Though published more than two centuries ago, Madison’s words have been proven true time and time again.

Indeed, if we really were a society build on love and charity there would be little need for many government-run programs.

Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in.

To be sure, churches, non profits and local charities have helped and continue to help those in need. But over the past fifty years, our country has grown in size and stature, and so have our problems, especially our moral failings. Fortunately, many of those problems have been ameliorated by effective state-run initiatives.

But many have not. And many programs have only worsened the situation.

Here’s what I mean.

Most Americans support the idea behind Social Security. They may disagree about the most effective way to operate it, but most of us think it’s an important program that helps senior citizens.

In many ways, Social Security has been a successful federal-run program.

However, there have been many federal initiatives that – though well intentioned – are not only ineffective, but disrupt the appropriate relationship between the individual and the state.

One principle that is often overlooked when trying to understand the appropriate relationship between the individual and the state is the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity is the belief that if something can be accomplished more effectively by a lower level of government then higher levels of government should not get involved. For instance, if the state of New York is better at delivering healthcare to its citizens than the federal government, then the federal government has no business telling them how to do it. In other words, nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done just as well by a smaller and simpler organization.

Now, there are areas where local government is inadequate and higher levels of government are necessary. Indeed, it would be unwise to think that a county or local municipality could do a better job at protecting credit card owners than the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

True as that may be, it is often the case that many federal programs are established by politicians more concerned with prolonging their career than respecting the principle of subsidiarity. What inevitably happens is that lower forms of government end up getting pulverized.

Without respect for the important role churches, non profits and local government play in the lives of ordinary citizens, politicians end up destroying what was once a thick and robust buffer between the individual and the federal government.

When these mediating institutions are cast aside, the federal government assumes unto itself the responsibility of providing, among other things, shelter, food, and material well being for its citizens – a not so inexpensive venture.

Indeed, we see this take place all too often in our politics. And my home state of Michigan is no exception.

Republican Governor Rick Snyder recently paid a visit to a school in Grand Rapids that reportedly provides breakfast, lunch and dinner for its students during their summer vacation.

Now, no one wants children to go hungry, but can anyone seriously defend the idea that the state, and not the mother and father of these children (or a local charity), should be the ones providing them with meals during the summer? Whatever happened to the family unit? Whatever happened to relying on our neighbors and churches for help?

The fact of the matter is that when the state takes on responsibilities formerly reserved to the family, it obfuscates the importance of civil institutions and plunges us into an ever-deepening reliance on programs and initiatives from a far away bureaucracy that will not and have not accomplished their stated ends. Namely, win the war on poverty.

Dan wrote today about the political manipulation of the poor. Well, no where is this more clear than in state-run lotteries.

I never play because it’s a waste of money. And with five children, I don’t have money to burn.

But some might argue that it’s fun to plunk down a buck or two even for that extremely remote chance of winning. State governments make millions off those irrational aspirations.

What’s the real reason to avoid buying a ticket? The whole state lottery system preys on the poor’s desperate hope for a better life. Joe Carter over at Acton brought this research from Jordan Ballor to my attention. And it truly is disgraceful.

A recently released Gallup survey confirms the fears of many who oppose government-promoted gambling: the poorest among us are contributing much more to lottery revenues than those with higher incomes. The poll found that people who played the lottery with an income of less than $20,000 annually spent an average of $46 per month on lottery tickets. That comes out to more than $550 per year and it is nearly double the amount spent in any other income bracket….

The insidiousness of state lotteries comes with government involvement in the industry. What begins as a well-intentioned plan to provide for the needs of the people – education funding for example – very often becomes just another source of revenue for a voracious state treasury. Lotto revenue is often diverted for new purposes through legislative and bureaucratic chicanery.

