Category Archives: politics

Good Friday, Saving Humanity or the Environment

By Alexander Mason

There is increasing pressure on Christians to embrace worldly causes like environmentalism. Some susceptible believers have even renamed the cause “creation care” in order to make the idea more church-friendly. Joining the environmental movement is also seen by many Christians as necessary to gain credibility among unbelievers and therefore afford more opportunities to preach the Gospel. However, such efforts come dangerously close to what the Apostle Paul called worshiping the created things over the Creator (Rom. 1:25).

Paul became all things to all men in order that some might be saved (I Cor. 9:22b), but he never did so outside of the limits placed on him by Scripture. While there is a danger in undervaluing the work of creation, there is a greater danger in overvaluing what God has created (Rom. 1:25). Without a doubt, secular environmentalists worship creation while rejecting the Creator. This constitutes idolatry, which Christians must avoid, regardless of the intended result.

Environmentalists often claim catastrophic events in nature like hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and tsunamis are caused by humans. In one sense, they are correct. All human suffering is a consequence of human sin, both individually and collectively all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Through Adam, sin was ushered into the world. Because of his sin and ours, God cursed His creation, and much of its former glory is gone.

Evangelicals who embrace environmentalism seem to believe humans can reverse, or at least limit, the effects of God’s curse on the earth. But it is not our job to reconcile creation to God. We cannot restore Eden. Creation is groaning under the bondage of sin (Rom. 8:22) and it is looking and longing for redemption by Jesus Christ, not us. It is eagerly awaiting the day when He will deliver creation from the burden brought by Adam’s fall and our sin (Rom. 8:19). An implicit truth in this passage is that we, as part of creation, cannot save creation from God’s curse. This is a special work of Christ, who exists outside of His creation (Col. 1:16-17). It is He who makes all things new.

“Creation care” distracts the Church from its one, true mission. Satan delights in all endeavors that are deviations from Christ’s preeminent message of God’s righteousness, our sin, and His redemption. Every Christian’s primary duty should be to glorify God by repudiating sin and proclaiming Christ’s sacrificial atonement on the cross. The Great Commission remains the same: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20).

Regardless of the temperature of the earth or the level of the seas, we know God is sovereign over the dryness of desolate wastelands (Job 38:25-26) and the boundaries of the waters (Job 38:8-11). As Creator, He upholds our existence by a mere word of His power. The most inconvenient truth that Christians must proclaim is the consequence of sin in the lives of men, along with the only hope of redemption through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Jesus did not come to reduce our carbon footprint. He came to pay the price for our redemption so we may glorify Him. Under the righteous wrath of a holy God, Jesus offered His blood as payment for our guilt, if we will only turn from our sin and follow Him. His message to us is not to recycle, but rather to repent and believe. Our message to others should be no different.

It is not a little ironic that this year Earth Day falls on Good Friday, the day reserved by Christians to remember the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ as payment for our sin. Such a coincidence appropriately highlights the stark contrast between a worship of creation and the worship of the One through whom all things were created.

Using Good Friday to focus attention on creation undermines the critical message of man’s sin and Christ’s atonement that we should be proclaiming on this day. The secular observance known as Earth Day usurps Christ’s role of reconciling creation. More importantly, it distract Christians from their most important duty, which is to carry out the Great Commission on His behalf.

Choose this day what or Whom you will serve: the creation or Creator.

First published as Earth Day/Good Friday 2011: Worship the Creator – Not His Creation by Family Policy Network on April 22, 2011.

Crucifying Jesus: Killing a Radical

By John W. Whitehead

“[Jesus] was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The Sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His ‘turn the other cheek’ anticipated Gandhi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called ‘Atheists for Jesus’ (and was delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend).”—Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006)

For those who profess to be Christians, the week leading up to Easter is the most sacred time of the year, commemorating as it does the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet while Jesus is a revered religious figure, he was also, as atheist Richard Dawkins recognizes, a radical in his own right whose life and teachings changed the course of history.

Too often today radicalism is equated with terrorism, extremism and other violent acts of resistance. Yet true radicalism, the kind embodied by such revolutionary figures as Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, actually involves speaking truth to power through peaceful, nonviolent means. Separated by time and distance, Christ, King and Gandhi were viewed as dangerous by their respective governments because they challenged the oppressive status quo of their day.

