There Really is a Santa Claus After All!
My wife and I never decried the myth of Santa Claus. I never prevented my kids from watching Santa Clause television specials. We read the "Night Before Christmas." But when my kids got old enough to ask whether Santa was real we usually answered, "What do you think? Do you think a fat little man in a red suit delivers presents to everyone in the world in a 24-hour period on a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer?" They understood immediately that Santa was a fantasy. Preschool children fantasize. When my children were small. They really believed in Santa Claus and that there was a big yellow bird who taught them to spell, a grouch who lived in a trash can, and a "cookie monster." As they grew older they learned to separate fact from fiction. The"Cat-in-the-Hat" and "Power Rangers" were the creative product of a someone's vivid imagination, as was Santa Claus. As a Christian family we honored Jesus at Christmas and celebrated his birth. His gift was worth far more than anything that we put under the tree. There were no Santa's on display in our home. No pictures of parents or children with Santa. We had nothing against Santa; we simply did nothing to put him in a place of honor. We honored Christ at Christmas. We treated Santa like Big Bird or the Cat in the Hat. A harmless children's fantasy, that had a moral. Although they saw him on TV and in books, on the Internet and in the mall, they learned very young that there was no body handing them everything they wanted.
Distinguishing reality from fantasy is a part of normal human development. Even at my 60-years I'm still learning new realities and dispelling falsities. Recently I realized that what I told my children about Santa Claus was all wrong. There is someone freely offering them every thing they want. I did not intentionally deceive them. I believed what I told them at the time, but as you get older you have a view of reality informed by experience. I now understand there really is a Santa Claus! Unlike the myth he does not live in the North Pole or fly around on a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer. He lives in a big white house on Pennsylvania Ave in Washington. He travels around in a pretty blue 747 powered by big jet engines, and he golfs, a lot. His name is not Chris Kringle, and he has, a much bigger bureaucracy than any army of elves. He has a resource for stuff that Chris Kringle never imagined. Santa Claus is Barak Obama and he has the U. S. Treasury.
There are currently two economic and political philosophies competing for the acceptance of the American people. One, that of President Obama's and the democratic party, is based on fantasy. The other, a conservative philosophy, espoused independent of either party is based on reality. The liberal fantasy of the democratic party is that this government, so conceived and so dedicated, can make it's people's lives healthy, happy and hopeful. Whatever challenges people face the right policy or regulation or the right dose of money Santa can fix it. It assumes people are basically good, but are victims of a hostile environment, and if someone removes the obstacles from their way every one will be wise and wealthy, because the government will guarantee their success. The conservative view is that any government, so conceived and so dedicated, will enable those who can take responsibility for their health, happiness and hope, and that those who can not take responsibility on their own will be helped by those who can. The conservative view is that most people are good, but flawed. Most people seek to improve their lives and the community where they live, which brings prosperity to the society. That is how a prosperous nation is built. The conservative view recognizes that some will excel, some will fail, some will be lazy or irresponsible. We recognize that good and evil are in competition. Liberty or freedom of choice requires acceptance of the outcomes of our decisions. The conservative view realizes there is some greed and avarice in all of us and we need institutions to set boundaries, and sometimes to take corrective actions when someone brings harm to someone else, but the individual is responsible for their own happiness, health and hope.