The highly promotional nature of state lotteries becomes clear as they bombard us with advertising in every available medium. When jackpots get particularly large, the media blitz becomes a frenzy, as the government-run lotteries attempt to dazzle us into the 21 st century form of “gold fever.” For the Feb. 20, multi-state Mega Millions lottery, Michigan officials tempted players with the promise of “$24,300 per day!” in a press release that described winning the jackpot as “a pretty nice payday.” In this way, state lottery boards and commissions “come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15 NIV).

The poorest are spending an average of $46 a month, and to get what? Nothing.

Add state-run lotteries to the list of Things Considered Harmless But Actually Cause Real Harm.

And when the election is finally done, we’re exhausted. We don’t want to think about it again for a long time. Particularly when our “side” has lost an election, we may be especially inclined to feel defeated and discouraged.

But now is the time to start working toward what comes next. And that means that as Catholics, we need to take some time and really figure out what we want from our government. And then, we need to act to see that insofar as possible, we get candidates who support that vision. We haven’t had much of that lately, so we need to do some soul-searching.

We should all be asking ourselves certain questions:

• Do we want a bigger, more centralized government that has the power to legislate moral issues? Or should we worry that once the government has that power, it will eventually use it to legislate against the moral issues we believe in, and use this power against us?

• Do we want a government that ignores just war doctrine in its military activities and pays no heed to the Constitutional requirements to authorize war, or do we want a more humble foreign policy that both respects ethical principles and human life while still maintaining the strength we need to defend ourselves?

• Do we believe that government knows what is best for us, and should meddle excessively in our currency, in our commercial transactions, in our educational system, our healthcare, and our right to make our own choices about what is best for us and our families? Or do we believe that according to the American framework, the power comes from the people, and as such the people should have as much liberty as possible, and the principle of subsidiarity should be respected?

• Do we believe that on issues as important as abortion, that the power over whether it is legal to kill the unborn or to save them should rest in the highest, unelected branch of government, or that the people should be allowed to vote on it directly at the most local possible level, thus ensuring a debate that has the chance to change hearts and minds and carry out the will of a society that is more pro-life than not?

This list is far from complete. But the considerations I’ve mentioned are certainly critical. We have been given one presidential candidate after another who is less than the ideal, and many of us have dutifully voted for them, hoping that at least they would slow the onslaught of the creeping leftist secularism that has infected this nation and is threatening its very existence. But they can’t stop it. And if they can’t win, they can’t even slow it. And the reason they can’t win is because they don’t stand for anything sufficiently unique, compelling, or different to inspire passion, confidence, or hope. We’ve been betting on mediocrity, and we have been surprised by our mediocre results. We need desperately to rethink our strategy.

Noted Catholic writer John Zmirak made a persuasive case back in 2008 that while the Catholic philosophy of government is not inherently libertarian, in our current context, it makes more sense for Catholics to support this approach to government than the alternative:

Given our constitutional heritage and the large body of legal decisions solidifying its interpretation, on nearly any issue, Christians of any denomination should reject the assistance of the State. Our efforts to capture it, the courts have made it clear, will always fail. Any attempt to infuse the activity of the government with the moral content of a revealed religion will be rejected, in the end. Indeed, the more our own institutions cooperate with the government, the more they will be compromised; hospitals which take federal funds will be subject to secular ethics on issues like contraception, end-of-life, and even abortion. Religious colleges accepting federal grants will eventually be federalized, and so on.

It seems clear that the public sphere in America is irretrievably secular. So the only logical response of Christians must be to try to shrink it. Instead of attempting to baptize a Leviathan which turned on us long ago, we’d do much better to cage and starve the beast.

[ ... ]

This is not to endorse the universal claims of doctrinaire libertarians, and assert that every State in history has been a tyranny (except perhaps medieval Iceland). It’s not to deny that any community anywhere has the moral right to employ the State to pursue its vision of the Good. (There’s nothing wrong with Kaiser Franz Josef endowing a monastery here and there, or the Israeli government helping educate rabbis.) In many cultural contexts, the State can fruitfully employ its power to promote the faith and morals held in common by a community. But that can’t happen here. Not in America. Several of our Founders, and generations of our lawyers, have seen to that. We have no more reason to cooperate with the secular state than Irishmen have to trust the British Crown.

