church teach God’s people that a law allowing sodomite marriage is a perversion of something that is holy and typical of our union with Christ? Scripture says sin is a reproach to any people. Should the church teach that allowing sodomite marriage is a reproach on our nation?

Scripture teaches that we are to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and that we are to honor him. Should we teach God's people that they have a duty to pray for their civil magistrate, to vote in his elections, and render obedience to him? Scripture says that everything we do, even our eating and drinking, is to be done to the glory of God. Should the church teach the people that even in their voting they are to glorify God and that a vote to permit what God has forbidden does not honor the Lord?

Proverbs 20:26 says, "A wise king scatters the wicked, and brings the wheel over them." Should the church teach this wisdom to God’s people and help them apply it in their life? Should the church be seeking to disciple the civil magistrate? Is he included in "all the nations?"

If we as the church are doing all this, aren’t we influencing legislation?

Mat 5:13-18 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith, shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot, be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It is in the context of reminding us that we are the salt of the earth and that we are to let our light shine before men that Jesus affirms that he did not come to destroy the law.

If we are being the salt of the earth and the light of the world and we are discipling all nations, doesn’t that imply we will be influencing legislation?

I think one can rightly conclude that when the church ceases to influence the legislation of the nation, she becomes salt that has lost its savor; she has become a candle hid under a basket.