Lots of hand wringing about the pause/audit of USAID over the past couple of days. The strangest complaints are from Christian ministries about getting funding cut. Why would a secular US government be funding Christian Ministries in the first place? Why would Christian ministries want government funding and all of the restrictions that come with it?
As we see some of the idiocy that USAID has been funding to the tune of millions/billions of dollars, I'm mystified that people are upset about auditing USAID and not upset about some of the bullshit they've wasted taxpayer money on.
It's almost like folx on the left are against actually being aware of what taxpayer's hard earned dollars are spent on, and eliminating those expenditures that are stupid. Personally that seems like a losing position.
16 comments:
Joe Biden...or any other Dem Party representative...could have been doing exactly what Trump's doing with regard to auditing where our money is going, and would be hailed as patriots by their sycophant sheep in the electorate.
As to Christian organizations being funded by the federal government, it's really a matter of whether or not they are funded as are non-Christian groups (no religious exemption) and whether or not there's even a Constitutional allowance for such funding in the first place. Should the feds be subsidizing adoption? If so, they should not be denying Christian adoption services on the basis of subjective criteria favoring those Christians feel are the among the least suitable people with whom to place orphans. So there's two questions here with regard to the specific funding in question. I would, however, suspect many of the Christian groups receiving money are like Jeff St types, and thus are aiding bad practices, regardless of how Jeff St types frame their defense of it.
Of course they could have, as could Trump, but they have a vested interest in the things being funded.
I'd argue that for a truly Christian organization that accepting government funding raises two problems. First, the dependence on the funding which is not guaranteed. Second, it is inevitable that the government will expect the Christian ministry to compromise on it's beliefs. It's most likely to harm the Christian ministry.
Yes, if the feds are subsidizing abortion then they should subsidize adoption.
Craig asked:
Why would a secular US government be funding Christian Ministries in the first place?
I can think of all manner of reasons.
A. Because it's the morally right thing to do, EVEN IF we're talking about a secular government. Do you disagree?
B. Because helping the "least of these," the poor, the oppressed, the sick and downtrodden... because this kind of behavior is rationally correct, because it helps strengthen impoverished and marginalized people, ideally giving them the ability to take care of themselves? To empower themselves against corrupt and/or oppressive gov'ts? To let them know that freedom and human rights are an actual value for people who value human rights? To let them know that at least ostensibly, that the US is a nation that values human rights and people around the world? HOW MANY reasons do you need?
C. Because, insofar as it's a human rights valuing Christian organization, the enemy of my enemy (ie, poverty, oppression, disenfranchisement) is my friend/an ally?
What is wrong with any of these reasons? Do you truly have problems wondering why a secular gov't like the US might fund human rights-supporting groups, even if they are associated with Christian, Muslim or another faith tradition?
You also asked:
Why would Christian ministries want government funding and all of the restrictions that come with it?
Well, that would depend upon the strings. If the strings are "you can't use this money to proselytize people to your particular human traditions," well, that's a reasonable string, isn't it? I mean, it would be an abuse of power to dangle the notion of aid before a desperate and oppressed people to tempt them to join your particular human tradition.
Do you disagree?
As to why a truly Christian (or decent or human rights loving) organization accepted money from an extravagantly wealthy nation to help poor and oppressed people... well, isn't the answer obvious? TO HELP A DESPERATELY POOR AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE. To let the wealthy give back to some of the problems they helped create.
What is wrong with these reasons?
That last was from me, Dan. You also stated:
I'm mystified that people are upset about auditing USAID and not upset about some of the bullshit they've wasted taxpayer money on.
USAID has its problems, to be sure (and probably not the ones you're imagining). No one is opposed to eliminating waste and inefficiencies in spending. BUT, we don't want to do it at the expense of the poor who are suffering from our behaviors.
Right now, today, money that was PROMISED to the poor and oppressed has been withheld. And right now, today, that deprivation of expected money is costing lives and causing harm.