Jesus, in particular, undermined the political and religious establishment of his day through his teachings. For example, when Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers,” exhorting his followers to turn the other cheek and give freely, he was telling us that active peacemaking is the way to end war. Indeed, if everything Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount is true—a message that King, to his peril, adopted in protest of the Vietnam War—there’d be no need for wars, war budgets or military industrial complexes. Imagine that.

Unfortunately, as the gruesome torture and crucifixion of Jesus make clear, there is always a price to pay for standing up to one’s oppressors. While the New Testament Gospels are the primary source for accounts of Jesus’ suffering, crucifixion and death, his ordeal at the hands of Roman soldiers has been the topic of scholarly research for years. Indeed, as Time magazine reports, the latest topic of academic scrutiny involves claims by an Israeli television journalist that he may have uncovered the crucifixion nails used on Jesus—“smallish iron spikes with the tips hammered to one side.”

Certainly, the torture Jesus endured was agonizing. Yet what was it about him that caused the Romans to view him as enough of a threat to make an example of him and have him crucified?

In the time of Jesus, religious preachers and self-proclaimed prophets were not summarily arrested and executed. Nor were nonviolent protesters. Indeed, the high priests and Roman governors in Jerusalem would normally allow a protest, particularly a small-scale one, to run its course. However, government authorities were quick to dispose of leaders and movements that even appeared to threaten the Roman Empire.

The charges leveled against Jesus—that he was a threat to the stability of the nation, opposed paying Roman taxes and claimed to be the rightful King as Messiah of Israel (the gravest charge, for which Jesus was ultimately crucified, as inscribed on the cross: “The King of the Jews”)—were purely political, not religious. To the Romans, any one of these charges was enough to merit death by crucifixion. Crucifixion itself, usually reserved for slaves, non-Romans, radicals, revolutionaries and the worst criminals, was not only a common method for execution by Romans but was also the most feared.

The Gospels recount how, after Jesus’ arrest, temple guards brought him to the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas, who declared him guilty of blasphemy. He was then ushered before the Sanhedrin, a Jewish council, which sought permission from the Romans to execute him. Whether an actual “trial” took place before Jesus was handed over to the Romans is uncertain. But more than likely, as he was moved from place to place, he was spat upon and beaten.

It is telling that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who alone had the authority to execute Jesus, focused on his political identity: “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Matthew 27:11). This seems to be primarily what mattered to Pilate, whose job it was to uphold the religious, as well as the temporal, power of the deified Caesars.

Jesus does not deny the allegation which, if true, will lead to his death. He answers: “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me” (John 18:37).

In other words, Jesus told Pilate—the one person who held Jesus’ life in his hands—to stick it. The cruel torture and killing of Jesus were certain to follow after that. The fact that Jesus was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews was not an afterthought pinned on the cross above his head. The Roman soldiers commissioned to prepare him for execution knew this was the issue. That is why they gave him the burlesque of coronation, clothing him in royal purple with a mock crown and scepter. Then they abased themselves and called out, “Hail, king of the Jews!” (John 19:3). Afterward, they beat Jesus.

The mob must have played a key role in Jesus’ condemnation, although there is little extensive historical evidence to support the scene played out in films and movies in which Pontius Pilate asks the crowd to choose between Barabbas the robber and Jesus. Most likely the pressure to appease the masses would have forced the Romans to act. As author A. N. Wilson writes, “If the crowds could be pacified by the release of Barabbas, they could perhaps be cowed into submission by a cruel public display of what happens to Jews who use words like ‘kingdom’…to the Roman governor.” Surrendering to the people’s will, Pilate granted an execution by crucifixion.

Matthew 27:26 indicates that Jesus was severely whipped in accordance with a Roman requirement that there be a scourging before each execution (except for those involving women, Roman senators or soldiers). A Roman flagrum, a leather whip consisting of three thongs, each ending with two lead balls designed to tear flesh, was the weapon of choice for inflicting scourgings. The Romans may have even used a similar instrument, a flagellum, in which small rocks or bone fragments were also attached on the end of the thongs. This instrument was typically used to tenderize a piece of meat.

