I was so busy last Saturday with the anti-war rally put on by the Austin Alliance for Peace (which one of my students founded) that I had no time to post my weekly news roundup. So today seemed appropriate since all of our offerings to Caesar are due today…

Pastor Jeremy Sarber has an interesting podcast about Biblical politics posted about two weeks ago that he wanted to share with us.

I’m loving the new Laissez Faire Books blog, which my friend Jeff tucker writes for quite frequently. Two articles on the blog have caught my eye recently. Commerce, Our Benefactor is all about the beautiful benefits, complexity, and justice of a the free market. The second more important article is Death by Regulation, which has nearly gone viral. It is a compelling story of how the State completely ruined the life of Andrew  Wordes. You absolutely must read it.

Allan Stevo reminds us that we are only 11 weeks into a 9 month primary cycle. Ron Paul is still a long shot, but we ought to remember that it is less about winning and more about influencing people. There is still a lot more time to use this presidential election season to teach people about liberty.

Now for some taxation news that will really annoy you…

Reason Mag shows us 5 new ways the IRS is screwing America (their words, not mine).

From that same Reason article, I found another link where Bloomberg noted that fatal car crashes tend to increase on Tax Day. Watch out on the road today, people!

Gary North discusses what happens when government safety nets break.

And now for your moment of Zen: the Beatles song “Taxman”:

Have you made it back to LCC lately? Here’s what you missed if you’ve been away:

• The Tax Man Cometh
• Key Elements to a Successful Federal Budget
• Budgeting Leviathan
• Our Marxist Tax Code
• How to Be a Crook
• Download the LCC Interview on the Aaron Barker Program

Have some relevant news and links you want to share? Post in the comments below. I read every comment and respond to almost all of them. Let me know what you’re thinking!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: Today is Tax Day

President Obama submitted his bloated budget to Congress in February. House Republicans issued their bloated budget in March. House Democrats then countered with their bloated budget.

Because the Republicans have a majority in the House, it was no surprise that the Republican budget passed by a vote of 228-191 and the Democratic budget failed by a vote of 163-262. It was also no surprise that not a single Democrat voted for the Republican budget and not a single Republican voted for the Democratic budget.

But because it is the Democrats that have a majority in the Senate, the Republican budget passed by the House has virtually no chance of passing in the Senate. Likewise, if the Senate were to pass a budget and send it to the House, it would be just as dead on arrival as the president’s budget was.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington D.C. always eager to do the bidding of the Republican Party, has pronounced ("First Reactions to Ryan’s Path to Prosperity Budget") House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s budget "a serious plan worthy of serious consideration" that "lays out substantive policy choices, cutting spending, reforming entitlements, and avoiding tax hikes." The House Republican budget "represents real progress toward tackling the nation’s fiscal and economic challenges." It not only "cuts spending, in the budget year of 2013 and into the future, from both discretionary accounts and entitlements," but "features strong, substantive, market-based reforms to the health entitlements and a solid, growth-oriented tax plan." Oh, the Ryan budget is not "perfect," but it "substantially advances the serious and necessary conversation about securing America’s future and its great legacy of freedom, opportunity, and self government."

Contrary to the glowing analysis of the Heritage Foundation, the Republican budget of Paul Ryan and the House Committee on the Budget, as I have recently shown, even though it is called "The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal," is a bloated, unbalanced, fiscally irresponsible, mostly unconstitutional path toward, and blueprint for, the welfare/warfare state.

In their article on the Ryan budget plan, the Heritage coauthors list "six key elements to a successful federal government budget":

The Republican budget fails miserably when it comes to cutting spending sharply and quickly. It actually proposes to increase spending by a trillion dollars over the next ten years. The Ryan plan also fails miserably when it comes to moving swiftly and surely to a balanced budget. Not only does it not foresee balancing the budget anytime in the next ten years, it plans on adding $4.5 trillion to the national debt during this period of time.

The Republican "Path to Prosperity" does include some entitlement reforms. I will let conservatives battle it out over whether they are decisive enough (they aren’t). There are two problems with these entitlement reforms. First, the Republicans propose to spend $517.1 billion on welfare (TANF, refundable EIC, SSI, unemployment, food stamps, housing and energy assistance, school lunch subsidies, etc.) in fiscal year 2013 (not including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP), "only" $450 billion in fiscal year 2017, and then $511 billion in fiscal year 2022. A few billion less in proposed spending is hardly a decisive entitlement reform. And second, every president and every Congress talks about reforming entitlements and tinkers with them in their budgets. Didn’t Clinton the Democrats "end welfare as we know it"?

The Republican budget does avoid tax hikes, although not completely since it recommends clearing out the burdensome tangle of loopholes and broadening the tax base. And yes, there are some pro-growth tax reforms in the Ryan plan. Thank God the Republicans only want to take 25 percent of the income of successful Americans and American businesses instead of a higher percentage.

Ensuring a strong national defense is about the only thing that the House Republican budget plan does well – if all you look at is the level of defense spending. But is this a good thing? The United States spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. This is because most U.S. defense spending is spent on offense not defense. It is spent on empire, imperialism, occupations, senseless foreign wars, and interventions in other countries. When the Heritage Foundation talks about a budget ensuring a strong national defense, it refers to the defense budget being a gravy train for defense contractors.