Look, it's one thing to say that "We are re-evaluating how best to help the poor and oppressed..." It's an entirely different thing to just cut money off cold turkey... money that was promised to agencies and workers who are pouring out their lives in service to the poor and marginalized.
Are you unaware of the on-the-ground harm being caused by these cuts?
Also, it's one thing to evaluate how well or poorly money is being spent in a program. It's another thing altogether to slander good people by making broad brush claims (WITH NO SUPPORT) that this is a program rife with with fraud and corruption.
Slander is wrong. Shame, SHAME on those who make these bullshit claims and SHAME on those idiots who believe these billionaires making these stupidly false claims and demonic attacks against good people.
WOE to you rich oppressors.
Indeed.
Dan
A. Interesting take. The notion that a secular government funding and therefore endorsing a Christian ministry seems to contravene the separation of church and state y'all usually defend. Further, the notion that a secular government must fund any/all Christian ministries because it's "moral" (a subjective, undefined term) is bizarre.
B. Well, since this doesn't really address the question I asked, I'm at a loss as to how to respond. If the argument is that the secular government should be involved with/take over the Christian mandate to help "the least of these", that seems like simply advocating a theocracy. If the argument is that the secular government is obligated to further all of the tenets of a Christian ministry, then that's simply absurd.
C. Interesting. You've just made it clear that you get to decide which Christian ministries are worthy, based on your subjective hunches.
Yes, I've addressed multiple reasons why a secular government funding a Christian ministry is bad. I have to note that I am unaware of any Muslim ministries that advocate anything close to a view on human rights that Dan would agree with.
So the only way that a Christian ministry would be able to access government funds is to (potentially) forswear the very principles of the Christian foundation of the organization. I guess forcing an Christian ministry to actually muzzle themselves about their Christian faith is the opposite of reasonable. Of course, that makes my point. If the price of government funding is to give up ones Christian identity, that seems a bad bargain. I recall something about gaining the world but losing one's soul.
As you point out, a "truly Christian" ministry having to prostrate itself and forswear it's faith basis to take Caesar's coin is quite a trade off. It's one you clearly seem comfortable with though.
They're bad reasons for anyone who isn't committed to your narrative.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, Christianity virtually always loses when it involves itself with government. That you blame every bad thing on "the wealthy" just undermines your credibility.
Again, interesting take. It is good to audit USIAD and to root out waste and abuse, but we cannot do so without continuing to shovel money out the door. What a bizarre notion.
Well, by that logic, the money was "promised" to those who will waste it and steal it so we need to keep the money spigot flowing without bothering to verify what it's being used for.
Given that these pauses have only been in effect for a few days, I find it hard to believe that there is carnage that is directly attributable to this pause and audit.
These unproven claims are always amusing, given your bitching about others doing what you do so thoughtlessly.
I'm not a rich oppressor, but your name calling and ad hom attacks are always welcome. Especially coming from someone who acts as if they are not part of the wealthiest 5% of the global population.
Interesting that you seem to have concluded that everyone involved in these examples of wasteful spending, fraud, and abuse, are "good people".
Whether or not a True Christian group acedes to leftist demands in order to receive funding given to leftist groups is likely a matter of how badly the funds are needed to do God's work. Hopefully, few would go that route, but the needs might be great. If the latter is the case, it's not contrary to their beliefs to any more than it is to lie to prevent murder. It would depend upon the demand by the godless leftists in government. At least IMHO. I would suggest a true Christian doesn't care about public sentiment if they are getting done what their beliefs demand. The Christian group has to weight their principles against the suffering of those in need who would not be served otherwise. I pray I'm never in that position.
I don't believe the feds should EVER subsidize abortion, since it's outright murder, there being no legitimate reason to abort in the first place. I'm just wondering about how to explain that funding for adoption, which is a defense of life and a protection of American citizens, is actually constitutional.