Mayo Clinic scholars note that repeated floggings to the upper and lower back with iron balls that cut deeply into his flesh would have caused Jesus to nearly go into shock from blood loss: “As the Roman soldiers repeatedly struck the victim’s back with full force, the iron balls would cause deep contusions, and the leather thongs and sheep bones would cut into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Then, as the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Pain and blood loss generally set the stage for circulatory shock. The extent of blood loss may well have determined how long the victim would survive on the cross.”

In addition to the scourging, Jesus was also crowned with thorns. Scholars have observed that the thorns digging into his scalp probably severely irritated major nerves in his head, causing increasing and excruciating pain for hours.

Medical experts speculate that the iron spikes used to nail Jesus to the cross measured from 5 to 7 inches long (the size of railroad spikes). The spikes were driven through his wrists (between the radius and the ulna and the carpals in his forearms), not his palms, and between the second and third metatarsal bones of his feet in order to support his body weight. Though the spikes were not nailed through major blood vessels, they were designed to sever major nerves, rupturing other veins and creating great pain. Added to this, hanging on the cross would have made it agonizingly difficult to breathe.

Doctors generally conclude that a combination of factors contributed to Jesus’ death on the cross: He had already lost an incredible amount of blood. He was exhausted from the beatings and from carrying his cross. Because he could only attempt to breathe by pushing his body upward with his knees and legs (often, Roman soldiers would break their victims’ legs with clubs), death by asphyxiation was inevitable. However, their most critical observation is that Jesus was already dead when Roman soldiers thrust the spear into his side.

Within a religious context, Jesus’ death was a sacrificial act of atonement for the sins of the world. In a historical context, his crucifixion sent a chilling warning to all those who would challenge the power of the Roman Empire. As Mark Lewis Taylor, the Maxwell M. Upson Professor of Theology and Culture at Princeton Theological Seminary, observed in an interview with OldSpeak, “The cross within Roman politics and culture was a marker of shame, of being a criminal. If you were put to the cross, you were marked as shameful, as criminal, but especially as subversive. And there were thousands of people put to the cross. The cross was actually positioned at many crossroads, and, as New Testament scholar Paula Fredricksen has reminded us, it served as kind of a public service announcement that said, ‘Act like this person did, and this is how you will end up.’”

Unlike the modern church that drowns in materialism and supports the military empire, Jesus advocated love, peace and harmony. As it did in his day, this message when adhered to undermines the ruling establishment. Unfortunately, it is rare for the church today to challenge the status quo—a failing that Martin Luther King Jr. recognized in his famous “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” when he castigated the modern-day church for being “so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are.”

Written on April 16, 1963, while King was serving a jail sentence for participating in civil rights demonstrations, the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” was a response to eight prominent white Alabama clergymen who had called on African-Americans to cease their civil disobedience and let the courts handle the problem of desegregation. King’s words reminded Americans that the early church—the church established by Jesus’ followers—would never have been content to remain silent while injustice and persecution ruled the land:

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”…. They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.

It is unfortunate that the radical Jesus, the political dissident who took aim at injustice and oppression, has been largely forgotten today, replaced by a congenial, smiling Jesus trotted out for religious holidays but otherwise rendered mute when it comes to matters of war, power and politics. “Christianity today often resembles an egg into which someone has poked a hole and sucked out all its contents,” writes author Richard Smoley in Forbidden Faith (2006), “and then taken the shell, encrusted it with gold and jewels, and set it up as an object of veneration. In many ways, it remains a beautiful shell, but more and more people are finding that it no longer offers any nourishment. If they complain, they’re usually told that they just need to have more faith—which is of course no answer at all.”