These liberal world views is seen in two of the President Santa Claus's recent initiatives: one the executive action to provide amnesty for illegal aliens; and two the proposed free Junior College tuition program. I've seen the rise of a utopian collectivist vision my entire life. The Great Society, the idea, that the solution to poverty and racism was to hand out welfare, food stamps and tax credit. To provide "free" medical care for everyone. The idea has been if you take from those who have and give to those who have not, it will raise up those who have not. Of if the all knowing, all beneficent, all encompassing government just gives people what they need their lives will improve. The results have been seen in places like Detroit. As we have forced the mixture of inner city children into schools with suburban children the quality of education for both have declined. As we have given unlimited health care and prescription drugs to the elderly, their medical costs have increased, and their care is no better than it was 30-years ago. Since third parties have been paying for health care, costs are much higher and increasing; there are fewer doctors, fewer specialists, and families have less control over the health of their loved ones. As we have created social agencies to help people lift people out of oppressive environments, all we have done is made the ghettos bleaker and spread crime and poverty to the suburbs,
Now we have a new idea from President Santa Claus let's give every person who wants to go to junior college "a free" education. It is words that make for enchanting fantasies. The beautiful enchanting poem "a night before Christmas," fills the imagination of children with dreams of "what could be." Oh, the world would be wonderful if someone at the end of every year gave all the upright, moral good hard working people gifts to reward their goodness. The promise of a "free" education calls us to dream of great jobs, and yachts, and private jets, but the economy doesn't grow on imagination. It is shear imagination to speculate that a junior college education will be free to every one. Nothing, at no time, at no place is ever free.
Nothing free? Some of my Christian friends will accuse me of heresy, "isn't salvation free?" Well, actually, it's not. Our salvation comes at great cost (1Corinthians 6:20). What's free to one person or group cost's someone else. Since the gospel is God's display of love given at great cost to Him but free to us, then if our compassion is like Christ's want the government or the church provide for people freely? In fact some like pseudo-theologian Parker Palmer say wasn't the very first church was a socialist commune? Many Christians today have a liberal or socialist world view principally due to misunderstanding of early church history. God is able to give freely, because he is creator and sustainer of all things. He does not take from one group and give to another. He produces what he gives. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that early church was far from collectivists.
While some take the reference that the church in Jerusalem "held all things in common," (Acts 4:32) as definition of a communal economic system. I say not so fast. What economic realities are described by the phrase, "no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common?" Does this mean there was no private ownership of property; does it mean everyone shared the same living space; ate from a common table? Or does it simply mean that in some way the community worked together to make sure everyone's needs were met? When Anias and Sapphira were brought before the disciples for a failure to surrender the proceeds they had promised from property they sold. Peter made it clear that his judgment against them was based on their breech of contract. Peter made it clear that the church had no claim on their property. It was theirs to keep or to give away. They owned the property; they were not required to give it away. They were disciplined for their lack of integrity. There was no community ownership or forced redistribution of wealth in the early church So apparently "held all things in common meant" only that property was used to meet people's needs without greed. The other fact we know about the system of benevolence they established is that it did not effectively provide for the poor! When Acts Chapter 6 begins one ethic group is complaining that it is being neglected. If the Acts 4 church was a communal experiment, then it failed to provide effectively for the poor. While the New Testament clearly belies a socialist philosophy some point to the Old Testament practice of gleaning. Gleaning was merely a practice where a farmer would plant a surplus crop, and allow the poor to glean the surplus. For gleaning to work and individual farmer had to own his property and work it to it's maximum yield. The Bible never promotes collectivism, because it all ways fails.
The reason why socialism fails is that it assumes that whoever is in control of resources will distribute them fairly. When people accuse capitalist of being greedy, one only needs to ask, do you think socialists are benevolent? Is Castro greedy, are the north Koreans greedy, are politicians proposing health care really looking out for your interests or theirs? Second it assumes a limited supply. Several years ago when President Obama accused Mitt Romney of not building his business himself. The assumption was that Romney used capital and resources that did not belong to him and exploited them for his purposes. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren recently said that businesses are dependent on government infrastructure such as roads and sewers to prosper. The assumption is that businesses need government to expand. I would argue the opposite is the case.
When a venture capitalist like Romney invests in a company like Staples. That company hires people; they purchase inventory; they build buildings. Each of those gives people job. Those people buy house and cars, put kids in schools, go to doctors and hospital. Private investment expands the economy. Government spending does not, because it produces nothing. Once roads are built everyone goes home. Free junior college education will produce million of trained people with no jobs to go to, because it will be an investment with no economic benefit. The promise of free junior college investment is a fantasy. Conservative estimates are that it will cost $60 billion dollars. President Santa Claus will give 20 somethings a gift that will gain them nothing, because government programs do not produce jobs they merely buy votes, and buying votes is what this proposal is about.