USAID is hardly the only source for providing for the truly needy. Given how much crap on which they're wasting our money (Dan's into sexual perversion, so he doesn't regard funding trans surgeries as the crap it is). I would think it would be good thing to list where they're spending money on that about which no one would find fault and weight that against the crap. I'm wagering we won't find as much good to outweigh the obvious bad waste which would suggest the whole thing should be protected against dissolving. And of course, it should ALL be weighed on how it aligns with any Constitutional principle. We are most certainly best advised not to leave that determination in the hands of the Dan Trabues of the world.
Art,
Obviously there are many options through which to support the needy. That Dan and his ilk choose one of the most inherently inefficient is telling. That they give the Clinton Foundation a pass on the vast sums of money they "lost" that was supposed to go to Haiti.
Again, it'd be valuable to actually assess the effectiveness of the USAID funding and see how many lives the Iraqi Sesame Street saved or why we're sending US taxpayer money to countries that are our enemies.
I'll speak from personal experience. I've watched the HFH chapter I worked for for over a decade totally abandon it's roots as an explicitly Christian ministry almost entirely based on their attachment to government money. I'll, again, paraphrase Paul and Toby Mac. "I don't want to gain the whole world and lose my soul.". When Caesar pays the piper, Caesar calls the tune. The vary notion that you are advocating for Christian ministries to tax US taxpayer money, laundered through the government seems counter to both Christian principles as well as conservative principles.
If weighing their principles, means abandoning their principles, then I'd argue that they have no principles.
The reality is that the US government does, indirectly, fund abortion domestically, and directly internationally. The legality/morality of that is a different topic entirely. My point is that since the government IS funding abortion that it only makes sense to fund adoption. Further, I'd argue that adoption is much more aligned with the founding principles than abortion is.
I don't see why any assessment of money for Sesame Street is needed even in this country. How is that in anyway a Constitutionally principled expenditure ever? Here, between non-government public support and commercials they've been running for the last ten years, PBS should be denied tax dollars altogether. I don't care enlightening and educational their programming is. If no one's watching, they're supposed to go out of business like any other company. If Iraq can't find a way to support their own, the same holds. This particular agency has long ago lost its value and attention to its original intent...unless this was Kennedy's intention all along.
What's most galling is the constant concern about spending and the national debt. Lefties like to pretend Trump spent more than anyone (or that spending increased to the highest amount every) while ignoring how it's gone up with every four year presidential term since Nixon, including every second term of every two term president over their first. And now we know that Biden topped them all. Never have we seen this level of determination to find waste. Every year, Rand Paul of KY puts our his list of stupid, but never is anything done about it. Every budget debate is no more than arguing over the amount of increased spending over the previous budget. There are never any cuts, and as Musk's efforts are clearly demonstrating, there is plenty which could be cut completely and most of it should never have been shelled out in the first place. If it's at all possible, I would absolutely love it if Musk can also uncover who it was who proposed and pushed for all the crap he's uncovered so those people can be held to account for even daring to spend out money like that.
And you can tell just how right and just Trump's tapping of Musk to do it was by how loudly the left are screaming, chanting, stomping their feet and accusing Trump of acting contrary to the Constitution. Talk about "being over the target"!
I'm not arguing against abandoning principles. I'm arguing that the mission might be such that it is the principle which shouldn't be abandoned if lives are on the line. To me it's an easy tradeoff. Saving lives is paramount, especially lives of children. That principle justifies lying to the government in order to keep the money flowing if that can be done to prevent abandoning other principles.
In the case of Christian adoption services, they can still serve their mission by losing federal dollars because they won't deal with homosexuals. But if they can "let's not and say we did" this criteria and get away with it, the principle of honesty can be set aside for the greater cause of placing as many orphans in proper homes as possible. If they get caught "discriminating" against placing kids with perverts, oh well. The principle of liberty is denied them by leftist government and as Dan always reminds us, we shouldn't be obliged to follow immoral laws.
