Kissing the NFL Good-Bye

A couple weeks ago I wrote about my like-dislike relationship with the game of (American) football. After reading it a friend suggested I read a book entitled The Winner-Take-All Society by Robert H. Frank. I've added it to my reading list but unfortunately my local library does not have a copy, so I will have to look elsewhere. About the same time the current issue of The Atlantic crossed my desk and I read a very interesting article in it: “How the NFL fleeces taxpayers,” written by Gregg Easterbrook. The article is adapted from Easterbrook's soon-to-be-released book The King of Sports: Football's Impact on America. I shall add this book to my reading list as well, but the article alone was enough to bring me to the conclusion that I need to withdraw my support from this league, if the reasons I listed in my previous post were not sufficient.

In the article Easterbrook describes how the NFL earns phenomenal profits for team owners and league executives while passing the cost of stadiums to the taxpayers in NFL cities. In an era of tight budgets and calls for decreased government spending, in a time when resources for the poor, for education and other truly useful services are being slashed by local and state governments, politicians continue to shovel largesse to private teams so that they won't move out of town. He cites numerous examples, all of which made me wonder why I should continue to give any support to this league. Why should taxpayers subsidize the Washington Redskins to the tune of $4 million dollars to upgrade their workout facility, when the team owner has an estimated net worth of $1 billion? Surely Virginia taxpayers could direct that $4 million towards more useful causes and $4 million out of Dan Snyder's $1 billion would hardly even make a noticeable dent.

The NFL is ultimately a business. It's about entertainment, but it's also about making money and it does that fantastically well. The league will receive about $4 billion dollars this season alone in broadcast rights. That's not counting ticket sales, merchandising and other sources of income. I have no bone to pick with the league and its teams for making money. If people want to pay for tickets and merchandise, if networks believe there is money to be earned in broadcasting the games, great. However, don't ask the taxpayers of Footballtown, America to pick up the bill for building, maintaining and upgrading the stadium that the teams use to earn their money. Teams should build their own stadiums. They could then choose to manage and lease them for other purposes as they see fit, earning additional income. This would be preferable to forcing communities to build these modern cathedrals, then paying them a pittance in rent to use them for their games.

In return for the stadium “rental” charges, teams receive in most if not all cases the exclusive right to revenues generated within the stadium, including ticket sales, concessions and, most importantly, revenue from the broadcast rights that go with each game. These sources of income far outweigh the rental fees the teams pay. When you factor in that the rental fees often don't cover the cost of actually constructing the stadium and paying off the debt for doing so, the teams essentially receive government subsidies to run their very lucrative businesses. I find it appalling that in a time when we hear politicians proclaiming the need to cut subsidies to the poor of our nation we continue to subsidize billionaire owners of sports teams. Something is seriously wrong with this equation.

I imagine someone will point to the economic “benefit” that sports teams bring to a city. Yes, they generate some jobs, but I wonder whether they truly generate enough local employment income, particularly jobs that pay a livable wage, to merit the subsidies they receive. For example, Louisiana gives up to $6 million a year to the owner of the New Orleans Saints as an “inducement payment” so he (hopefully) won't consider relocating the team. I would think that one could create a decent number of jobs in other ways for $6 million a year.

I am thankful that I do not live in a community with an NFL team, so I do not pay directly to support one through my taxes, although I do not have any idea whether and how much my state legislature has chosen to support the Arizona Cardinals with my tax money. I feel sorry for the taxpayers of Glendale, who get to pay for the shiny University of Phoenix stadium where the Cardinals play. (I think, to be fair, that they chose to tax themselves to build it, but I was not around at that time so I am not familiar with the details.) The residents of Tempe and Mesa should congratulate themselves on having the wisdom to reject efforts to construct the stadium in their cities.

The NFL will continue with or without my support. I don't even mind that they do. In fact I don't mind if they continue making money. But I do mind that they do so on the backs of taxpayers, when they do not need to do so. Team owners should take responsibility for the expenses of their teams and not expect taxpayers to subsidize them. Their earnings are more than adequate to pay for their stadiums and upgrades and whatever else they want. And if they aren't, then maybe they need to adjust their business model rather than blackmailing cities into pouring millions into their coffers. I don't expect them to change their ways, but until they do, I don't need to be an active contributor to their bottom line. I'm sure I can find better ways to spend my limited income—as well as my Sunday afternoons.

