Liars Figure

Caution: this post may be a bit wonky for some, but the truth sometimes needs a wonky defense.

Mark Twain is credited with saying, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” It is generally a simple matter to find a statistic that will support one’s cause. Able statisticians can manufacture stats that appear to favor a preferred position. Politicians are notorious for making the numbers bolster their policies. One statistic that has been bandied about during recent years is that of unemployment. Naturally the administration in power wants it to appear that their policies are putting people to work, so lowering the unemployment percentage is a major goal.

The following excerpt from the web site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) explains the weakness of using unemployment figures to determine actual unemployment:

“While the UI [unemployment insurance] claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

“In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

o   Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.

o   Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).

o   Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.

o   Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

“Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.” [Italics mine]

The last sentence of the excerpt says it all: in the past decade there have been approximately three times as many unemployed people as the UI figures report. Given the inaccuracies built into the BLS report on unemployment, one must pay careful attention to the kinds of factors mentioned in the excerpt above to properly compare figures from year to year. It can be seen that Barak Obama inherited a 5% unemployment rate in 2008. During his first term, the rate rose to nearly 10%, then began to fall back gradually. By the end of Obama’s second term, the rate had returned to about 5%. (Figures provided by Politifact.)

The Obama administration wanted everyone to think that by 2016 their policies had brought the economy back to the more prosperous state it was in when they took over in 2008. However, if the mitigating factors mentioned by the BLS are considered, far more truly unemployed will be found to have fallen through the cracks in 2016 than in 2008. It is difficult to determine the exact number, but some experts estimate real unemployment is between 15 and 20%.

There is another way to measure the health of the American workforce: it is called the Labor Force Participation Rate. According to the BLS, “The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either employed or unemployed.” This number still has some of the inequities built into the BLS system, but it is worth noting that it held nearly steady during the Bush years despite a mini recession caused by the bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting bank failures (something Bush inherited from Clinton) and the attacks of 9/11/2001 followed by another recession in 2008. In 2009 when Obama took over, the rate fell precipitously. It will be interesting to watch what happens to this number during the Trump administration.

There are other trends that can be used to determine the overall health of the economy. During Obama’s tenure personal bankruptcies increased; the number of people in poverty increased; the number of people on food stamps increased dramatically. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of the country’s overall wealth, did rise under Obama, but the rate of increase was the slowest in recent memory.

Perhaps the most troubling economic factor that might be used to evaluate Obama’s legacy is the national debt. There are different ways to measure this; again, statistics can be manipulated to tell almost any story. The simplest measure is to note the $10.6 trillion debt when Obama took over, and the $19.7 trillion debt he leaves. That looks like over $9 trillion in increased debt. Some argue that only the budget deficits year by year should be considered, making Obama’s budget deficit total $6.6 trillion. (Figures from The Balance) By any measure, the national debt increased. This is important because it means the government is spending more than it collects in tax revenue. Even a child can see that this condition cannot be sustained for long. Sooner or later, the system will collapse.

Since this is supposed to be a blog for Christian thinkers, one might wonder why this arcane patter matters. Just this: we live in a country with a participatory type government. Our new President says he wants to return power to the people by reducing government intrusion into private lives. If we are to evaluate this or any administration of government wisely, we need to know how. Statistics are one way to measure success. The goal of a Christian should be to have sufficient wisdom to judge whether a purveyor of statistics is being truthful or not.

Jesus chided his disciples at one point saying, “the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.” Another time when He was sending the disciples into the world, Jesus counselled them to be, “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” As believers we cannot cloister ourselves in holy huddles and watch our economy collapse due to self-destructive policies. We need to make wise choices in the voting booth and then hold our elected officials responsible for their actions in office. This is not our primary responsibility as believers; that would be bringing glory to God. But then maybe using our God-given freedom to wisely choose our leaders would do just that.

Is It Wrong to do Right for the Wrong Reasons?

I call this blog Why Heaven Always Matters Most because I believe it. There are times when the cause of Heaven seems to be accomplished by un-heavenly means, and I have to pause to consider the correct response. I recall the Gospel record of some disciples wanting to stop “good works” because the perpetrators were not “following us.” Jesus was not upset with these outliers because as He said, “no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.” Okay, fine. But I wonder how Jesus would respond if the mighty work is done contrary to Jesus’ Word, if not His name.