Anyway, that's what I'd like to see happen, but I'm not running those shows and I'm sure the shit can hit the fan hard for them. But I'm not advocating for Christians to tax us, but only that if our taxes are going to particular services, there should be no discrimination against Christian ministries who have a narrower set of criteria for how their charity is disbursed. It's still getting disbursed and there are people getting the help they need and want.
I'm also arguing about whether tax money should be used for these types of things in the first place. If it can be defended on Constitutional grounds, it can't be defended that Christians must alter their criteria by some religious test. That's all I'm saying here.
I now would insist that there is no Constitutional argument for the funding of infanticide anywhere and that should be stopped immediately, possibly with criminal penalties for politicians or bureaucrats funneling tax dollars for the purpose. It's like funding hit men and assassins.
But funding adoption is an entirely different matter in no way comparable, as I would imagine you'd agree. It's not really and if/then situation at all. It's more "not this, but that instead".
Sure you are, you do so in the sentence that follows your claim. You are literally arguing that there are some things so vital that one must/should abandon their principles for. The problem, in this context, is that USAID funds are not funds that appear instantly. They take time and intention to access, and accessing US Government funding automatically means that you've placed your principles on the line for $$$$$$.
I literally watched my HFH chapter do this and intentionally choose to abandon their founding principles to take "what is Caesars. Sorry, I'm on the side of losing the whole world to keep my soul.
In the case of a Christian adoption service, they would not even consider taking "what is Caesars" because they know that doing so would violate and cause them to have to abandon their foundational principles. They would stay True to those principles, or cease to be a Christian adoption agency. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that non-Christian adoption agencies are a bad thing. But at some point a ministry needs to choose between being a ministry and being a non profit.
The use of tax money for these types of things is an entirely different conversation. My ONLY point is that SINCE taxpayer dollars ARE funding abortion (or abortion providers), that funding adoption should also be happening. Because adoption is a better alternative than abortion.
At this point, as long as taxpayer dollars fund PP, then it is an if/then situation.
Given how much money Sesame Street makes from merch and other crap, it is absolutely insane that they get subsidized by taxpayers.
At one point, I could see the argument (in principle) for a PBS. Yet once these PBS properties (SS, Arthur, Clifford, etc) started making millions/billions then their subsidy should end.
If it was possible to strip PBS back to a bare bones, non partisan, operation that provided an alternative to network/cable TV I could see having that discussion. However, since it's definitely not that, I can't. If people want to watch their programming, then let them compete for viewers.
Absolutely, Craig. I also think the idea of PBS and NPR was, at least in principle, a good idea. And the savings would be extremely minimal compared to all the other waste. The amount doesn't matter, and with them making dough through other means, it just proves they don't need government subsidies.
But I wonder if it ever was truly non-partisan, despite it's stated intention as such. All I know for sure is that it was for most of my youth a very boring station, offering so much in which I had no interest. My mother-in-law used to donate fairly routinely. When I was into Dr. Who and Monty Python, I tuned in every Sunday night and turned the sound down during the fund raising segments in between. I can't recall the last time I intentionally turned to PBS to view anything. As to NPR, I can't remember a time when I came upon it without almost immediately hearing something really stupid stated as if it was profound and true.
I agree that PBS/NPR should be free to compete in the marketplace. I'd even argue that the stuff that PBS is known for (Ken Burns etc) is absolutely high enough quality that it would find a place somewhere. I'd also argue that the rest of the filler stuff would also find a place somewhere on streaming or cable.
Given the demographics of the media and those who look to government for funding, who knows. Regardless when it was the alternative to the 3 networks, and offered programming that the networks wouldn't have been interested in (Although I bet that any of the three would have loved to have had Sesame St given how much money was there to be made), it made some sense. In a world where streaming and cable offer immeasurable options, it's a waste of money.
Post a Comment