Our government is out of control, and we need to reign it in before we no longer have the ability to do so. If we don’t do something dramatically different, I believe we’re going to continue to lose elections. And even when we don’t lose elections, the results we’re going to get will be far from satisfying. Meanwhile, our liberty will continue to evaporate, and the America we knew will be just a nice bit of history.

It’s time for a paradigm shift in our politics. Some would argue that it’s too late, but I believe that (in the words of Ben Franklin) we still have the last vestiges of “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

So let’s keep it. If you believe we can, let’s talk about what it’s going to take. We need ideas, and then, we need actions. Let’s start now. We can’t afford to wait.

I’ve been watching the furor over President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comments with interest. As is often the case in political theater, I think both sides are overplaying their hands. Republicans are exploiting the President’s comments for all the political capital they’re worth, overlooking the nuance in the speech that would give context to the remarks that might allow for a more reasonable interpretation. And Obama is trying to pretend like the speech wasn’t symptomatic of his inherent socialism, which it quite obviously is.

I can’t help but wonder, though, if there is some truth to be found in the middle. That is to say, I don’t know about you, but I have been helped by the American system, and I think many people who have struggled until they ultimately became successful have as well. Yesterday, I read a piece by novelist John Scalzi that made me question my own life, and the help I’ve received along the way.

I went to public schools for most of my life. I ate subsidized lunches in the school cafeteria, because we couldn’t afford to pay full price. I read books from the public library, where I learned to love words, knowledge, and the arts of storytelling. I received federal grants and loans that helped me through college.  I have received significant tax credits for the number of children I have. And though I’m not proud of it, when I was out of work or underemployed, there were times when my family even relied on government-supplied food assistance and medical care.

In addition to all of this, every day I do use government-funded roads, and do much of my work using the Internet – which was, in fact, a government-funded project.

I’ve also received help from friends and family. I’ve lived in basements when I had no place else to go, been sent donations to help cover the rent and food in hard times, and once received a $2,000 loan from a young man I’d never met (except through Internet comment boxes) that helped me to move to a new state and get a new job, and quite literally changed my life.

I know for a fact that I wouldn’t be where I am today without help, not only from people I know, but from the governments (and taxpayers) of the country I am a citizen of, and the states in which I have lived.

But I also know that my God-given talents, my willingness to work hard and persevere, and my desire to keep learning and getting better at what I do are all essential components of whatever success I achieve. They are, quite properly, the determining factors in that success. Anyone can be given assistance. Not everyone will do something with it.

While arguing about what the President said and what he meant, we may be missing out on an opportunity to have a legitimate discussion concerning the role government. How much should it help those in need, and how deeply involved should it become? Has government’s role in providing for the needy irrevocably disrupted the role of private charities and the Church, who should rightly be involved in taking care of the needy? As a wealthy nation, what policies should we have that might provide a safety net to the desperate, the ill, and the starving? Have the social programs that the government has instituted, and the infrastructure initiatives it has spearheaded, left us in a better place, or a worse one?

As a quasi-libertarian – but also a Catholic – I struggle with these questions. Some of them don’t have simple answers. We are clearly a nation that spends far too much and wracks up insurmountable debts, and our social programs are in dire need of reform. But does abuse negate use? In Pope Pius XI’s social encyclical Quadresimo Anno (which itself draws heavily from and builds upon Pope Leo XIII’s Rarum Novarum), the holy father points to the obligation of the state in terms that don’t leave much room for interpretation:

With regard to civil authority, Leo XIII, boldly breaking through the confines imposed by Liberalism, fearlessly taught that government must not be thought a mere guardian of law and of good order, but rather must put forth every effort so that “through the entire scheme of laws and institutions . . . both public and individual well-being may develop spontaneously out of the very structure and administration of the State.” Just freedom of action must, of course, be left both to individual citizens and to families, yet only on condition that the common good be preserved and wrong to any individual be abolished. The function of the rulers of the State, moreover, is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor. “For the nation, as it were, of the rich is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wageworkers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight.”