The reason I am thinking this way is because of a post by a friend on Facebook. The friend made an innocent comment praising the work of Kit Cummings’ Power of Peace Project (POPP). A little research reveals that POPP is doing some really great things to bring peace to arenas of conflict, especially inside prisons. The organization is taking their message of peace to schools in hopes of preventing young people from making life decisions that will result in non-peace. This is a good thing; I would like to applaud the effort.

I dug a little deeper into the fruit of the POPP program and found a worm in the apple. On their blog, they write a glowing report of a tribe in Africa that practices a peace program. “In this African tribe, when someone does something harmful, they take the person to the center of the village where the whole tribe comes and surrounds them. For two days, they will say to the man all the good things that he has done. The tribe believes that each human being comes into the world as good. Each one of us only desiring safety, love, peace and happiness. But sometimes, in the pursuit of these things, people make mistakes. The community sees those mistakes as a cry for help. They unite then to lift him, to reconnect him with his true nature, to remind him who he really is, until he fully remembers the truth of which he had been temporarily disconnected: ‘I am good’.” Is that right? We are all good by nature.

If this were the only instance of unbiblical thinking, one might excuse it as poor judgment in choosing examples. However, more searching reveals the totally humanistic ethos of the POPP program. The Mission Statement and the Twelve Power of Peace Principles repeat the same psychobabble that secular motivational speakers have been using for years. If the POPP repackaging results in fewer fights in prison and reduced gang recruitment, I can appreciate the effort. But I cannot agree with the methods.

For one thing, their basis for peace is terribly wrong. Humans do not come into the world good; quite the opposite is true. The Bible is clear that humans are born in sin and in need of redemption. The human heart is not a place of peace, but is full of deceit and desperate wickedness. The lie perpetrated by POPP on its subjects is the same one told to Adam and Eve in the Garden by the Serpent. It is the same lie sold by many New Age religions and, sadly, many wayward souls using the label of Christian.

The other problem, perhaps worst of all, is that the POPP program leaves its followers in their sin. From what I can see, they make no mention of sin whatsoever. No sin, no need for a Cross. Ignoring sin and replacing the Cross with one’s own bootstraps abolishes the only way to true peace. The POPP way may give peace of the world’s making. Jesus said, “My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you.” The Prince of Peace gives something that rests on eternal truth; the world gives temporary peace that rests on a false premise.

On one level, I am glad that Kit Cummings and his POPP program are bringing a measure of peace to troubled waters. On another level I think it is tragic that a man who holds a Master of Theology does not teach the truth, but propagates the big lie instead. Peace on earth was promised in Bethlehem years ago; it was promised to “those with whom [God] is pleased.” As much as I want to applaud what Cummings is doing, I am sitting on my hands on this one. Heaven matters most; I don’t think Cummings is someone with whom God is pleased. I could be wrong, but for the right reasons.

Reforming Healthcare Reform

I have expressed my opinion on so-called healthcare reform numerous times since I began filling this space in 2009. Now that the Republicans have re-taken Congress and the White House, talk of repealing Obama’s signature achievement has become headline news again. In this atmosphere of true hope for positive change, there are still mountains of misunderstanding and deep canyons of faulty assumptions littering both sides of the debate.

Someone shared a picture on Facebook recently that asked if we could afford $2 billion for an election, why could we not afford “free” healthcare. This kind of mindless misrepresentation is rampant. First of all, there is no logical connection between the money spent on the regular operation of our election system and healthcare. More to the point, we spent $3.2 TRILLION on healthcare in 2015. Against that three thousand billion someone wished compare two billion.

Beyond the obvious lack of fiscal and mathematical understanding evident in the Facebook picture, there is a more serious problem with any argument that champions “free” healthcare. Ignoring the fact that healthcare provided by the government is not “free,” for someone must obviously pay for it, there is a weightier issue: there is no basis in the US Constitution for nationalized healthcare. All those who lobby for any type of government mandated healthcare operate on the false assumption that healthcare is a human right. It is not.