Christmas - A Time to Reflect on our Shopping Habits

No sooner have we finished our Thanksgiving dinner than the invasion of the Christmas shopping season begins. This year as we are painfully aware many stores moved their opening times back into Thursday evening to capture still more sales. This blatant consumerism offended myself and many others, but apparently didn't stop many people from rushing to the stores to get that great deal. I shouldn't be surprised really, because consumerism is one of our American idols, although it receives precious little attention from the pulpits of our churches. It does strike me as extremely sad that a country which so warmly embraces and affirms a celebration of Thanksgiving follows it immediately with an orgy of buying more stuff.

In some years past I have adopted a quite negative attitude toward gift-giving. I would argue that it detracts from the “true meaning” of Christmas, that it promotes greed and consumption and really runs counter to the very message of the Gospel. In many ways it does. But I now look at it differently and recognize that this season of gift-giving can be a time of blessing, a time when by promoting giving we do emphasize a very positive quality. By refusing to give or receive gifts, I may very well rob myself and others of the joy that can come from giving. By adopting an anti-gift mentality, do I become like Scrooge?

This year I want to be more open and free in giving and receiving gifts. This does not mean I should go into debt to buy gifts or that I need to buy multiple gifts for everyone—including my family. But it can be a time to express my appreciation and love for others by giving a significant item or two. I want to recapture the joy of giving that I have lost in my tight-fistedness over the years.

Because Christmas does include gift-giving, it presents a great opportunity to stop and think about our purchasing habits. What are we buying? Where did it come from? What does our quest to pay the lowest price mean for those who produce the items we buy? What does it mean for the environment? We should be conversing about these things as a society and certainly as followers of Jesus Christ. We shouldn't engage in mindless consumerism, mistakenly thinking that our shopping habits have nothing to do with morality or justice. They do, very much so.

I doubt that any of us can completely abstain from shopping. If nothing else we need food to live and things do wear out and need replaced. But I greatly admire Danielle at From Two to One for her goal of not buying anything new this year. I also appreciate her desire to move beyond tokenism in buying goods that are fair trade or support various ministries. We do well to consciously think about how we can purchase gifts and everyday items in ways that benefit the producers and promote sustainable economic practices. We can look for vendors who sell meaningful items and not just cute trinkets so that by our shopping we affirm the value and dignity of those who produce the items. PerfectNumber628, on her blog Tell Me Why The World is Weird, correctly reminds us that fair trade shouldn't be about cute and adorable. It should be about changing the way we shop and the way we produce so that the entire transaction becomes one that affirms worth, affirms dignity, creating value for both producer and consumer and at the same time respecting the world in which we live. I really appreciate these two authors and many others who are helping us to think more carefully about our shopping habits and offering us alternatives that go beyond cute, adorable tokens that we really don't need.

Of course shopping this way does take more effort than simply looking for the greatest deal on Amazon.com or at the local Walmart. It may mean at times choosing not to buy. It also requires that we shop realistically and recognize that unfortunately not everything can yet be found from fair-trade, sustainable, dignity-affirming producers. Rather than judging others for their purchases, we can encourage them to think about the implications and impact of their purchase so that perhaps next time they (or we!) will consider what they buy more carefully and make changes where possible. We will not change the economic structure of our culture or globally by our changing our shopping habits, but we can each make a small but significant impact as we carefully spend the money God has provided for us. We won't eliminate the consumerism of Christmas in America, but in small ways we can transform it for good.

I'd love to hear how you are creatively transforming not only your Christmas shopping but your overall buying habits. What creative ideas and dignity-affirming vendors have you found?

He Defended the Cause of the Poor and Needed

While reading in Jeremiah 22 yesterday I encountered these words:

"Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,

his upper rooms by injustice,

making his people work for nothing, 

not paying them for their labor.

He says, 'I will build myself a great palace

with spacious upper rooms.'

So he makes large windows in it,

panels it with cedar

and decorates it in red.

"Does it make you a king 

to have more and more cedar?

Did not your father have food and drink?

He did what was right and just,

so all went well with him.

He defended the cause of the poor and needy,

and so all went well.

Is that not what it means to know me?"

declares the LORD.

These do not strike me as the words of a God who does not care whether we pursue justice and economic equality or not. What do you think?

Economic Inequality Harms Societies

In light of my recent post concerning our response to poverty and inequality, I find this TED video very enlightening and challenging. In the past couple years as people have protested economic injustice within the United States (and elsewhere), some have responded by pointing out that compared to the rest of the world, almost all Americans are in the wealthiest 1% of the population. This is largely true and we should not forget that. However, in this video Richard Wilkinson uses data on a variety of issues to show that the level of inequality within a given society has a significant impact on a number of areas, including social relations, health, childhood well-being, math and literacy scores, trust levels, murder rates and much more.