Some Catholics have argued that such prescriptions, though well-intentioned, fall largely outside the purview of papal authority. Dr. Thomas Woods, noted Catholic author, historian, and economic commentator writes:

The phenomena that economics touches upon, which include money, banking, exchange, prices, wages, monopoly theory, and many other topics, are replete with moral significance. But the positive, scientific statements about these phenomena that constitute the discipline of economics are necessarily value neutral. (By “scientific” I mean only that they involve causal relationships, not that economics is or should resemble one of the physical sciences.) Describing the workings of fractional-reserve banking is a positive task, not a normative one. Discussing whether such a system is desirable is a normative task, and qualitatively separate from explaining the mechanics of that system. One cannot make an intelligent comment about the former unless he understands the latter, and it is the latter with which economics, properly understood, concerns itself.

Likewise, economic policy may possess a moral dimension, but not a single proposition of economic theory involves a moral claim.

[snip]

Nothing in the Deposit of Faith even comes close to deciding this and countless other important economic questions one way or the other. Not even the most uncomprehending or exaggerated rendering of papal infallibility would have the Pope adjudicating such disputes as these. Yet misunderstandings or ignorance regarding such seemingly abstruse points are so often at the heart of the policy recommendations that bishops’ conferences propose and papal encyclicals can seem to imply.

The discerning Catholic is left to wrestle with these questions, and to make informed political choices based upon the conclusions they reach.

I believe in entrepreneurship. I believe that innovation, hard work, and the drive to succeed can and often do get you very far in this country. I believe that success is not simply a consequence of good luck, of being in the right place at the right time – though that can certainly help.

But I also believe that the reason there is an American Dream is because there is an America that makes it possible. There is a system of laws, an infrastructure, and a freedom of opportunity that make it easier to succeed here than just about anywhere else on Earth. I’m grateful for that, and I think it’s something worth preserving.

President Obama gets at least partial credit for pointing this out. The irony is, he should also be held accountable for the fact that his policies would lead to that system becoming encumbered, overburdened, and eventually, dismantled. It’s not what he said that bothers me. It’s what he does. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.

My union friends.

My friends-of-union friends.

Those of you who do not wish to be my friend but who are upset about the what’s happening in New Jersey, Wisconsin, and now Ohio, regarding unions and collective bargaining…

Chill.

Think about something for a moment. Please consider this:

A private company, let’s call it Bob’s Widgets, takes in $5,000,000 in total revenue in a given year. That means the company has a total pool of money of $5,000,000 to pay for supplies, rent, machinery, insurance, taxes, fees, salaries, wages, benefits, and bonuses. After paying for supplies, rent, machinery, insurance, taxes, and fees Bob’s Widgets is down to, let’s say, $1,000,000 for salaries, wages, and benefits. That means before anyone has been paid a red penny, there is a total pool of $1,000,000 to “divvy up” among the president, managers, and unionized employees. When the union bargains with Bob, if the union rep ups the wage and benefits demand above a certain point Bob can tell the union rep, “if you demand that much in wages and benefits, we will be unable to stay in business, and everyone will lose their job.” The union can then either demand that much anyhow, go on strike, and eventually cause Bob to shutter the business (if only long enough to de-certify the union), thus losing everyone their job; or the union can back off its demands, accept that Bob really can’t afford to pay what they are demanding, and be happy with the pay Bob is able and willing to pay. If Bob is a good and decent man, he will be honest in that negotiation. If the union rep is a good and decent man, he will be honest in that negotiation.

But the bottom line is that there is a bottom line: a finite pool of money from which Bob can pay the workers. No more is available, period.