Yet for those who truly study the life and teachings of Jesus, the resounding theme is one of outright resistance to war, materialism and empire. As Mark Lewis Taylor notes, “The power of Jesus is one that enables us to critique the nation and the empire. Unfortunately, that gospel is being sacrificed and squandered by Christians who have cozied up to power and wealth.” Ultimately, this is the contradiction that must be resolved if the radical Jesus—the one who stood up to the Roman Empire and was crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be—is to be remembered.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Lawsuit Against National Day of Prayer Dismissed

On April 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s (FFRF) lawsuit attacking the federal government’s observance of National Day of Prayer, ruling that the atheists do not have legal standing to bring the suit. Liberty Institute and Family Research Council (FRC) filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Dr. James Dobson, Citizenlink (formerly Focus on the Family Action), the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), Let Freedom Ring, and Liberty Counsel, along with 28 state family policy councils arguing that FFRF lacks standing and that government observances of prayer are not only constitutional but modeled by our forefathers.

In response to Court’s ruling, Kelly Shackelford, President of Liberty Institute, said,

“We applaud the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of this desperate attempt to erase our country’s rich history of calling for prayer. Sadly, some are determined to censor religious expression in the public arena. As long as Liberty Institute exists and the Constitution is in place, we will do everything in our power to ensure that never happens.”
The Court’s ruling, which strongly rejects FFRF’s opposition to government’s observance of National Day of Prayer, says that being excluded or “hurt feelings differ from legal injury.”

Last year, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the federal government’s observation of prayer was unconstitutional, despite numerous rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court that protect long-standing traditions of religious invocations. When Congress passed a statute in 1952 calling for the President to issue a proclamation designating the National Day of Prayer, it memorialized the virtually unbroken tradition of Presidents from Washington to Obama who designated a day of prayer.

“The 7th Circuit’s decision in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama once again affirms what the vast majority of Americans know intuitively: that we should not and indeed cannot separate our nation’s history from the influence of religion on its founders,” said Brad Miller, director of family policy councils for Citizenlink. “Even Americans with a decidedly agnostic view of religion cannot refute the important role religious tradition has played throughout the history of this great nation. The President’s proclamation is simply a continuation of a long and deep tradition of urging and acknowledging prayer as a fundamental part of a healthy society. We applaud this decision and the great work of our allies at the Liberty Institute for their work on behalf of religious freedom.”

This year, National Day of Prayer is set for May 5.

Source: Liberty Institute, April 14, 2011.

Senator Sherrod Brown Opposes Defunding Planned Parenthood

On April 14, United States Senator Sherrod Brown had the opportunity to protect our tax dollars from going to the largest abortion provider – Planned Parenthood. Senator Sherrod Brown had the opportunity to stop funding Planned Parenthood and he failed us. Senator Sherrod Brown supports Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars!

In 2009, Planned Parenthood reported 332,278 performed abortions, 8,270 more abortions than it performed in 2008. Planned Parenthood recently stated a mandate that every Planned Parenthood affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortion within the next two years.

Senator Sherrod Brown refuses to listen to Ohioans. In a letter response to pro-life Ohioans, he stated:

“I will continue to oppose efforts to eliminate or drastically reduce funding for Planned Parenthood and the Title X family planning program.”

Ohio Right to Life urges all Ohioans to never forget what Senator Brown has done.

In less than two years Senator Brown will stand before each of us and ask for our votes to be re-elected for another six year term. On that day, let us all collectively respond to his vote to support Planned Parenthood.

Source:Ohio Right to Life, April 15, 2011

Tax Day

By Congressman Steve Austria

Because today is the day Americans are required to have their tax returns mailed back to the government, I thought I would take the opportunity to share some thoughts on taxes with you. When it comes to the U.S. Tax Code, the numbers are simply astonishing. The most recent tax code has more than 3.8 million words in it. The most recent version of the IRS regulations contained nearly 7 million words – 9 times the total number of words in the King James Bible. No wonder most Americans are frustrated with our tax code. Trying to complete a tax return is so complex that many must rely on an accountant or computer software to make it easier.

These are troubling statistics for most Americans. Additionally, more complicated tax increases may be imposed on taxpayers in 2012 if Congress does not permanently end the crushing tax hikes. Because Congress and the President only agreed to a temporary two-year extension, we are in jeopardy of seeing those tax hikes again in a year and a half. This continues to bring uncertainty to our financial markets, hurting small businesses and hard-working families.