President Santa Claus's 2008 election was won by gaining votes from special interest groups that he could promise something. Health Care for everyone. Peace and safety for soldiers and sailor. Birth control for women. All your hopes and dreams will be fulfilled if you just vote democrat. In that election one group that he carried in the election was the 18-25 crowd. Since his election he has steadily lost ground with that constituency and now appears to be losing them. Most 18-25 year olds realize that Obama's hope and dreams are nothing but fantasy. The offer of free education for them is a vacant promise. It is an attempt to buy the votes of a constituency he is losing. If you are 18-22 and someone tells you they are going to give you a free junior college education, ask yourself, whether you believe in Santa Claus.
Now I understand that we provide education through High School. However, it often mis-characterized as free, far from it. The US Department of Education's budget is about $60 billion a year. Additionally each state contributes billions for education. In some states education funding comes from counties. There's no such thing as a free lunch, even in a school cafeteria, some ones pays for it. It is an appropriate expenditure for the state to make sure it citizens can make a living. But rest assured the massive number of college graduates who are unemployed or underemployed makes it obvious that while education may produce workers, it fails to produce jobs. Government funded Junior college education will merely put more people in junior colleges who should not be there and will produce no jobs. Government spending only makes people dependent. It provides them with nothing free. The Executive Amnesty is just as vacant. A promise to anyone who wants to come that we will take them in and let them live and work among us. They take a job, that supposedly "American's want take." They use resources American have paid for.
It's time to grow up America. It's time to realize that the man in the White House, or the people in the big domed building in Washington, with the big cars and the big jets can not give you health, happiness and hope. Only you can change your life and realize your hopes. The next time a politician offers you something free, tell them you quit believing in Santa Claus year ago. Ask them how are they really going to help you? When asked my children "Do you think a fat little man in a red suit delivers presents to everyone in the world in a 24-hour period on a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer?" The answer was obvious there is no Santa Claus. The next time you go into a voting both ask yourself who it was who put those presents under the tree when you were a child. It was probably a hard working parent. Vote for the politician who is going to give you liberty not freebies. The next time a politician says vote for me and I will give you free education, health care or anything else just let them know. You know; You've grown up. Santa Claus is a fantastic story. President Santa Claus makes an enchanting speech, but those of us who have grown up, recognize it for what it is, fantasy, nothing more.
Distinguishing reality from fantasy is a part of normal human development. Even at my 60-years I'm still learning new realities and dispelling falsities. Recently I realized that what I told my children about Santa Claus was all wrong. There is someone freely offering them every thing they want. I did not intentionally deceive them. I believed what I told them at the time, but as you get older you have a view of reality informed by experience. I now understand there really is a Santa Claus! Unlike the myth he does not live in the North Pole or fly around on a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer. He lives in a big white house on Pennsylvania Ave in Washington. He travels around in a pretty blue 747 powered by big jet engines, and he golfs, a lot. His name is not Chris Kringle, and he has, a much bigger bureaucracy than any army of elves. He has a resource for stuff that Chris Kringle never imagined. Santa Claus is Barak Obama and he has the U. S. Treasury.