I have heard some try to lodge the right to healthcare under the “pursuit of life, liberty and happiness” listed in the Declaration of Independence as “unalienable rights” guaranteed by the Creator. There is great irony here given that many who propose this argument deny the existence of a Creator, but that is immaterial. Since the Declaration predates health insurance by 150 years, it is doubtful that the framers had such a “right” in mind at the time. If one argues for a dynamic interpretation of our Founding Fathers’ words, it remains highly illogical and impractical to suppose they can apply to “free” healthcare.  Taking this approach would demand that food and shelter also be provided for “free,” since they too are necessary to life, etc.

Nationalizing (and hence paying for) healthcare is a socialist wealth re-distribution plan and nothing more. As I said in my Open Letter to Debbie Stabenow back in 2009, any plan that, “requires the robbing of citizen Peter to pay citizen Paul's medical bills” is unconstitutional and generally unsupported by a majority of Americans. The election of Donald Trump (and many other Republicans) this cycle suggests that people are still opposed to nationalized healthcare. Trump and many congressional candidates who won election made repealing Obamacare a top priority. I will be a job well-done if they can accomplish it.

What these repeal-minded people should not do is replace Obamacare with another socialist scheme. If they can conjure a way to make the healthcare industry a truly free marketplace and remove the hobbling government restrictions on insurance companies, I believe real reform will happen. If insurance is made portable and not bound to state borders; if hospitals and doctors begin to charge what it costs instead of charging what insurance will pay; and most important, if consumers are free to shop for healthcare, competition will drive prices down.

There will still be some who cannot afford healthcare. For them there is Medicare and Medicaid, each of which needs vast restructuring to eliminate fraud and abuse, but each of which can serve the less fortunate without massive wealth redistribution if we insist on some type of government welfare. For Christians, there is also charity, which for almost two thousand years was the only option for healthcare. Clinics and doctors planted in depressed areas and supported by churches could take much of the weight off the clumsy Federal welfare system. It is, after all, a Christian duty to care for the needs of one’s neighbor. If we did that properly, government healthcare would be all but unnecessary.

The Circle of Well-being

As we stand on the on-ramp of another year, we look down the months wondering what we will encounter. The inauguration of a new President this January makes the view even less clear than normal. You don’t have to be a disappointed Hillary voter to be wary about just what Donald Trump will set about doing when he steps into power. Add to that the usual annual anticipation that January always brings, and the roadmap seems littered with potential hazards.

Everyone can use a little comfort at a time like this. Believers have fewer trepidations than those who don’t know who holds the future: the king’s heart is in His hand as He directs the course of nations. Even with that knowledge, though, it is easy to lose one’s sense of balance. While the men in the White House or the Kremlin or the radical mosque do have inordinate power to affect the lives of ordinary people, believers have marvelous promises that should outweigh the uncertainties of geopolitics.

There are many such promises, but I am thinking of two in particular today. I have added a Bible blessing to the top of my daily prayer list, a different one each day. Today’s blessing reminded me of the circular nature of God’s surrounding care for His people. The blessing for today from Romans 15:13 says, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” This represents a beautiful circle as I see it.

First off, note that God is the “God of hope.” Hope is the emotion that keeps prisoners of war alive; that keeps the prodigal’s father standing at the gate in anticipation of the lost son’s homecoming; that keeps Daniel at peace in the lions’ den. The loss of hope leads to the loss of everything it means to be human. To counteract this, our God makes us to “abound in hope” through His Holy Spirit who multiplies our “joy and peace” that exists because we are “believing.” Simple faith (believing) brings joy, peace and hope. How great is that!

The same kind of self-reinforcing promise is found in a duo of Old and New Testament passages. Philippians 4:7 says, “May the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Paul’s prayer here is that the incredible, infinite peace that comes from God would “guard” our inner being, the place where such peace resides. Meld this with the promise found in Isaiah 26:3, “You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you.” Again an element of belief, trust, guarantees peace to the mind stayed on God. So the peace which guards our hearts is a promised by-product of our belief or trust in God.

The writer of Hebrews says, “without faith it is impossible to please God.” It is also pretty clear that true faith results in peace and hope and joy in our deepest selves. The flip side of this coin is that any doubt or discomfort or worry about the coming year is plainly the result of weak faith. We cannot know the future, but we do know who holds the future. I must continually remind myself that my well-being is guaranteed by God; all I have to do is practice that element of faith known as trust. Perhaps that leads to a worthwhile New Year's resolution: I will trust God as I roll into 2017, whatever it may bring.