Like most Americans, I believe the current tax code needs to be simplified and reformed. In the end, I trust our families and our small businesses – the taxpayers – to spend and invest their money back into their economy creating long-term sustainable jobs in the private sector. That is what will get Americans back to work. I’m pleased that this new Congress is placing a high priority on reducing federal spending to help put our economy back on a fiscally-sustainable path forward. It is time for Congress to work together on both sides of the aisle to simplify and reform our tax system.

Dayton Tea Party Tax Day Rally on Monday 18th

The Rally begins at 6:30 p.m. in downtown Dayton at Courthouse Square. The event is free with a request for those attending to bring a nonperishable food item or canned good to donate to the Dayton Foodbank.

Speakers lined up for the event include Eric Golub, C.L. Bryant, and Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan.

Eric Golub, who is a nationally known political comedian, columnist and blogger from Long Island New York via Los Angeles, California. Golub was Brooklyn born, Long Island raised, and has lived in Los Angeles since 1990. He received his Bachelors degree from the University of Judaism, and his MBA from USC.

C.L. Bryant is a native of Shreveport, LA. As the son of a WWII Veteran, L.C. Bryant and Elnola Bryant, C.L.’s roots run deep into the Cane River Area of Louisiana. He has studied Western Civilization, mortgage finance and has a Masters degree in Theology. This will be the third time he has spoken at the Dayton Tax Day Rally.

Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, also will be speaking at the third annual Dayton Tea Party Tax Day Rally this Monday in downtown Dayton at Courthouse Square. He is one of the top conservative leaders on Capitol Hill serving as Chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

To learn more about the Tax Day Rally and the above speakers, go to the Dayton Tea Party website.

American College of Pediatricians’ Letter To School Officials About Same-Sex Attraction

In a letter to public school officials, President of the American College of Pediatricians had this say about same-sex attraction and gender confusion:

Adolescence is a time of upheaval and impermanence. Adolescents experience confusion about many things, including sexual orientation and gender identity, and they are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences.

Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25. In one study, as many as 26% of 12-year-olds reported being uncertain of their sexual orientation, yet only 2-3% of adults actually identify themselves as homosexual. Therefore, the majority of sexually questioning youth ultimately adopt a heterosexual identity.

Even children with Gender Identity Disorder (when a child desires to be the opposite sex) will typically lose this desire by puberty, if the behavior is not reinforced. Researchers, Zucker and Bradley, also maintain that when parents or others allow or encourage a child to behave and be treated as the opposite sex, the confusion is reinforced and the child is conditioned for a life of unnecessary pain and suffering. Even when motivated by noble intentions, schools can ironically play a detrimental role if they reinforce this disorder.

In dealing with adolescents experiencing same-sex attraction, it is essential to understand there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born “gay” or “transgender.” Instead, the best available research points to multiple factors – primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion. It is also critical to understand that these conditions can respond well to therapy.

Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the Genome Project, has stated that while homosexuality may be genetically
influenced, it is “… not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not
predeterminations.” He also states [that] “…the prominent role[s] of individual free will choices [has] a profound effect on us.”

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) recently released a landmark survey and analysis of 125 years of scientific studies and clinical experience dealing with homosexuality. This report, What Research Shows, draws three major conclusions: (1) individuals with unwanted same sex attraction often can be successfully treated; (2) there is no undue risk to patients from embarking on such therapy and (3), as a group, homosexuals experience significantly higher levels of mental and physical health problems compared to heterosexuals. Among adolescents who claim a “gay” identity, the health risks include higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, substance abuse, anxiety, depression and suicide. Encouragingly, the longer students delay self-labeling as “gay,” the less likely they are to experience these health risks. In fact, for each year an adolescent delays, the risk of suicide alone decreases by 20%.

In light of these facts, it is clear that when well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel encourage students to “come out as gay” and be “affirmed,” there is a serious risk of erroneously labeling students (who may merely be experiencing transient sexual confusion and/or engaging in sexual experimentation). Premature labeling may then lead some adolescents into harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue.

Optimal health and respect for all students will only be achieved by first respecting the rights of students and parents to accurate information and to self-determination. It is the school’s legitimate role to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students. It is not the school’s role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student’s medical condition, and certainly not a school’s role to “affirm” a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation.