But not only is the Republican budget a failure, the Heritage Foundation’s budget elements are faulty as well. From a libertarian, constitutional, limited government perspective, here are six key elements to a successful federal budget:

1. Does it propose only spending authorized by the Constitution?

2. Does it begin to permanently end entitlements instead of just reforming them?

3. Does it cut taxes instead of just avoiding tax hikes?

4. Does it provide millions for defense but not one cent for empire?

5. Does it eliminate taxes instead of just instituting tax reform?

6. Does it balance the budget now, not in five or ten years?

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s plan to cut the budget by a trillion dollars the first year and balance it in the second is the only thing that comes close to being a successful federal budget. All the Republican talk about cutting the budget is, as usual, just a bunch of hot air.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on April 12, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Key Elements to a Successful Federal Budget

To plan for these vast expenditures, the president proposes a budget. Then the respective budget committees of the House and Senate propose their own budgets by means of concurrent resolutions that allocate spending among categories known as budget functions. Congress then passes appropriation bills based on and constrained by the discretionary spending allocations in the budget resolutions.

Barack Obama submitted his proposed fiscal year 2013 budget to Congress at the end of February. With its tax increases and built-in trillion-dollar deficit, it was dead on arrival.

At the end of March, the Republican-controlled House Committee on the Budget submitted its own budget plan. Then the Democratic minority on the House Committee on the Budget introduced their own budget plan in the form of an amendment to the Republican plan, H. CON. RES. 112.

Because of the Republican majority in the House, it is no surprise that, on party-line votes, the Democratic plan was rejected and the Republican plan passed. However, 10 House Republicans bucked the House leadership and voted against the Republican budget.

Two concurrent resolutions on the budget have been introduced by Republicans in the Senate, but they have no chance of passing in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Senate Democrats filed a “deeming resolution” establishing the Senate’s discretionary spending limits according to the levels enacted in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

A brief look at the respective budgets proposed by the Democrats and Republicans in the House shows that all of the Democrats and the overwhelming majority of the Republicans are firmly committed to budgeting leviathan.

For fiscal year 2013, House Democrats propose to spend $3.704 trillion (and run a deficit of $964 billion). House Republicans propose to spend $3.53 trillion (and run a deficit of $796 billion). That is a difference in spending outlays of only 4.81 percent.

That couldn’t possibly be true, I thought. Didn’t Sen. Jim DeMint just say in his book Now or Never: Saving America from Economic Collapse that there are “irreconcilable differences” between Democrats and Republicans and that Democrats “always expand government and spending”? Didn’t the Texas governor and former Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry also say in his book Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington that, in general, Republicans believe in “low taxes,” “low regulation,” and “less spending,” while Democrats believe in “higher taxes,” “more regulations,” and “more spending”?

To give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, I tried looking at the figures in other ways, but the results were not much different. We could say that Democrats want to spend 4.92 percent more than Republicans. Or we could say that Republicans want to spend 4.69 percent less than Democrats. But it is apparent that no matter how you look at it, Democrats and Republicans are within 5 percent of each other. It looks like George Wallace was right when he quipped that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

One way to decisively determine whether there is any difference between Republicans and Democrats is to look at the spending they each propose on certain specific budget functions.

On budget function 050, National Defense, Republicans want new budget authority of $562.2 billion, while Democrats want $553.9 billion. That is a difference of 1.48 percent.

On budget function 350, Agriculture, Republicans want new budget authority of $21.7 billion, while Democrats want $21.8 billion. That is a difference of .46 percent.

On budget function 500, Education, Republicans want new budget authority of $57.6 billion, while Democrats want $85 billion. That is a difference of 38.42 percent.

On budget function 550, Health, Republicans want new budget authority of $363.6 billion, while Democrats want $370.7 billion. That is a difference of 1.93 percent.

On budget function 570, Medicare, Republicans want new budget authority of $510.1 billion, while Democrats want $515.1 billion. That is a difference of .97 percent.

On budget function 600, Income Security, Republicans want new budget authority of $517 billion, while Democrats want $538 billion. That is a difference of 3.96 percent.

On budget function 650, Social Security, both Republicans and Democrats want new budget authority of $822.2 billion.

On budget function 970, Global War on Terror (Republicans) or Overseas Contingency Operations (Democrats), both Republicans and Democrats want new budget authority of $96.7 billion.

Because the majority of U.S. military spending goes to maintaining an empire and intervening in other countries, both the first and last categories relate to the warfare state. The difference in spending proposed by Republicans and Democrats is negligible. It is a myth that Democrats want to “slash military spending,” “leave the country defenseless,” “turn their back on the troops,” and other nonsense spewed by Republican warmongers. Both parties are firmly committed to maintaining the warfare state.

The other budget functions relate to the welfare state.

Spending on agriculture includes funds for direct assistance, export assistance, loans to food and fiber producers, agricultural research, commodity programs, crop insurance, and disaster assistance.

Spending on education includes not only the expenditures of the Department of Education, but also training, employment, and social services of the departments of Labor and of Health and Human Services.

Spending on health includes mainly funding for Medicaid (70 percent), but also the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), health research and training, and substance-abuse programs.