There are currently two economic and political philosophies competing for the acceptance of the American people. One, that of President Obama's and the democratic party, is based on fantasy. The other, a conservative philosophy, espoused independent of either party is based on reality. The liberal fantasy of the democratic party is that this government, so conceived and so dedicated, can make it's people's lives healthy, happy and hopeful. Whatever challenges people face the right policy or regulation or the right dose of money Santa can fix it. It assumes people are basically good, but are victims of a hostile environment, and if someone removes the obstacles from their way every one will be wise and wealthy, because the government will guarantee their success. The conservative view is that any government, so conceived and so dedicated, will enable those who can take responsibility for their health, happiness and hope, and that those who can not take responsibility on their own will be helped by those who can. The conservative view is that most people are good, but flawed. Most people seek to improve their lives and the community where they live, which brings prosperity to the society. That is how a prosperous nation is built. The conservative view recognizes that some will excel, some will fail, some will be lazy or irresponsible. We recognize that good and evil are in competition. Liberty or freedom of choice requires acceptance of the outcomes of our decisions. The conservative view realizes there is some greed and avarice in all of us and we need institutions to set boundaries, and sometimes to take corrective actions when someone brings harm to someone else, but the individual is responsible for their own happiness, health and hope.
These liberal world views is seen in two of the President Santa Claus's recent initiatives: one the executive action to provide amnesty for illegal aliens; and two the proposed free Junior College tuition program. I've seen the rise of a utopian collectivist vision my entire life. The Great Society, the idea, that the solution to poverty and racism was to hand out welfare, food stamps and tax credit. To provide "free" medical care for everyone. The idea has been if you take from those who have and give to those who have not, it will raise up those who have not. Of if the all knowing, all beneficent, all encompassing government just gives people what they need their lives will improve. The results have been seen in places like Detroit. As we have forced the mixture of inner city children into schools with suburban children the quality of education for both have declined. As we have given unlimited health care and prescription drugs to the elderly, their medical costs have increased, and their care is no better than it was 30-years ago. Since third parties have been paying for health care, costs are much higher and increasing; there are fewer doctors, fewer specialists, and families have less control over the health of their loved ones. As we have created social agencies to help people lift people out of oppressive environments, all we have done is made the ghettos bleaker and spread crime and poverty to the suburbs,
Now we have a new idea from President Santa Claus let's give every person who wants to go to junior college "a free" education. It is words that make for enchanting fantasies. The beautiful enchanting poem "a night before Christmas," fills the imagination of children with dreams of "what could be." Oh, the world would be wonderful if someone at the end of every year gave all the upright, moral good hard working people gifts to reward their goodness. The promise of a "free" education calls us to dream of great jobs, and yachts, and private jets, but the economy doesn't grow on imagination. It is shear imagination to speculate that a junior college education will be free to every one. Nothing, at no time, at no place is ever free.
Nothing free? Some of my Christian friends will accuse me of heresy, "isn't salvation free?" Well, actually, it's not. Our salvation comes at great cost (1Corinthians 6:20). What's free to one person or group cost's someone else. Since the gospel is God's display of love given at great cost to Him but free to us, then if our compassion is like Christ's want the government or the church provide for people freely? In fact some like pseudo-theologian Parker Palmer say wasn't the very first church was a socialist commune? Many Christians today have a liberal or socialist world view principally due to misunderstanding of early church history. God is able to give freely, because he is creator and sustainer of all things. He does not take from one group and give to another. He produces what he gives. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that early church was far from collectivists.
While some take the reference that the church in Jerusalem "held all things in common," (Acts 4:32) as definition of a communal economic system. I say not so fast. What economic realities are described by the phrase, "no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common?" Does this mean there was no private ownership of property; does it mean everyone shared the same living space; ate from a common table? Or does it simply mean that in some way the community worked together to make sure everyone's needs were met? When Anias and Sapphira were brought before the disciples for a failure to surrender the proceeds they had promised from property they sold. Peter made it clear that his judgment against them was based on their breech of contract. Peter made it clear that the church had no claim on their property. It was theirs to keep or to give away. They owned the property; they were not required to give it away. They were disciplined for their lack of integrity. There was no community ownership or forced redistribution of wealth in the early church So apparently "held all things in common meant" only that property was used to meet people's needs without greed. The other fact we know about the system of benevolence they established is that it did not effectively provide for the poor! When Acts Chapter 6 begins one ethic group is complaining that it is being neglected. If the Acts 4 church was a communal experiment, then it failed to provide effectively for the poor. While the New Testament clearly belies a socialist philosophy some point to the Old Testament practice of gleaning. Gleaning was merely a practice where a farmer would plant a surplus crop, and allow the poor to glean the surplus. For gleaning to work and individual farmer had to own his property and work it to it's maximum yield. The Bible never promotes collectivism, because it all ways fails.