He points out that we cannot just speak of the relative wealth level of a country on a global scale. We must consider the economic distribution within a society. If we want to have a healthier society, we must seek to reduce economic inequality; that is to say, we must strive to reduce poverty. We must do what we can to level the playing field. It is not enough to say simply that the poor will always be with us.

I don't call attention to Wilkinson's video in an effort to ignore the significant issues of global poverty and economic inequality, but to point out that economic inequality affects us here at home in America as well. As followers of Jesus Christ, called to work with God to realize the Kingdom of God on earth, we cannot simply accept inequality as an unavoidable part of the status quo. We can and should seek to reduce economic equality as a matter of spiritual and social responsibility.

Training Our Economic Imagination

While walking the other morning I began thinking about other ways in which we need to train our imaginations. When I wrote on this topic last week, I focused primarily on how we might encounter, understand and express grace, hope, transformation and other core Christian concepts outside of traditional prayer and reading the Bible. On that morning my thoughts went beyond this to consider how we need creative, Christian imaginations that can conceive of new ways of structuring our economic system that promote equality, compassion, sustainability and reduce greed, competition, self-promotion and needless consumerism. I believe there are already some minds out there working on such questions, but I am unaware of them and, more significantly, their voices are not being raised, promoted or heard in our current political climate nor in our churches.


As I read and watch the news these days, and even at times as I listen to sermons at church, it seems that the current economic situation dominates the conversation. Understandably so, but I am troubled because so often the underlying question seems to be how we can get our economy moving again and which candidate's plans will best stimulate renewed growth, not whether renewed growth and a return to business as before really answer our crisis. What if our whole economic philosophy is flawed? What if the reason we are at the place we are now results from the idea that more is better, that in order to keep our economy healthy we need to convince people to buy more and make it possible for them to do so? This approach has led us to massive personal and national debt, to the degradation of our environment and with it our well-being, and to a fundamentally unsustainable approach to living. In the midst of our current economic recession I hear voices speaking mostly about how to get Americans back to work by creating jobs, not about how we can create a sustainable economy that doesn't depend on an ever-expanding consumer market to create demand and with it jobs.


I wish I had the creative mind I'm calling for. I wish I had a better grasp of economic theories and the ability to think outside of or beyond those theories to envision new ways in which we could create a sustainable, just economy that would provide adequate, meaningful, sustainable work in a healthy, respectful environment that didn't depend on manufacturing more goods at an ever-lower price. I'm probably dreaming. Maybe I've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid to even think that such a world would be possible. Maybe it isn't possible. But I'd sure like to see some creative imagination brought to bear in this area of our lives, rather than continuing on the same old path that got us where we are in the first place. Surely in our business schools, corporations, even in our houses of worship and quite possibly in our homeless shelters there are women and men who can raise up new ideas, and maybe, just maybe, there are some politicians and other leaders willing to embrace and champion those ideas and lead us in a new direction.


If you are aware of anyone writing and promoting new ideas in these areas, I'd love to hear about them. Maybe I'll even be able to understand what they are saying. I don't think our nation is doomed to failure, but I'm not convinced that future success lies in getting back on the road we were on previously. Surely there's another way.


I still have hope. 

Wal-Mart, the Green Giant?

In the midst of processing the thoughts I shared last week about the impact of our lifestyle on our environment, a book at the library caught my attention. Force of Nature by Edward Humes traces the changes within Wal-Mart over the past several years, changes that Humes describes as a green revolution. A quite unlikely story indeed!


I have not been a fan of Wal-mart for a long time for a number of reasons. They treat their employees poorly. Their drive to sell at the lowest price leads them to sell poor-quality merchandise and at the same time drives other retailers from any market they enter. This same drive for the lowest price has also led to them purchasing from the lowest-cost supplier without much regard for the impact on the society and environment in the place of production. My list could go on, but you get the idea. I also simply don't really like the atmosphere in a Wal-mart store. I much prefer the atmosphere at Target, though the stores are quite similar in many ways. I will acknowledge that I do at times shop at Wal-mart. Sometimes I cannot find what I'm looking for at Target and Wal-mart is a convenient place to shop for some things, such as for the box of paperclips I needed yesterday.