But, why is letter being published here? Gay organizations and their politicians have created a school-based event called “Day of Silence.” While it is billed an an effort to promote tolerance to gay youth with the goal of preventing bullying, this event also has been used as a backboard to launch education and social policies in other states like Massachussetts. Those policies in effect engender hostility toward families who are morally or religiously opposed to gay behavior and legalizing efforts to indoctirnate children into accepting gay behavior as normative. Therefore, parents, grandparents, and others should be aware of such events and what medicial professionals other than APA have to say about the related issues of same-sex attraction and gender confusion.

To read the entire letter or for more information, please visit www.FactsAboutYouth.com

Boehner-Obama Debt Reduction Deal In Perspective

The Boehner-Obama plan cuts the $14.3 trillion national debt by $38.5 billion, which is a little less than 3/10%. This is not a very impressive amount.

No wonder many conservatives are calling it a Republican sell-out.

Since fiscal year began on Oct. 1, 2010, the national debt has increased by $653.4 billion. According to a CNS report, the federal debt increased $54.1 billion during the eight days preceeding the deal. Compare that to a $88.4 billion increase over the 58 days covering February and March; the only reasonable conclusion is the federal government went on a spending spree. Why? The mostly likely reason was to cover the losses to be incurred during April. Consequently, there was no reduction of the national debt because there was no a decrease in spending.

I heard one expert say the debt reduction deal was a miniscule amount when compared to the overall debt. No, there was not any reduction. It is like the inflationless great recession: the inflation came prior to the recession i.e, housing prices, fenergy prices, food prices, and devaluing of the dollar.

Let’s hope the next round of budget cuts are real reductions of government spending and debt.

Nothing “Certain” About Taxes

by Cameron Smith

This time of year, flowers are blooming, birds are singing and most Americans are indoors putting together their tax returns. In 1789, Benjamin Franklin famously stated that “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

Unfortunately for many Americans, taxes are anything but certain. Yes, they must be paid, but how they are paid is a source of considerable heartburn for households across the nation.

In the 2010 fiscal year, the IRS processed just over 141 million individual income tax returns. At the same time, the IRS issued more than 119 million refunds with an average refund of over $3,000. In total, the Government held more than $358 billion of individual taxpayer money in 2010.

Before taxpayers rejoice at the refunds returning to their bank accounts, they should stop to consider the economic cost of the practice. Every dollar in overpayment held by the IRS is a dollar removed from the U.S. economy and job creation efforts. Consider that the national median household income in 2009 was $49,777. The money sitting on the economic sidelines because of the inefficiency in our tax code could have “funded” over 7.2 million households. Even though that money eventually makes its way back into the economy as refunds are issued, billions and billions of dollars of economic productivity are lost.

The economic inefficiency in the tax code comes in part from the code’s complexity and how taxes are collected. In 1943, Congress passed the Current Tax Payment Act which established the quarterly income tax withholding system that Americans experience today. Rather than suffering through the pain of writing the IRS a large check at the end of the year, most Americans make rough estimates of their tax liability through their payroll departments. The obvious benefit of this system is that it improves the federal government’s ability to collect taxes. The downside is that most Americans have little awareness of how much tax they are actually paying because they essentially estimate their tax liability. Often this estimation fails to include many of the credits, deductions, and other provisions contained in the tax code.

Not only do Americans make educated guesses at how much they owe the IRS, they are also fail to correctly interpret the code itself. This confusion leads to even more headaches in the form of dreaded IRS audits. In fiscal year 2010, the IRS conducted almost 1.6 million examinations, up from less than half that number a decade earlier.

The most recent major simplification of the tax code was the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986. Almost 25 years later, the tax code has bloated into a patchwork of specialized provisions providing little encouragement or clarity to the average American simply trying to pay what he or she owes.

Regrettably, after the tax bill is paid and refunds are issued, the American taxpayer enters yet another uncertain area. Taxpayers are ill-informed about the effectiveness or direction of their tax dollars moving through the federal government.

