AUSTERITY—Are We Americans Allergic To It?

As our country roils toward more and more economic chaos, I ask you, “Are we able to counter this profligate spending by tightening our belts and lowering our standard of living—or, are we just going on and on in a splurge of overspending?” Both Italy and Greece are showing signs of correcting their overly extravagant spending habits—can we, Americans do likewise?

Last Tuesday, the results of Ohio’s voting indicated that we cannot do it. Ohio voters, after a campaign fueled by union dollars, voted down Issue 2, a measure designed to shift the cost of health care and pensions for government workers back to the workers and away from the taxpayers of the state. Those same voters voted Yes on Issue 3, a measure to get rid of the health insurance mandate of the ObamaCare law in Ohio. In other words, Ohio voters voted for more continued Big Brother payments for their living benefits. They do not want to pay for their own health care or their pension benefits—they want the government to pay for their pension benefits; and they want the private health care sector to pay for their uninsured health care. I believe that these two moves by the Ohio electorate were driven by the same voter motivation, i.e., the wish for the government and the private sector hospitals to do more spending on their behalf.

To be fair in this accusation of mine, I must say that I, also, voted Yes on Issue 3. But…I voted that way for a far different reason. I voted Yes because I fear the overweening increase in government regulation that threatens to increase government costs to the taxpayer. The whole Obama plan for health care will not decrease costs—it will INCREASE it.

America will never get itself out of its financial woes and into its former position as world leader unless we change our ways. We must decide to take responsibility for our own personal family economies. We must tighten our belts and decide that we cannot have a free lunch. Getting more jobs and a better economy is a reasonable goal for each of us. It is not something that we must wait for the government to provide for us.

Can The Western Democracies Survive?

Western Democracies from Greece to the United States are suffering from the “wants;” they are screaming “Gimme, gimme—more and more money!” (When there is no more money.) In the United States, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, Ireland, and eventually, France, workers are calling for more and more government handouts in the form of entitlements. Even corporations in these countries are demanding to be on the government dole. None of this is news; we have heard it for years!

Greeks are demonstrating in their streets against government austerity programs. Ohioans voted yesterday to keep public employees on the government handout programs with health insurance and pension benefits. Nobody seems able to understand that THE MONEY IS GONE! All these demonstrations and votes for more entitlements are saying that they want everyone else to foot the bills for their benefits. This includes union members as well as corporations.

An unhappy byproduct of a welfare state is that it creates powerful interests that will fight to the last to preserve their free lunch, no matter the cost to the country. America’s federal debt was 35.7% of GDP in 2007, but it was 61.3% last year and is predicted to reach 90% by 2020 according to the Congressional Budget Office. These figures were arrived at based on President Obama’s 2011 budget submitted by the White House Office of Management and Budget in February 2011. For countries with debt-to-GDP ratios “above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more,” according to a recent research paper by economists Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland.

Democracies fall when the people finally realize that they can vote themselves financial benefits to be paid for by other people. Unless Americans begin to understand that they must sacrifice some of their affluence to the general good of the nation, as they did during World War II, our country is doomed.

Do We Need Moral Politicians/Leaders?

In the past, America was founded on the idea of innate human goodness; this concept especially found prominence in the thinking of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. They believed that if the people of a democratic republic were left alone to carry on commerce in the world according to the dictates of common sense morality and ethics, all men would get along together. They even thought that wars would cease to be. Even up into the early 20th Century, both political parties were dedicated primarily to the goal of making a better American, one with better education, religion, and even morality.

Honesty, faithfulness, virtue, reliability, and trustworthiness were qualities that received widespread consensus in America. But, alas, those character qualities are long gone from the top of the American priority list. When the honesty of President Grant was questioned, he responded that to question the honesty of a United States President was tantamount to questioning the virtue and chastity of an unmarried woman. (WOW! How times have changed!) Now, as Francis Fukuyama has lamented, American thought is dedicated to increasing the gross domestic product and distributing it evenly. Long gone, it seems, is the value of moral integrity among our political leaders. Politicians seem convinced that if they were to commit some moral or ethical offense, the system of republican checks and balances will compensate for it--so…it is no longer necessary to mind one’s moral manners in private or even public matters.

We are seeing this kind of thinking manifesting itself in the present-day political scene with Herman Cain and his girlfriends taking center stage in a campaign for President. Many are saying that Cain’s behavior in private is just his private affair—what matters most is how he will behave in the business office of the President. Bill Clinton received just that kind of waiver even when he had to pay $850,000 to rid himself of the scandal of Paula Jones. After that was all over, he seemed to receive the approbation of the American people, who felt sorry for him. His comment in all that matter was, “My morals are the same as the morals of the American people.” Sad, but true!

I take strong exception to all of this. I believe strongly that if a man cannot be trusted in his moral life, if he cannot be faithful in his marriage, faithful to the most sacred of all human promises (marriage), he cannot be trusted to carry out the business of government reliably. One who can be trusted is worthy of commendation and added responsibility. Jesus recognized this principle, and in the parable of the talents, he said, “Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.” (Matt 25:21)

Is Suicide an Option?

I realize that many who read this blog post will have had a loved one who was so hopelessly disabled by accident or illness that they and the family have seriously considered suicide as the best outcome for the situation. But…is that an ethical, spiritually justifiable, moral, solution to such a problem? I think not, and for the following reasons:

First of all, the Commandment says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Human life is not to be ended by men; and I think that this Commandment applies equally to one’s own life as well as to the lives of others. Two notable exceptions exist: Christians and others have long considered that it is permissible to take human life in a justifiable war and for self-defense. But, otherwise, there is no defensible reason for taking human life.

Secondly, we have a scriptural instruction on this subject in the second chapter of the book of Job (v.9,10). In the height of Job’s suffering, his wife said to him, “’Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.’ But he said to her, ‘You speak as one of the foolish women who speak. Shall we receive good from God and shall we not receive evil?’ In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” Job refused to sacrifice his own life, even though he was suffering greatly.

Thirdly, justifying suicide leads to the further degradation of the respect for human life, in general; and it guides one to endorse other forms of disrespect for human life, e.g., abortion and euthanasia—death by committee!

Several years ago, I was practicing medicine in Detroit. A 55 year old nurse came to me complaining of severe back pain; the pain was said to be so severe that she was considering suicide—she had already consulted Dr. Kevorkian about killing herself. She told me that she wanted an unlimited supply of morphine and that if I did not give it to her, she was going to kill herself.

I made sure that all indicated diagnostic tests were made to find out what was causing the back pain, e.g., X-rays, CT scan, orthopedic and psychiatric consultations. The only finding was the presence of mild arthritis of the spine, which was appropriate for her age.

Not being willing to induce opiate addiction by supplying her with unlimited amounts of morphine, I refused to prescribe what she requested. She went to another doctor who supplied her with the drugs.

Three months later, she appeared on TV with Dr. Kevorkian testifying to the necessity and advisability of elective suicide. Within a few days, Dr. Kevorkian took her to the front door of the local police station in his van and helped her kill herself.

This case illustrates how liberal and permissive attitudes toward suicide lead to gross abuse of human life.

Suicide is not the answer to human suffering. God gives life; and only he has the right to take it away.