With this perspective I found it amazing, even inconceivable to think that Wal-mart might somehow undergo a green revolution, much less that it might become a leading force in promoting environmental awareness, responsibility and sustainability. But in this book Humes documents precisely how and why this is happening. Through the influence of an environmentally-minded consultant named Jib Ellison, Wal-mart's executives became convinced that it was in their best business interest to make changes that positively affected the environment. They didn't make this decision primarily out of a sense of corporate responsibility or social awareness. They did it because they understood that paying attention to the environmental impact of their entire business, from the production and supply-chain to the final sale, could positively affect the corporation's bottom line. Good environmental stewardship makes good  (and profitable) business sense. As one consultant emphasized to them repeatedly: carbon=money. Cut the carbon, save money. 


Humes doesn't argue that Wal-mart is suddenly the greatest company in the world, or that everything about their business should be emulated. He criticizes many of their practices even now. But he recognizes and emphasizes the profound impact that a company the size of Wal-mart has when it decides to change its approach to business and embrace greater environmental responsibility as part of its core business model. The knock-on effect is amazing. For example, when Wal-mart decided to start buying more organic cotton, suddenly the market for organic cotton broadened such that thousands more acres were planted and harvested organically, because Wal-mart created demand for it. When Wal-mart realized that packaging products in smaller containers could save on shipping and production costs, suddenly whole industries were compelled to follow suit. If they didn't, they wouldn't be selling at Wal-mart anymore, and few companies want to be shut out of that market.


This book excites me. It offers hope that businesses can change and we can begin to interact with our world in a healthier, more sustainable way. It also challenged me to think more about my own lifestyle. Where can I make further changes that will reduce my impact on the world around me and allow me to live in a sustainable manner, sustainable for me, for my children, for their children and for the rest of the people on this planet.? I've only begun to reflect on this question. Last Friday I shared a few small steps I've made, but I hope that they will prove to be only the beginning.


Nonetheless, all the changes Wal-mart has made and all the positive impact these changes have had do not solve the fundamental issue. “Can Wal-Mart be sustainable?”asks Hume in the epilogue. “Can the biggest retailer in the world—can any large, mainstream business in this outsourced consumer economy—be green? The simple, accurate answer is no.” The answer is no because no matter how much we remove waste from the production, distribution and sale of products, no matter how much we shift to producing things in a more environmentally-friendly manner, we cannot sustain an economy that thrives on selling people things they do not need. Planned obsolescence is not sustainable. But making long-lasting quality products in an environmentally-responsible manner isn't going to provide the continued demand that produces the growth and profits that Wal-mart and their shareholders demand. So our current economic structure is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable. 


“As American shoppers said hello to Wal-Mart a half century ago, they said farewell to a society of less  stuff, of products built in America and built to last, of saving instead of spending, of postponing purchases rather than borrowing for them, of knowing your customers personally rather than surveying their demographics.”


Ultimately Wal-mart is not solely responsible for our unsustainable lifestyles. We are. Sure, their sales approach and business model fuel the fire, but we are the ones supplying the demand. We are also often the shareholders demanding a profitable return on our investment. We can choose to live differently. We can choose to buy less and pay greater attention to the impact of our purchases, both locally and halfway around the world in the place they are produced. But are we willing to make the changes necessary to live sustainably? Am I?

Economic Benefit and Worth

Last week I was watching a news program on our local public broadcasting station. They featured an article on a gathering of bird-watchers that was taking place in our city. The section focused particularly on the economic benefit that bird-watching brings to our region. This caught my attention because it represents to me a disturbing trend I see in society and in the church: the tendency to evaluate everything in terms of the economic cost and benefit.

I do not think it inherently wrong to evaluate the cost and benefit of a particular activity or course of action. Often it is quite essential that we do so. However I am disturbed when this becomes the sole or primary justification for an activity. This implies that if something will not be economically beneficial, it is not worth pursuing, as if life can be reduced simply to economics. There is nothing wrong with looking at the economic impact of bird-watching, nor with indicating that it brings economic benefit to our area. But would bird-watching be less worthwhile if it did not bring this benefit?

The producers of that news show felt that emphasizing the economic benefits of bird-watching would be the best angle for the story, although the program itself is not specifically focused on economics. This indicates that the economic angle was perceived to resonate with viewers. Were this an isolated incident I might not think much of it. But I see similar emphases in other situations. In my own organization there is a push for operating more efficiently, for generating more “bang” for the “bucks” our donors provide. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is good to use funds responsibly, especially as a non-profit organization. 