Now let’s step into the realm of the public sector, where union employees work for the government (i.e., for you and me. Ostensibly, anyhow). George is an elected politician for whom all the unionized workers work. George is the employer who sits across the table from the union representative and listens to the rep’s demands. The union rep demands more money in salaries, nicer health insurance with a very small employee contribution, accumulated sick leave with full pay-out upon retirement, and a structured raise system based on seniority and years served rather than merit. George, since he is a government official, doesn’t have to rely upon selling a good or service to raise revenue; he gets revenue from taxes and fees. George really wants to keep the union rep and all of the unionized government employees happy. George really can’t tell the union rep that it is impossible for the government to increase its revenue pool (because all George has to do is raise taxes and increase fees—he is in government, anyhow). Then he’ll have more money to pay for the increased salaries, benefits, and accumulated sick leave pay-outs. Also, since George is an *elected* official, that means he’ll be up for re-election. Now that George really did his part to make life nice for the unionized government workers, the government, public sector unionized workers will be very inclined to do everything they can to get George re-elected so he can and will continue making their life nice and easy.

So lots of money will be raised from the pockets of all people including Bob, the union representative, and all the unionized employees at Bob’s Widgets through higher taxes and new fees. That money will be used to pay the government employees, who in turn will pass a decent portion of it along to George in campaign contributions, thus helping him get re-elected. That way he can can continue scratching the back that scratched his because he scratched theirs.

Do Bob’s employees get a chance to “re-elect” Bob or support his opponent for the presidency of Bob’s Widgets? Um, no.

Can Bob go out and simply order people to buy his widgets under penalty of garnished wages or jail time? Huh-uh.

But Bob and each of his employees, all of them good union men and women, will have to pay higher taxes and fees out of their pocket, along with higher prices on food, clothing, gasoline, movie tickets, cigarettes, whatever it is that George targeted with higher fees and taxes, in order to pay for the posh deal George signed off on for the public sector union workers.

Eventually the government no longer is of, for, and by the people, but the people must, under penalty of jail time, support that government and all its works and deeds…

See: what is happening in state houses in Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Jersey is not an anti-union action. It is uprooting a corrupt, self-perpetuating system that treats all private sector citizens as piggy banks: to be cracked open as the need arises. It never should have been allowed to happen in the first place. FDR was opposed to the idea of public sector unions collectively bargaining. FDR! Governors Daniels, Christie, Walker, and Kasich are making this first step in fixing the mess that is the public deficit.

It is not pretty, and some promises made by politicians long since out of office will be broken—but they were promises made in bad faith: the politicians who made them had no idea what the future economic realities would hold and thus had no standing to promise future generations’ revenues. But even at that, they also knew they would not be around when the bills came due, so it would be someone else’s problem if it all blew up. Well, with the economy in the tank, the baby boomer generation about to retire en masse, and the simple reality of economics, these promises simply cannot be honored.

The chickens from decades of cozy dealings between politicians and public sector unions are coming home to roost. An economy can only handle so much taxation and fees before imploding.

Public sector unions and private sector unions are the same in name only. Public sector unions have an advantage in collective bargaining that is simply impossible for private sector unions, and then the public sector workers get to pocket the money taxed away from the private sector union guys and gals.

I hope that is sufficiently clear.

Now, if you’ve lost your chill it’s for one of two reasons: you didn’t think of it this way before and you’re ticked off that this has been happening for so long, that it imperils the economy, and that people are defending this dastardly arrangement; or you have been a beneficiary of this arrangement, don’t like that it has been exposed, and resent that the people think it is corrupt and should go away.

If it’s the former, good for you. Do what you can to help bring fiscal sanity to your state and local government by supporting those making tough calls on budget cuts including, but not limited to, efforts like I discuss above. Attend rallies (peacefully, of course), call your elected officials and voice your concern, write letters to the editor and talk with your friends who may also have incorrect notions about what is really happening. Hopefully our politicians will stand their ground and government will be reined in.