Spending on Medicare — national health care for older Americans — includes the Part A Hospital Insurance Program, Part B Supplementary Medical Insurance Program, Part C Medicare Advantage Program, and Part D Prescription Drug Benefit.

Spending on income security includes what is traditionally classified as entitlement or welfare: unemployment compensation, housing assistance, energy assistance, food stamps, school-lunch subsidies, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the refundable portion of the Earned Income Credit (EIC).

Spending on Social Security — the crown jewel of the welfare state — includes benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death to about 55 million Americans.

Both parties are firmly committed to maintaining every aspect of the welfare state. Only when it comes to spending on education do Republicans want to spend significantly less than Democrats — this year. It was just a few short years ago under a Republican president, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate that Republicans ballooned the education budget up to $100 billion. But regardless of how much less than the Democrats the Republicans want the federal government to spend on education, since the Constitution authorizes absolutely nothing to be spent on education, $57.6 billion is $57.6 billion too much.

When it comes to the welfare state, Republicans talk a lot about reforms, block grants, and cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. They chatter endlessly about streamlining agencies, consolidating departments, and making government programs more efficient. They wax eloquent about strengthening particular programs, making them sustainable, protecting them, and saving them. But they talk very little about eliminating, repealing, or abolishing anything. And, of course, their performance is even worse than their promises. Republicans have fully accepted the New Deal and the Great Society.

In spite of all their rhetoric about limited government and fiscal responsibility; in spite of their all their contracts, pledges, paths, and blueprints; in spite of all their talk about the Constitution; in spite of all their attacks on the evil Democrats; in spite of all their warnings about the dangers of socialism and collectivism; and in spite of all their endless and empty promises, the only government the Republicans want to limit is a government controlled by Democrats.

The budget numbers can’t be explained away. Both parties are firmly committed to the warfare/welfare state.

George Wallace may have been wrong about some things or many things, but he certainly got one thing right: There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. America is a sinking ship. The only thing the Republicans and Democrats in Congress are determining is whether the ship lists to the right or left as it goes down.

Originally published on The Future of Freedom Foundation on April 10, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Budgeting Leviathan

Tax season is winding down once again, but the progressivity of the tax code is still with us. Most Americans who had more taxes withheld from their paychecks than they owe in taxes have already filed for their refunds. But not only did many Americans have no tax liability, some of them who didn’t owe any taxes to begin with still received a refund, all thanks to our Marxist tax code.

At the end of section two of Marx’s Communist Manifesto, in addition to calling for the abolition of private property and the centralization of the means of production in the hands of the state, he petitioned for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

This is based on the Marxist dictum (that many Americans think appears in the Constitution): “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” and on Marx’s mistaken notion of the result of the inequality of wealth, as we see in his Das Kapital: “In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse…. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation at the opposite pole.”

Yet, from its very beginning, the U.S. tax code has sought to soak “the rich” with “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

The income tax began with a 1 percent tax on taxable income above $3,000 followed by a series of surcharges of up to 6 percent applied to higher incomes. The maximum rate of 7 percent was applied to taxable income over $500,000. In addition, there was an exemption of $3,000 for a single person and $4,000 for a married couple.

The tax rate in the highest tax bracket rapidly increased, up to 67 percent in 1917 and 77 percent in 1918, and then rose to 81 percent in 1940, 88 percent in 1942, and a whopping 94 percent in 1944. In 1942, the top rate began applying to all incomes over $200,000 instead of $5 million as it had previously. After dropping briefly, the top rate stayed near or above 90 percent between 1950 and 1963.

Under President Reagan, the top marginal tax rate fell from 70 down to 50 percent, and then down to 38.5 before stopping at 28 percent. The tax brackets were also eventually reduced to just two. This doesn’t mean that the government cut spending and balanced its budgets during the 1980s like it should have, or that it didn’t raise other taxes like it shouldn’t have, but the fact remains that the highest tax bracket fell to under 30 percent for the first time since 1931.

After both rates and brackets increased during the Bush Sr. and Clinton years, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) gave us our current system of six brackets of 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. The lowest bracket was scheduled to be eliminated, and four of the other rates were scheduled to rise, giving us five brackets of 15, 28, 31, 26, and 39.6 percent, were it not for the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts enacted at the end of 2010.

But although the tax brackets have fallen in number and amount since their height in the 1960s, this does not mean that “the rich” have stopped paying their “fair share.”

According to the most recently released IRS data, in tax year 2009, the top 1 percent of taxpayers (in terms of adjusted gross income) paid 36.73 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 58.66 percent. The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid 70.47. The top 25 percent of taxpayers paid 87.3 percent of the taxes, and the top 50 percent paid a whopping 97.75 percent.

There are a number of ways in which the tax code is designed to punish “the rich”; that is, punish success and reward those who do nothing but have children.

Consider the example of a typical American family with two children. Because of the progressive nature of the tax code, for tax year 2011, this family could make $45,399 and still pay nothing in federal income taxes. This is because the $11,600 standard deduction and $14,800 deduction for personal exemptions reduces this family’s taxable income to $18,999. This leaves a tax liability of $1,996, which is reduced to zero thanks to a $1,000 per child tax credit.

But it’s not just the progressive tax brackets that punish “the rich” and favor “the poor.” A tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the amount of income tax owed. It may reduce the tax owed to zero, but if there is no taxable income to begin with, then no credit can be taken.