My concern remains though, that we cannot evaluate the value of an activity simply or solely in terms of its economic impact. Some activities are worthwhile regardless of their economics. Some are worthwhile even though they may have a negative economic impact. I think this problem lies partially at the root of debates about government spending. If we expect our government to operate exactly like a business, then we must evaluate whether any particular activity produces positive economic growth. But if we accept that some activities are worthwhile regardless of economic impact, then we allow the possibility that the government (or other organization or business) may engage in that activity even though it actually costs money in the end. One example that comes to my mind is public transportation. I believe that it is worthwhile for governments to support public transportation even if it is not self-sustaining or profit-generating. The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this blog post, but I maintain that they exist. Other examples could be cited.

Economics are a factor in our lives. They are not the only factor. When we make them the deciding factor, we may miss out on activities or courses of action that bring other benefits. We need a more holistic assessment of the cost and benefit of any choice, something more than simply whether it will bring economic gain.

Thoughts on the movement to "Occupy Wall Street"

A lot has been written and spoken about the various “Occupy” movements that have sprung up first in the United States and then in other parts of the world. These protestors intrigue me. Part of me is drawn to them, while part of me is repulsed by them. I laugh at the irony of Americans protesting because they are economically disadvantaged, while all but the most disadvantaged Americans are still better off than most of the world's people. They speak of being part of the 99% when in fact on a global scale we as a nation are definitely part of the 1%. The protestors organize and promote their message using tools and means utterly unavailable to the masses of the world's poor. I also find that their lack of common message dilutes their impact. Others have noted this, some viewing it as a strength of the movement. But in the end, how much change can they affect if they don't even have a united goal?

Despite these misgivings and criticisms, I am still drawn to these protestors. I resonate with their cry against the system of capitalism that has developed in this country during my lifetime. I am not inherently anti-capitalist, as some would argue. (Nor would I accept the argument that being anti-capitalist makes me anti-American, as has also been implied.) But I definitely see serious problems in the current national and global economic structure. As I read in a recent article, this structure creates an “un-economy:” unfair, unsustainable and unstable, not to mention that it makes people unhappy (well, except for those who clearly benefit from it—and I would debate that even they are finding true happiness through the accumulation of wealth.) A system that fosters the accumulation of large amounts of wealth by a small elite cannot bring about a healthy society.

I was reminded this week of the revolutions that rocked the world in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Why did the Russian revolution occur in 1917? There were many factors, but the fact that the tsar and a small elite of the Russian nation had vast wealth (I've seen a small portion of it during my years in Russia and it was amazing) while the majority of the population lived in abject poverty certainly was a key element. I recognize that most Americans are far from that level of abject poverty. But our current system certainly works to assure that the wealthy continue to accumulate wealth while the majority struggle to improve their lives. I don't think the occupy movement will result in anything as drastic as a revolution, but it serves as a useful wake up call that things must change before they reach such a dire point.

I am most distressed by the opposition, even antagonism, that so many of my fellow believers express toward these protest movements. I think that many of my friends and acquaintances have substituted the American capitalistic dream for the message of the Gospel. They view these protestors as disrupting a healthy, stable society and reject them and their message because of this. (Often they forget as well that the right to protest is a fundamental right enshrined in the very Constitution they so adamantly support.) But the Scriptures are full of verses indicating God's passion for justice and his rejection of greed and the misuse of money and power. God calls us to care for those whom society has injured or destroyed. In some cases we can do this within the existing structure of society. But what if that very structure is causing more and more injury and destruction? Do we not as believers need to raise our voice in protest as well and call for changes that will bring greater justice, compassion and mercy? I've not heard any of my acquaintances go so far as to embrace the slogan “greed is good.” But neither have I heard enough of them speaking against it.

I'm not yet to the point where I am ready to go pitch my tent with the local occupiers. But my heart and mind are sympathetically listening to them and I am asking myself what I can do to build a more balanced, just, wholesome society, one in which God's shalom can be realized.

Life on a Dollar a Day

Although the debt ceiling crisis has passed (at least temporarily), I continue to think about what the future will look like. I see a growing divide between the haves and have-nots of this world, with North Americans in general falling into the category of haves in comparison to the majority of the world's population. In light of this, I recommend the following blog on what it means practically to live on a dollar a day, which is considered to be the standard of extreme poverty, as the author explains. The author considers the topic in two separate blog entries, part one being here and part two here.