If it’s the latter, well, it’s time for a new way of thinking. Support fiscal sanity and the common good rather than your own pocket book for a while. Stay in your present public-sector job, but agitate for deals that are in the best interests of the common good, respecting that the tax payers pay your salary. Or, perhaps to broaden your perspective, get a job in the private sector. Even better, take a risk and start a business (perhaps an educational institution) so you can directly, actively create real wealth-generating jobs for multiple people. You’d be amazed how much good that can do.

For all the talk about how they’re all “fighting for the poor,” our elected and unelected officials have been doing quite a bit lately to make poverty far less affordable.

Which was it that pushed you out onto the streets? The gas bill? The electricity bill? The new crib?

To give some economic context to this let’s take the case of Bill and Steve. Bill is a millionaire and runs his own company. Steve is barely scraping by, hoping to hold onto his low-paying job. Both have a family and a house and they each really would like to maintain their respective standard of living. This requires both of them to buy certain things–e.g., electricity, perhaps some sort of heating oil or natural gas, a car, gasoline, a baby crib, food.

When Bill and Steve buy things that cost a flat rate like gasoline and electricity they generally pay the same rate per unit purchased. In this case, since Bill has so much more money, he is devoting a much smaller percentage of his income to these commodities, and thus it affects very little his ability to spend money on luxury items or nicer versions of other necessities. A rise in electricity prices would hit both men equally per unit purchased, but the percentage of one’s monthly budget demanded by a rise would take a larger chunk, percentage wise, out of Steve’s monthly budget.

In the case of food, both have to buy food, but obviously Bill is more easily able to afford more food, and nicer food. If the cost of food goes up, both Bill and Steve take a hit, but again, since Bill has more disposable income it merely means buying a marginally lower quality of nicer foods, or less money available for other luxury items. With Steve, since his food budget was already stretched thin, rising food prices make a difficult situation even worse.

In the case of cars, baby cribs, and other items one can buy used, Bill usually buys brand new because he can easily afford to. Steve, on the other hand, relies on Craig’s List for his cribs and the used car lot for his car. Anything which causes the supply of used cars and cribs to drop will cause the cost of purchasing those items to rise, which takes a further chunk out of Steve’s budget.

Suddenly, both Bill and Steve are paying more for electricity, heating oil or natural gas (especially as the weather turns cold), gasoline, food, cars, and other items like baby cribs. The hit to Bill’s discretionary budget is unwelcome, but marginal. For Steve it’s well-nigh untenable. Steve’s kids may not have a merry Christmas at all, since the money Steve and his wife wanted to use for gifts had to go to the electricity bill, heating bill, the food bill, the auto mechanic, and buying a brand new crib for the new addition since no used ones were available.

What might have caused these spikes in prices? Let’s take a look…

1. “Under my plan…electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.”

   When the cost of coal goes up and those costs are passed on to the consumer, that causes a greater demand for less-expensive alternatives. That direction is obviously not toward wind or solar, since one of the great geniuses of capitalism is that the much-maligned captains of industry are constantly seeking ways to cut costs without hurting sales. If they knew they could sell just as much electricity and produce it more inexpensively, well then you can bet your Adam Smith Tie they would do so. That they haven’t, while not entirely dispositive, logically speaking, is still indicative, practically speaking. So electricity from coal is more expensive, which makes everything powered by that electricity more expensive. Everything.