However, some tax credits are refundable; that is, you still get the credit even if you don’t have any tax liability. These refundable credits include the adoption credit (up to $13,360 per child), the first-time homebuyer credit (up to $4,000 or $8,000 if married filing jointly), the additional child tax credit (up to $1,000 per child), the American Opportunity credit (up to $1,000 per student, with 40 percent of the credit being refundable), and the earned income credit (up to $5,751 for three children).

Refundable tax credits can amount to a significant part of a family’s income. Consider once again a typical American family with two children. For tax year 2011, they can make up to $16,699 and not only owe nothing in taxes, but get a $5,112 earned income credit plus a $1,000 per child additional tax credit refunded to them. This effectively gives them an income of $24,111.

This artificial income of $24,111 is much better than a real income of $24,111, and for three reasons. First, the family’s income is still $16,699 when qualifying for public assistance. Second, no income tax is due on income from refundable tax credits. And three, the taxable wages for Social Security and Medicare are only $16,699.

Another way “the rich” are targeted is through the phase-out of tax deductions and credits. This means that the value of the credit is reduced as income rises. And in some cases, the credit is disallowed altogether.

The $1,000 child tax credit is reduced by 5 percent for each $1,000, or part of that amount, above the phase-out amount of $75,000 ($110,000 if married filing jointly).

The child and dependent care credit is 35 percent of expenses up to a maximum credit amount of $3,000 for one child and $6,000 for two or more children. But this is only if you make up to $15,000. The percentage is reduced by 1 percent (down to a minimum of 20 percent) for each $2,000, or part of that amount, of income above $15,000.

The retirement savings contributions credit (up to $1,000 or $2,000 if married filing jointly) cannot be claimed once adjusted gross income exceeds $28,250 ($56,500 if married filing jointly).

If you itemize deductions and your adjusted gross income is more than $109,000, you cannot deduct your mortgage insurance premiums.

IRA contributions for those covered by a retirement plan are reduced when modified adjusted gross income goes over $56,000 ($66,000 for married filing jointly) and not deductible at all once their modified adjusted gross income reaches $66,000 ($110,000 if married filing jointly).

Education credits and deductions take a hit as well.

Up to $2,500 of student loan interest is tax deductible. However, this deduction begins to be phased out once your modified adjusted gross income reaches $60,000 ($120,000 if married filing jointly) and is not allowed once your income reaches $75,000 ($150,000 if married filing jointly).

No American opportunity credit (maximum of $2,500 for each student) for qualified educational expenses can be claimed if your modified adjusted gross income reaches $90,000 ($180,000 if married filing jointly). And a phase-out of the credit begins at $80,000 ($160,000 if married filing jointly).

No lifetime learning credit (maximum of $2,000) for qualified educational expenses can be claimed if your modified adjusted gross income reaches $61,000 ($122,000 if married filing jointly). And a phase-out of the credit begins at $51,000 ($102,000 if married filing jointly).

The tuition and fees deduction of up to $4,000 per tax return for qualified educational expenses is lowered to a maximum of $2,000 once your modified adjusted gross income exceeds $65,000 ($130,000 if married filing jointly) and eliminated if your income exceeds $80,000 ($160,000 if married filing jointly).

The phase-outs also apply to the strictly refundable tax credits.

If you have three or more children and make over $43,997 ($49,077 if married filing jointly), two children and make over $40,963 ($46,043 if married filing jointly), or one child and make over $36,051 ($41,131 if married filing jointly), you are not eligible to claim the earned income credit. And the maximum amount of the credit drops steadily once your income exceeds $21,800.

To take the adoption credit, your modified adjusted gross income cannot exceed $225,210. And the amount of your credit is reduced once your income reaches $185,210.

To take the first-time homebuyer credit, your modified adjusted gross income cannot equal $145,000 or more ($245,000 if married filing jointly).

The income phase-out for the additional child tax credit begins, like the child tax credit, at $75,000 ($110,000 if married filing jointly).

No wonder the top 10 percent of income earners in America pay over 70 percent of the taxes! The brackets punish them, the phase-outs penalize them, and the refundable tax credits add insult to the injury of “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” There is nothing American about the U.S. tax code. It is straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

According to a recent report by the Heritage Foundation: “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.” This means that about half of all Americans don’t pay any income taxes.

But the emphasis placed by some conservatives on the lack of taxes paid by some Americans is getting the whole issue backward. The solution is not a national sales tax or flat tax that forces all Americans to pay some arbitrary “fair share” and actually perpetuates the progressivity of the tax code. And neither is it to eliminate all the deductions and credits in order to punish those with low incomes by increasing their taxes.

The solution is to decrease the tax burden of those who are paying the taxes now by eliminating the income tax altogether. This is the Ron Paul approach. In a recent NPR interview, congressman and Republican presidential candidate Paul put the emphasis where it belongs — keeping as much tax revenue out of the hands of the federal government as possible. In reply to the question, “Do you believe that income derived from dividends interest or capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than income earned from a salary or commissions?,” Dr. Paul said:

Well, I’d like to have everybody taxed at the same rate, and of course, my goal is to get as close to zero as possible, because there was a time in our history when we didn’t have income taxes. But when government takes it upon themselves to do so much, you have to have a tax code. But if you’re going to be the policemen of the world and run all these wars, you have to have a tax code. But as far as what the rates should be, I think it should be as low as possible for — for everybody.