The reason why socialism fails is that it assumes that whoever is in control of resources will distribute them fairly. When people accuse capitalist of being greedy, one only needs to ask, do you think socialists are benevolent? Is Castro greedy, are the north Koreans greedy, are politicians proposing health care really looking out for your interests or theirs? Second it assumes a limited supply. Several years ago when President Obama accused Mitt Romney of not building his business himself. The assumption was that Romney used capital and resources that did not belong to him and exploited them for his purposes. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren recently said that businesses are dependent on government infrastructure such as roads and sewers to prosper. The assumption is that businesses need government to expand. I would argue the opposite is the case.
When a venture capitalist like Romney invests in a company like Staples. That company hires people; they purchase inventory; they build buildings. Each of those gives people job. Those people buy house and cars, put kids in schools, go to doctors and hospital. Private investment expands the economy. Government spending does not, because it produces nothing. Once roads are built everyone goes home. Free junior college education will produce million of trained people with no jobs to go to, because it will be an investment with no economic benefit. The promise of free junior college investment is a fantasy. Conservative estimates are that it will cost $60 billion dollars. President Santa Claus will give 20 somethings a gift that will gain them nothing, because government programs do not produce jobs they merely buy votes, and buying votes is what this proposal is about.
President Santa Claus's 2008 election was won by gaining votes from special interest groups that he could promise something. Health Care for everyone. Peace and safety for soldiers and sailor. Birth control for women. All your hopes and dreams will be fulfilled if you just vote democrat. In that election one group that he carried in the election was the 18-25 crowd. Since his election he has steadily lost ground with that constituency and now appears to be losing them. Most 18-25 year olds realize that Obama's hope and dreams are nothing but fantasy. The offer of free education for them is a vacant promise. It is an attempt to buy the votes of a constituency he is losing. If you are 18-22 and someone tells you they are going to give you a free junior college education, ask yourself, whether you believe in Santa Claus.
Now I understand that we provide education through High School. However, it often mis-characterized as free, far from it. The US Department of Education's budget is about $60 billion a year. Additionally each state contributes billions for education. In some states education funding comes from counties. There's no such thing as a free lunch, even in a school cafeteria, some ones pays for it. It is an appropriate expenditure for the state to make sure it citizens can make a living. But rest assured the massive number of college graduates who are unemployed or underemployed makes it obvious that while education may produce workers, it fails to produce jobs. Government funded Junior college education will merely put more people in junior colleges who should not be there and will produce no jobs. Government spending only makes people dependent. It provides them with nothing free. The Executive Amnesty is just as vacant. A promise to anyone who wants to come that we will take them in and let them live and work among us. They take a job, that supposedly "American's want take." They use resources American have paid for.
It's time to grow up America. It's time to realize that the man in the White House, or the people in the big domed building in Washington, with the big cars and the big jets can not give you health, happiness and hope. Only you can change your life and realize your hopes. The next time a politician offers you something free, tell them you quit believing in Santa Claus year ago. Ask them how are they really going to help you? When asked my children "Do you think a fat little man in a red suit delivers presents to everyone in the world in a 24-hour period on a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer?" The answer was obvious there is no Santa Claus. The next time you go into a voting both ask yourself who it was who put those presents under the tree when you were a child. It was probably a hard working parent. Vote for the politician who is going to give you liberty not freebies. The next time a politician says vote for me and I will give you free education, health care or anything else just let them know. You know; You've grown up. Santa Claus is a fantastic story. President Santa Claus makes an enchanting speech, but those of us who have grown up, recognize it for what it is, fantasy, nothing more.
Comments
Post a Comment