2. The ethanol subsidy. As I discussed previously, the ethanol industry does nothing to curb net pollution, but it does a whole lot to drive up the cost of everything that relies on corn. Like food. And gasoline, since ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline, which makes the gasoline-ethanol blends we have to buy at the pump more expensive. Plus, since it drives down gas mileage, Steve is forced to buy gas more frequently.
3. Cash for Clunkers. Along with the ethanol subsidy, this is among the most egregious examples of government-engineered transfers of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. The government subsidized the purchase of new cars (in the vast majority of the cases by those who were going to buy a new car anyhow) by taking used cars out of the market–used cars that often times had no problems, but were simply “on the list.” These were cars that still ran just fine, and would for years. But the government needed to be seen as doing something bold to reduce carbon emissions, so they bought and destroyed all these used cars, thus reducing emissions in no appreciable way, but very signficantly reducing the number of used cars available for purchase by those who could not afford a new car, government hand-out or not. Fewer used cars in the market meant higher prices for the ones that were available. Steve suffers, and is forced to fork over more money to a dealership or a bank.
4. Killing “killer” cribs. Yahoo News reports that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has banned the sale or re-sale of drop-down side cribs. They report that over the past 10 years, “at least 32 infants and toddlers” have died due to malfunctions or poor usage of the drop-down side feature. (Odd to see this administration suddenly concerned about baby safety, what with nary a peep of concern over the millions of babies who have died since 2000 due to abortion). While no infant mortality is to be taken lightly, 32 out of how many millions who were not aborted, were born, and survived such cribs makes those 3.2 per year an accident, and certainly not a reason to blanket-ban such cribs. (An aside: With higher fixed sides, mothers are forced to bend at the back and reach further down, either to lower a sleeping child gently into the crib or lift the child out. Shorter mothers, or those with bad backs or other disabilities may find that impossible, while mothers who don’t have bad backs may hurt their backs as the children get bigger.) But beyond that, the rule enacted by unelected bureaucrats also outlaws the re-sale of these cribs. So if you have one that you’re not going to use any more you can no longer sell it lawfully, so those who need a crib but who cannot afford a new one just had an entire chunk of the pool of possible cribs taken off the market. As with the above items, this drives up the cost of the remaining used cribs and forces many people to buy new ones they really cannot afford.
5. Drilling moratoria and the war on domestic oil production and refining. The continuing, unwarranted moratorium on off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, in conjunction with the ridiculous statutes that prevent drilling in so many other places, have and will continue to drive up the cost of gasoline, heating oil, and all petroleum-based products; not to mention driving up the cost of anything transported by an internal combustion engine–i.e., everything.

So, with all of these things going up in price (and I’m sure there are other examples), whom do you suppose will feel the pinch more: Millionaire Bill? Or Barely Scraping-by Steve?

Toss on top of that increased taxes on “the wealthy,” and Bill also has less money to re-invest in the company he runs, thus reducing the number of employees he needs or is able to hire. Steve suffers again due to a shrinking pool of job openings.

Is the government trying to create a permanent underclass of those dependent on the government?

By now, as the world is well aware, the website WikiLeaks released to major news agencies—and, really, though the stunning levelling of the web to everyone—a portion of nearly 250,000 diplomatic communiqués it obtained through gray channels.

The president and his secretary of state are nervously calling allies, warning them they might very well be offended by what the president and the secretary of state might or might not have said regarding allies and enemies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&src=se

[“Uh, I’m sorry to bother you, uh, I said some things about you I shouldn’t have.  I’m really, really sorry.  Will you still be my friend?”]

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham (SC) and Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (MO) want to prosecute, and pro-Sinn Fein Representative Peter King (NY) hopes the U.S. State Department will classify WikiLeaks as a “Foreign Terrorist” group.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8166607/WikiLeaks-US-Senators-call-for-WikiLeaks-to-face-criminal-charges.html

There’s no doubt, much of what’s been released so far makes the United States look very, very bad.  Not surprisingly, the press, the pundits, and the public are divided over how to respond.  The New York Times wants to release the information responsibly, while the Wall Street Journal will have nothing to do with the information or its dissemination.

The British news has been especially interesting, given the profound Anglo-American alliance.  According to the London Telegraph, “American Anger is Laid Bare in Leaked Papers.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8166500/WikiLeaks-American-anger-is-laid-bare-in-leaked-papers.html

What anger you might rightly ask?  Well, if I’m a member of the British public (I’m not—I write from North America, south of the Canadian border, north of the Mexican border, somewhere in the vicinity of the western Great Lakes), I would assume ALL of America is angry and unified in its bitterness toward the world, at least given what cables have been released.

Upon a close reading of the article, though, the Americans are angry that the British have been too lax with Pakistanis living in the British Isles and Americans never really thought Gordon Brown was a strong prime minister.