The only reason it appears that we can’t do without an income tax is that Congress has an insatiable desire to spend money. But if the functions of the federal government were strictly limited to only those authorized by the Constitution, the government could be funded by user fees, land sales, excise taxes, and revenue tariffs (like it was from 1789 to 1913), or these things in combination with a lottery or donations. Don’t laugh, in fiscal year 2011, $3,277,369.23 was given by Americans to the federal government for the purpose of debt reduction. A small amount, yes, but only alongside the gargantuan trillion-dollar budgets of the last twenty years.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Our Marxist Tax Code

“Don’t smoke, chew, or run with girls that do” is a popular adage in some Christian circles today. Christians are concerned about what God thinks about their behavior. They are also concerned about what men think. Of course, any true Christian who struggles with pornography will not herald his addiction, but in many places Christians will seek to cover up arguably less egregious activities like drinking alcohol, smoking cigars, or even gambling now and then. These practices are often viewed as taboo— even when used in moderation. Paradoxically, Christians are able to openly indulge in overeating or overspending on cars, clothing, and entertainment devices without chagrin. Gluttony and profligate spending seem to be more acceptable sins among believers than other excesses, creating a (widespread) inconsistency of thought about what is appropriate Christian behavior.

In my last column, I argued that the state lottery is the best tax because it is a voluntary, even if it is a “stupid tax” paid by the fatuous and the ignorant. That is the public policy side of the issue. But the “moral side” deserves to be developed as well. In doing so, we might consider a classification of Christian practice highlighting four items: pornography, wine, Milky Way candy bars, and prayer.

The broad headings of this arrangement (noting an assignment of each of the four items) would be: [A] “never permissible” (e.g., pornography) and [B] “permissible”. Category B could be further divided into three sub-classifications: [1] “permissible in moderation” (e.g., wine), [2] “always permissible unless there are extenuating circumstances” (e.g., Milky Way candy bars), [3] “always permissible without qualification” (e.g., praying or preaching the gospel). These categories are especially apropos in terms of our entertainment choices, and in terms of the public policies we would support or criticize.

Category A practices, such as viewing pornography, are relatively easy for Christians to identify and eschew. They are, obviously, always sinful. At least I cannot think of any general, legitimate use for something like pornography (although I would be willing to entertain an argument to the contrary if someone wanted to make one). In a word, Category A items are intrinsically evil themselves or are part and parcel of an institution that is intrinsically evil. The scriptural rule regarding such practices would seem to be summed up in I Thessalonians 5:22, I Peter 2:11 and Romans 12:21: “Abstain from every form of evil”, “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” and “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (NKJV). In his January 11, 2003 article in World , “Wages from Sin”, Pastor John Piper seems to place playing the lottery in this category. I think he is mistaken. There is nothing intrinsically evil about either the purchase or the entertainment provided by the lottery ticket. Whether or not the lottery as an institution is evil is more intriguing, but to condemn any voluntary action that is not specifically condemned by the Scriptures (such as gambling or lotteries) is probably imprudent and may well be an encroachment upon Christian liberty. Indeed, the institution of the lottery, at least insofar as it is by nature a game based on probability like the casting of lots, is mentioned in the Bible without condemnation (e.g., Leviticus 16:8; Joshua 18:6-10; I Samuel 14:42; I Chronicles 24:31, 25:8, 26:13-14; Nehemiah 10:34, 11:1; Jonah 1:7; Proverbs 16:33; Acts 1:26). It was even used (apparently) to determine the will of God.

The Scriptures seem to indicate that Christians may use alcoholic beverages like wine and beer in moderation (e.g., John 2:1-11, 4:46; I Timothy 5:23, etc.). Thus, Category B1 practices would be permitted up to a point, beyond which (e.g., inebriation) the practice becomes sinful. Although there might be some people who abstain from Category B1 practices because of past excesses or because it would cause another to stumble (cf. Rom 14:13-21), they would not be considered evil in general but are essential amoral . I would include buying lottery tickets among the many Category B1 practices, which may provide genuine enjoyment or entertainment value when used in moderation. Certainly, a family that spends $5 per month on lottery tickets is not going to harm itself financially any more than a family that spends $5 per month at Blockbuster video. Like any form of entertainment, the value of which is always determined by subjective individual preferences, Category B1 practices provide some value to the participants. Just because I am not very entertained by renting and viewing Mary Poppins or by playing skee-ball in an arcade does not mean that they do not entertain others. Is there a point at which expenditures for entertainment for a Christian turn into excess? Of course there is, but that point is not usually a bright line that can be objectively determined by onlookers. The scriptural rule regarding such practices (or Christian liberties) would seem to be summed up in I Corinthians 6:12 and Romans 14:4: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” and “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.”