Even the Department of the Treasury’s Resource Center recognizes the importance of tax clarity:

Government has become a dominant factor in our economy, absorbing significant resources for its purposes and redirecting many more resources through its regulatory policies and through a mixture of taxation and spending programs that remove resources from some areas to transfer those resources to other areas. It is critical, therefore, that citizens have as much information as possible regarding these diverse programs and regarding their aggregate totals so they may decide for themselves whether the government’s activities are appropriate. Taxes, and especially the paying of taxes, yield citizens a personal sense of the total price of those activities.

The federal government created by the American people also works for the American people. Americans slogging through their tax returns recognize the unnecessarily complex burden placed upon them and the subsequent drain on the economy. The challenge before them now is to decide whether that complexity and drain is necessary or justified by the way the federal government uses the resources it collects.

Most Americans know that we can do better funding our nation, and we must. The beauty of the American democracy is that the will of the people can reform something even as “certain” as taxes.

Cameron Smith is General Counsel and Legislative Liaison for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Government by the Rich: Is This the American Dream?

By John W. Whitehead

“It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”—George Carlin

As it now stands, the upper 1 percent of Americans control 40% of the nation’s wealth and take in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income. Included among these very rich and powerful are mega-corporations such as General Electric that manage to rake in obscene profits while paying little to nothing in taxes. For instance, despite pulling in more than $14 billion in 2010, GE not only paid no taxes, but they also managed to claim more than $3 billion in government tax credits. All the while, more and more Americans are struggling to find jobs, keep jobs and stop the banks from foreclosing on their homes.

It’s a grim state of affairs and one that Congress, itself comprised of those from the upper 1%, is doing little to improve. In fact, although America is supposed to be a representative republic, the numbers relating to wealth distribution among elected officials tell a far different tale. As Joseph Stiglitz writes for Vanity Fair:

Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

Indeed, one almost has to be rich in order to aspire to public service today. Whether it be the Oval Office or the halls of Congress, the road to the ballot box is an expensive one, and only the wealthy, or those supported by the wealthy, are even able to get to the starting line.

Not even public anger over fiscal overspending has done much to alter the status quo in Congress. In fact, there are actually more millionaires in this year’s freshman class in Congress, with 60% of Senate freshmen and 40% of new House lawmakers belonging to that rarefied group.

The unfortunate but simple fact is that the rich sit perched at the top of the government. As Stiglitz points out, “The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”

The simple truth of the matter is that those who have, and have in abundance, do not have any connection with the working poor—those who live from paycheck to paycheck in the exhausting struggle to simply survive. Consequently, once in office, these already privileged wealthy bureaucrats enter into a life of even greater privilege and perks, at the expense of the American taxpayer. These perks range from generous six-figure salaries to even more generous allowances for multiple offices, staff salaries and related office expenses including travel, furniture and constituent mailings, as well as top-of-the-line health coverage and retirement plans and a three-day work week.

Clearly, there is a disconnect between the rich bureaucrats in Congress and the working-class Americans they are ill-equipped to represent. Nevertheless, the rich continue to get richer and get elected, while the average American remains blissfully unaware of the fact that the basic foundations of the country are being steadily eroded by a wealthy, largely corrupt overclass whose values are largely dictated by lobbyist dollars.

Indeed, with an estimated 26 lobbyists per congressman, it should come as no surprise that once elected, even those with the best of intentions seem to find it hard to resist the lure of lobbyist dollars, of which there are plenty to go around. Oil and gas companies alone spent $44.5 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies in the first quarter of 2009, more than a third of the $129 million they spent lobbying in 2008. As of 2010, mega-corporations have spent $3.49 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions.

What we are faced with is a government by oligarchy—in other words, one that is of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Yet the Constitution’s Preamble states that it is “we the people” who are supposed to be running things. If our so-called “representative government” is to survive, we must first wrest control of our government from the wealthy elite who run it.

That is a problem with no easy solutions, and voting is the least of what we should be doing. However, comedian/social commentator George Carlin hints at the answer in his diatribe on the American Dream and the wealthy elite who have co-opted it for their own purposes:

You know what they want? They want obedient workers…people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money.

“What they don’t want,” continued Carlin, is “a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking…That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests.”

A population of citizens capable of critical thinking? That’s a good place to start, and it’s a sure-fire way to jumpstart a revolution.

To read Whitehead’s article by the same title, click here, or you can watch the video on YouTube.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.