I would like to be clear–no one (seven American citizens) in the Birzer household is really angry at all about any of these things. I, as a Roman Catholic, an American, and a person, love the British as much as I always have, no matter what their ethnic background.  Admittedly, I wouldn’t have voted for Gordon Brown or any member of his party, but, then again, I’m not English or Irish or Scottish.  What the Telegraph meant to write, I hope, was this: “Certain American Officials are Angry with Certain British Officials.”

And, yes, it should be noted, some private citizens are very angry as well—not at the British, but at WikiLeaks.  One of my colleagues posted the following on his Facebook page: “I think the folks at Wikileaks are scum sucking, bottom feeding, low life, good for nothing traitors.”

My colleague might very well be right, but I honestly have no idea.  I know no one at WikiLeaks, and I have no interest in getting to know any one there.  I very much doubt they are on the side of the angels, but I also doubt if they will one day reside the lowest level of the Inferno.  Thank God, I won’t have to judge such things.  Lives might be lost because of this release, and this, of course, would be horrible.  Alliances might fall.  This, too, might (possibly) be bad.

But, it’s worth considering three important issues.

1)   Someone in America leaked the information.  This someone is some one the U.S. government trusted, employed, and supported.  Without a doubt, this person (or persons) is a traitor, and he/she should be bound by law for acts of treason.  The leak also reveals that the United States government is incompetent.  It has been for a long time, and I doubt if any American is really surprised.  But, if the government (or members of it) are going to be nasty and keep so many secrets, perhaps these officials should be a little more wily about it.  I’m having flashbacks to Junior High School.

2)   One of the most important reasons Americans are angry is that these documents—none of which seem to be falsified, rewritten, or faked—make us look like arrogant, imperialist bastards.  And, maybe we are.  Not our best side, to be sure.  Here’s just one revelation from the Wikileaks as posted in today’s New York Times: “Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”  If this isn’t pure arrogance, I’m not sure what is.

3)   In almost every area—foreign policy, domestic policy, etc.—our government is simply out of control.  While the leaker is certainly guilty of treason, we also have to have some checks on our government. Clearly, these—at worst, atrocities, at best, mistakes—secret actions and secretive words reveal our guilt as an American people.  Who watches the watchmen?  Especially when the watchmen seem as nasty as the enemies of civilization?  We—citizens of this republic—have allowed our government to expand well beyond anything the Founders envisioned.  We have, for all intents and purposes, made a false deity out of our government, rendering to Caesar what we should have been rendering unto God.

Our Catholic heritage has much to tell us about the nature of the state and the nature of power.  St. Augustine warned poignantly in the City of God that a state without justice is nothing more than a gang of robbers.  St. Thomas, following in the same vein, argued in On Kingship that the only good king is the king who would sacrifice himself for his people.

Considering what WikiLeaks has revealed—no matter how treacherously it obtained or disseminated the information—the United States government might very well have violated, repeatedly and heinously, the very things our Church Doctors and our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us—a just and noble commonwealth, built upon the dignity of the human person, a dignity that demands respect for all life and an openness of society.  From the brief things I’ve read about what’s been revealed, our government officials seem very, very far away from any of these things the West and Catholics have cherished for the last several thousand years.

As one of my former students, now a star journalist, Chase Purdy, tweeted yesterday: “WikiLeaks is what happens when the entire US government is forced to go through a full-body scanner.”

The federal government through a myriad of agencies from the IRS to the EPA to the TSA probes, gropes, and limits us as American citizens minute by minute, hour by hour.  It demand to know and regulate our most intimate information and traits.

Before the various official that make up the U.S. government blame one another or a website for harming the world by publishing true things, just remember—these things are TRUE.  Who created the greater harm?  He who revealed the truth, or he who erred and needed to have his error(s) made public?

The watchmen must be watched, and they must be held to a very high standard.

Bradley J. Birzer is Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies, Hillsdale College.