Category B2 practices are never sinful in and of themselves. It is not wrong to buy candy bars— Baby Ruth, Milky Way or otherwise—in general. However, if a person is overweight, buying candy might be sinful because it compounds his gluttony and lack of self-control. It might also be sinful for cavity-prone people to buy candy. In either of these cases, issues arise involving caring for our bodies (cf. I Corinthians 6:19-20). Moreover, in large enough quantities, partaking of Category B2 practices could entail poor stewardship, lack of wisdom, or defective priorities. How much of God’s money should we waste? The scriptural rule regarding such practices would seem to be summed up in (among other places) I Corinthians 4:2, 9:27 and 10:23: “Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful”, “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified” and “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify”.

I concur with Piper’s condemnation of greed and covetousness among lottery players. Paul said that, “those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition” (I Timothy 6:9). Jesus said, “Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (Luke 12:15). However, Piper’s notion that playing the lottery harms the poor is debatable. Even if poor people are worse off because state lotteries or other gambling exists, that fact does not mean that the participation by relatively wealthier individuals exacerbates poverty. Moreover, there is no good reason to assume that public policy outlawing lotteries would reduce poverty or gambling, any more than Prohibition in the 1920s reduced alcohol use. Indeed, Piper’s notion smacks of the sentiment that is commonly found in modern American liberals, who blame big business or big government for bad individual behavior and its outcome. But such sentiment is false.

Is it not said that lung cancer and smoking addiction are not the fault of the individuals who choose to smoke but rather the fault of greedy, manipulative firms like Phillip Morris and R. J. Reynolds, along with advertising firms and the media which make commercials that impel people to smoke? They are supposedly profiting at the expense of the weak and poor and the federal government compounds the problem by issuing subsidies to tobacco farmers.

This sort of drivel, although commonplace, is simply not true. People choose actions, and expend scarce resources for them, because they expect to benefit. Individual choice, when voluntary, is never someone else’s fault. Adam had no right to alleviate his guilt by blaming Eve, nor did Eve by blaming Satan. As the Scripture says in Galatians 6:5 and II Corinthians 5:20, “each one shall bear his own load” and “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad”. Individuals will be judged according to what they have done in the body without appealing to the sins of others for mitigation of the consequences. Lottery winnings are not “plunder” (as Piper said), and playing the lottery in moderation does not necessitate “spiritual suicide”. They are proceeds from an entertaining game (at least to some) with very poor odds, in which millions of individuals voluntarily choose to participate.

Piper does not want his ministry or church to receive any of the filthy lucre of lottery winnings. I could certainly understand Piper’s reasoning if his goal were to reduce the number of people in his church who are given to excess in the lottery. But Piper should be careful to not go beyond what the Bible says. After all, Jesus received a fragrant, expensive gift that was bought by a woman of ill repute (Luke 7:3639).

On a similar occasion, the Apostle John records that the disciples too—Judas Iscariot in particular—complained about Mary’s inefficient use of the valuable oil. “But Jesus said, ‘Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always’” (John 12:7-8). It was Judas Iscariot who raised concerns about the poor being harmed. If Jesus Christ was willing to receive benefits from apparently wasteful means, or even from ill-gotten gains, then why should the church reject them? Furthermore, one might argue that the doctrine of Proverbs 13:22b would reach the epitome of fulfillment in the giving of lottery winnings to the church. It says, “The wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous”. Why is it wrong for the saints to benefit by the undoing of the wicked? Accordingly, the Bible records many instances where the wealth of the unsaved is rightly received by God’s people and used for righteous purposes. The Queen of Sheba—not necessarily a believer—and Hiram’s ships brought exotic treasures to Solomon that augmented the glory of the Temple and wealth of God’s people (I Kings 10:1,10-12; II Chronicles 9:1,9-11). The unbelieving king Artaxerxes granted Nehemiah’s request for safe passage and timber to rebuild the Temple, Jerusalem’s wall, and houses in Judea (Nehemiah 2:4-8). The wise men from the East (or magi)—astrologers that interpreted dreams and performed magic—were probably not truly converted men and yet Christ received their gifts by Joseph and Mary (Matthew 2:1-2,9-12). Ananias and Sapphira were slain for lying to the Holy Spirit but there is no indication that their offering was refused by the church (Acts 5:1-11).

The Bible does not condemn gambling per se. It only condemns the excesses that might devolve from gambling. The lottery is permissible in moderation (a Category B1 activity in last week’s column), like using wine or beer, which the godly may use in moderation. In saying this, I am careful to concur with the Westminster Confession of Faith in its application of the eighth commandment against fraud and lying. Its Larger Catechism (question 142) condemns “wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.” Excessive gambling is sin, just as excessive use of alcohol (drunkenness) is sin. I also affirm my commitment to a providential understanding of life. There is nothing that is outside of the control of a sovereign God. Yet God has set forth certain random processes to serve His purposes in the world, as Ecclesiastes 9:11 affirms: “I returned and saw under the sun that—The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all.” In this life, God permits the lottery to work just as He permits random number generators to work, but always under His permissive decree.

While I do not play the lottery, I will leave others to their liberty. And I see no reason for churches to abstain from receiving gifts derived from state lottery winnings that will help them further the Gospel, edify the church, and assist the poor, widows, and orphans.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on February 16 and 23, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Are State Lotteries Immoral?

The state lottery is one of those things which divide men of good will on the political and social right. For instance, the platform of the Constitution Party says: “Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development.” Conversely, a state lottery policy is refreshing for many libertarians.