Debt Ceilings and Living Responsibly

The political storm surrounding the debt ceiling has given much food for thought concerning responsible living. Both parties accuse the other of irresponsible spending and have demonstrated little willingness to compromise. Republicans blame the Democrats and the Democrats blame the Republicans. No one seems to accept that both parties are responsible for the mess we're in, that the overspending that has brought us to this point has been going on for years. Of course to admit that would be to admit that we have built our entire lifestyle around consumption. We have established a mindset that we deserve it all and we deserve it now, regardless of whether we need it or can truly afford it. If government has grown used to spending more than it earns, ultimately it has done so because we the people have asked more and more of it while wanting to give it less and less of our money. It seems that what most people want is a solution that will allow them to continue living this lifestyle without pain or sacrifice. From what I hear people say around me and on TV, from what I see reported in the news, people are wondering how long it will take to get through this time of difficulty so that we can get back to living the “good life” again.

What if living the good life is precisely what has brought us to this brink of collapse? What if we all accepted that we don't have to have it all and we certainly don't have to have it all now? A friend of mine posted a link on Facebook to an article in an Australian newspaper. This article pointed out that we do not hear the word austerity used in any discussion of how to bring the country out of this difficult time. We're not willing to live responsibly, if responsible living means giving up all those nice extras that we believe we deserve.

I do not want to see our country go into default on its debt. That would not be responsible. But I wonder whether, if it does, the ensuing collapse might in the long run be good for us and for the world. Would it force us to live more simply? It would certainly be painful and the effects would be far-reaching. But even as I fear the possible consequences, I can see how they might produce a beneficial result in the long run. (I am not advocating for default nor do I intend to indicate support for either political party's preferred solution here.)

As I reestablish myself and my family in this country after a period of living overseas, I am trying to determine what it means for us to live responsibly. What things do we truly need and what things would simply be nice to have, should we be in a position to acquire them? How can we live such that we free up as much of our resources as possible to share with those in other parts of the world who live in much more difficult circumstances? I don't have definite answers to these questions, but I have written three principles to help guide me in my decisions: 1) Strive to live with less, 2) Strive to give more to others and 3) Strive for a healthy, sustainable lifestyle (environmentally, financially, emotionally, spiritually, etc.) These principles don't define every choice in every situation, but they give me a framework to help me as I make decisions.

I'd like to think that the current political impasse will result in fundamental changes to our consumer culture. But realistically I doubt they will. However the issue is resolved, I fear that we will simply continue to try to maintain an unsustainable lifestyle until we really do reach a point of collapse. Maybe this will not be the case, but personally I want to try and live responsibly so that other people, both the poor of the world now and those who will come after me, might be able to live balanced lives as well. If a little austerity on my part can help that happen, then it will be well-invested.

No Free Money

I have joked occasionally over the last several weeks about applying for bankruptcy so that I can claim my share of government bailout money. After all, I figure I can’t mismanage it anymore than these companies that are getting billions of dollars. But realistically, I find this whole bailout thing quite discouraging, even depressing. Daily I get little advertisements in Facebook inviting me to claim my share of government bailout money. It’s as easy as clicking on their website. From what these ads claim, I could have several thousand dollars in no time and with no effort.

Beside the fact that I think these websites are making fraudulent claims, I am appalled by the mentality creeping through American society that believes that people are entitled to something for nothing. I don’t believe I have a right nor a need to “free” money from the government. Where exactly do people think this money is coming from anyway? It’s not like the government just has pots of money ready to hand out to any and everyone. Maybe we need to all take a basic lesson in civics combined with a lesson in basic economics. Governments cannot create money. When they do just create money, you get inflation. They get money from taxes, which means from you, me, businesses and others. When the government spends more than that money, it is basically borrowing it from someone and will have to repay it at some point. That means that this trillion dollars the government is going to “pump” into the economy is really borrowed at the expense of ourselves and our children and possibly their children as well. So if I were to receive a bailout from the government it would really be at my own expense, or worse still at the expense of my children. Or it would be borrowed from someone else, which isn’t really any better since I would not be responsible for repaying him or her. There’s no sense of taking responsibility for oneself. Instead it seems a lot of people have the idea that they are entitled to this “free” money. Get real. There’s an old saying that “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Apparently we believe there really is.

It seems to me that American society is exhibiting more and more the basic sin of greed and self-interest. We don’t care what impact it has on others now or in the future, as long as we can get as much as possible for ourselves now. I realize that there are still many Americans who believe in the value of hard-work, taking responsibility and making the best of what one has. But that portion of the population seems to be shrinking. Maybe I’m wrong. I certainly hope I am. But that’s not the impression I’m getting from the news and ads around me.