Why would libertarians like the lottery? It has nothing to do with the morality of gambling but it has everything to do with the nature and propriety of the tax. Yes, the lottery is a tax. The lottery funds functions of civil government just like coercive taxes. The difference is that lotteries are voluntary — unlike any other significant tax source. In fact, enthusiastic and greedy people rush to play the lottery. I recently spoke to the South Carolina Lottery director. He stated that during a recent $100+ million “Powerball” game, sales exceeded 15,000 tickets per hour—a rate faster than the tickets can be printed. Can you think of any other tax that people rush to pay? By contrast, the state extorts money from people by taxing income, sales, gasoline, real property, luxury, and various “sins”, along with requiring licenses, permits, registration fees, and traffic fines, all of which go to the general budget of the state. Then the state doles out paltry welfare benefits, but receiving these benefits is nowhere near as exhilarating as having the television station’s cameraman at your front door. Somehow, buying a pile of lottery tickets (albeit with a remote chance of winning) is much more fun than “contributing” 12.4% of your earnings for the Social Security “program”? The odds of winning the lottery are probably greater than a young man’s chances of ever collecting Social Security.

Let’s face it: the state lottery is a “stupid tax”. Like other monopolized “public enterprises”, the lottery does not produce the high quality, low-priced, innovative, and consumer-friendly product that would be offered in a free market. For instance, Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos compete by advertising the highest payouts (e.g., slot machines paying 98.3% in one casino versus only 97.8% in others), and people flock to consume the services provided. The South Carolina Lottery’s payout is a measly 58%— rather meager compared to Las Vegas. Hence, one could make the case that playing the state lottery is a pursuit of fatuous or ignorant people.

Of course, not all lottery players are dolts or idiots. For instance, my brother-in-law once stated that—as a Calvinist—he need buy only one ticket. If God wants him to win the jackpot, only one ticket is required. Perhaps one could argue that the Calvinist-lottery thesis provides a basis for a person buying five $1 lottery tickets per year. The opportunity cost imposed on the family from buying these tickets corresponds to ordering one medium pizza instead of one large one—not much of a concern. I choose not to play the lottery, not so much out of scruples, but because I do not want pay the Stupid Tax. Yet such choices should be left to the liberty of conscience of each individual.

Now someone will argue that I am forgetting about the fact that gambling is a social evil and that it supports wicked institutions. I agree, at least in terms of excessive gambling. However, as far as my brother-in-law is concerned, I am not convinced that his $5 annual expense has any moral implications other than a pound or two less on his waistline from eating a little less pizza. I would also have to agree that the state is the wickedest institution in our world, and far worse than any Mafia family in Atlantic City. But why should the lottery’s moral ramifications block its support as a voluntary taxation scheme?

The Bible says that “the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous” (Proverbs 13:22) and “he who is filthy, let him be filthy still” (Revelation 22:11). I prefer that obtuse people scurry to pay a voluntary Stupid Tax any day versus having state-organized crime units blitz me with extortionist policies. Somebody has to pay for the limited government we desire. Why not let the government be financed by voluntary taxes like lotteries? In fact, I am willing to go out on a limb and call for a general repeal of all income, sales, and real property taxes, replacing them with lotteries instead. That idea should at least catch the eye of the most zealous Constitution Party member, along with all libertarians!

One last practical item regards the South Carolina Life Scholarship and Piedmont Fellows Scholarship programs that are financed by the lottery. These are educational grants that are financed 100% by voluntary taxes. Some of my regular readers might be surprised that I see no moral problem with taking such grants. I have argued in Bible and Government: Public Policy from a Christian Perspective that it is wrong and sinful for Christians or for all those who love liberty to take any welfare state, proactive policy benefits. Doing so makes one complicit in receiving stolen funds and effectively robbing innocent people.

However, the state lottery is categorically different than welfare because there is no extortion and thus no stolen funds. There is no Robin Hood role of robbing from one group and giving to another. Plus, the whole policy does not seem to be proactive, but rather a means for the state to pad its coffers and for politicians to garner votes. The whole lottery scheme is better characterized as a policy of inefficient provision. The educational grants are a means of making voters happy, creating government jobs to “boost” the economy, and a means for the state to skim off a small portion of the spoils. (Lottery administration costs are 12%, 30% of revenues fund scholarships—or slide into the state’s coffers—and 58% are paid out in prizes.) Thus, if you have no scruples about choosing to use “public enterprises” like public libraries or state parks, then letting the ignorant fund your family’s intellectual development should not be troublesome. A lottery-funded program is not morally repugnant like proactive redistributive welfare policy.

In certain rare or unusual circumstances, lottery-funded scholarships pose a moral dilemma. When the number of students “entitled” to receive lottery money in a given year exceeds the lottery receipts available to fund their corresponding scholarships, the shortfall must be made up out of the state’s general budget. So it would behoove a person to confirm that no such unusual circumstances exist prior to applying. Do you have college-bound kids wanting to attend school in South Carolina? Have little fear of gathering what sinners have voluntarily stored up for your family. And while you’re at it, enthusiastically support state lottery policy—the great Stupid Tax. The “sinners” who indulge themselves in it will end up paying some of the expenses of government. One day we may be able to replace our extortive taxation system with a purely voluntary one utilizing lotteries.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on February 9, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Lottery is the Best Tax

Besides taxation being theft, immoral, and pure evil, there is a simple solution to this idiotic problem.

80% of Americans could just write a check to the U.S. Treasury, then shut up about tax increases.

This quote from the linked article is priceless:

"We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs," he said, rejecting conservative calls for a balanced-budget amendment. "The constitution already tells us to do our jobs."

Yeah, the Constitution is what drives excessive taxation, a welfare state, fiat currency, and endless wars. Or maybe it does? Lysander Spooner was right:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

80% of Americans should write a check to the U.S. Treasury then SHUT UP.

This video is brought to you by the Foundation for a Free Society, who have done other videos featured here on LCC like their first video on liberty and the video of David Simpson’s speech from Nullify Now..

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Vikings and Legalized Plunder, oh my!

—–

I absolutely despise tax season. This year especially. I made less money this year and yet paid more to the State.

And what for?

So a run-amok military can go bomb Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the name of "freedom" and "democracy"?

So I can watch the economy dissolve while the Wall Street banksters enrich themselves with printed money from the Fed and inflate us to death?

So I am "protected" from "harm" by thugs in uniforms from the perils of harmless immigrants and the devil weed?

So I can entertain myself with the antics of politicians (if only that were all I had to worry about)?

So I get my precious interstate system, education system, welfare system, and the like?

So the alphabet soup bureaucracy "regulates" my health, wealth, food, drugs, and internet?

I have to ask, is it worth the cost?

Never. But you did get what you bargained for.

How foolish that you, America, would stoop so low. This government of lawlessness deserves no anthem, no salute, no pledge, no respect. Turn your back on it.

—–

For more on why I hate thievery, I mean taxes, check out my article series 10 Things I Hate About Taxes.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ode to Tax Season 2011

I love this post by my dear friend Anthony Gregory at the Independent Institute: “Saved from the Precipice of Doom!”

————————

Thank goodness for the Republicans and Democrats, who in the eleventh hour, put aside their differences and compromised to avert the catastrophe of a government shutdown. You see, the Republicans wanted to cut something like $78.5 billion from what Obama wanted to spend—itself more than $78.5 billion over the year before. The Democrats were initially willing to talk about “cutting” much less. And now, thanks to the greatest political compromise since the one in 1850—and surely one that will be as permanent in preventing a national crisis—we can all sleep at night knowing that Yosemite and the National Archives will continue to be open for business. The Washington Post reports:

The final pact on 2011 spending called for $38 billion in cuts to federal agency budgets compared with last year’s levels, about $78.5 billion below the president’s initial funding request for 2011. The White House, which initially resisted any funding reductions, started touting all the cuts it signed off on in a statement that praised reductions of $13 billion in funding for education, health and labor programs.

Oh my, oh my! $38 billion cut from Obama’s budget proposal? I guess everyone gets what they want. Obama gets to pat himself on the back for avoiding a shutdown. The Republicans get to pat themselves on the back for avoiding a shutdown, and the American people are satisfied as well.

Oh, wait. Those who love government spending are not so satisfied. You see, the cuts appear to target hot-button social programs. And those who want (at a bare minimum) for government to live within its means might also be dissatisfied. They might protest that even if we go by Obama’s projected deficits, these cuts will only shave a few percent of the amount deeper the U.S. goes into the debt hole in a year.

Yet we should forget about all this and just be glad the government didn’t shut down. For if it did, we would surely awake to a dystopian nightmare, coastal cities collapsing into the ocean, civil unrest at every corner, whole swaths of previously populated centers abandoned, disease and lawlessness rampant in every direction. Thank goodness Congress and the President got together and stopped this.

After all, we all remember when happened when the government shut down in 1995. Traffic lights didn’t work. All the prisoners were running wild in the streets. The US military was completely put out of commission, allowing the Soviet Union to spring back to life and take over half of the world. In the Great Government Shutdown of 1995, an estimated 150 million Americans died of starvation, pertussis, rubella and acute cynicism. Cats were chasing dogs, telephones and plumbing ceased to function completely, and only 75 channels were available on cable television.

Some will respond that these claims are preposterous—that in fact, not only do modern “government shutdowns” only close down a handful of functions (including such programs as tax refunds and national museums, just to annoy the American people)—but that, in the United States, such shutdowns are so superficial an example of the government truly shutting down that they actually cost more money than allowing the government to run as normal.

Sure, refuse to take such a catastrophe seriously. But as our Dear Leader says, “Americans of different beliefs came together. . . [i]n the final hours before our government would have been forced to shut down. . . [to pass] a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history.” Thanks to these courageous and selfless efforts, “when 50 eighth graders from Colorado arrive in our nation’s capital,” they might “get a chance to look up at the Washington Monument and feel the sense of pride and possibility that defines America.”

Doesn’t that make your burn with patriotic fever? Red-white-and-blue fumes are just making their way up my esophagus right now. The two parties put aside their vast disagreement—over whether to borrow another trillion or so of to be paid back by these eighth graders or whether to cut that amount down by a few percent—and they agreed to meet in the middle. Just like their parents and grandparents, these kids will have the pride to know that they live in a country where every generation has the chance to grow up with much more money owed by the government on their behalf that the generation before it.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: Saved from Doom!!!