The Daily Walk with Miracles, republished October 19, 2014, rewritten October 13, 2014, republished June 28 & 29, 2014 and May 29, 2014, with editing, originally published December 5, 2013, by Paul Evans. Placed in the Public Domain:
Here is a new idea that would work, without any pain to the powers that be. Money will still be money, and politics in America will go on as usual. There is nothing hidden here and no secret agenda. The only agenda is to solve America’s “sickness” in terms of its economics and social standing here at home and in the world. It would both cost less, economically, to “do it” this way and it would allow us to work at reducing the national debt. So I am hopeful that these ideas would correct some of what is wrong with the United States today. It works on both economic and social arenas, although it does not address politics much. I am strongly hopeful that this is a plan about which the powers that be might have confidence. Here is a short summary of the plan for America’s future:
I want a lot of what the Republican Party wants, and a lot of what the Democratic Party wants, in a fusion which both parties might support. This would major reform which might satisfy liberals and conservatives, but cost little money, and would not threaten power. The plan is something new which basically is political only in the original sense of the word, not for political solutions or influence, but in the sense of solving our problems as a society. At the same time, it costs very little and would leave money, influence and power unaffected much. I leave it to Washington to implement this whole idea, if they like it. One thing I decided over a year ago was not to be any kind of activist for any particular political ideology. (It drives the various people behind the phone calls I get in support of this or that nuts. But actually once they find out I have no money to give them, they lose all interest anyway LOL.)
In the Alan Parsons Project song “Turn it Up,” he says it’s no good sitting on fences, and no good believing in anything if you don’t believe in yourself. Well I do believe in myself, and in this plan. It IS a compromise, but it also helps the less fortunate in society, yet in a way that money and power can support. And it esssentially somehow gives both sides what they want, economically. THAT is my solution, and I believe in it.
The ideas here are something new, and the overall plan is something I have never read of anywhere else. I had been writing a book I started, initially calling it. “creative Trotskyism under God’s Law.” I now simply call it “Creative Family Values,” taking a page from the main frame which is central to conservative ideology. However this is NOT in any significant way Trotskyism, and is not socialist, but only results in a slightly more just sharing of burdens, responsibilities and rewards. At the national level, the plan fully supports the free enterprise capitalism that this great nation was founded with. It gives the conservatives what they want by reducing the burden of excessive regulation. Then, in the same plan, it gives the liberals what they want by making taxation of corporations more just and fair. The idea, whether you would want to implement the whole plan here of not, is to take this correctional idea for our capitalist, corporate system and to fix it by giving both conservatives and liberals what they want in one relatively simple but corrective piece of legislation. This is the part of my three-level plan which is the compromise America has been waiting for. This part the national economic plan for America, which might almost be called a “National Unity Plan,” and I pray to Almighty God that we can all see this and support it.
But money, power and influence would remain fully as before this fix, except that the plan envisions that they would be given a more caring face by the reforms at the lower two levels of the whole package, with what is actually something that would cost the Federal government only a little in comparison with the overall current cost of entitlements. This would allow us to begin to reduce the national debt, which should further gather conservative support for the Creative Family Values plan. These other two fixes, would cost very little to put in place. it is more top down, again, at the levels it considers for the churcches and charities they support, as well as at the level of the family, and hopefully liberals would more want to run their families and churches in this way, too. The overall idea is, then, an only slightly structurally complex plan with three levels considered, the national economic plan, and one at the level of churches and the charities they support, and also a family values sort of idea for our families.
Trotskyism, you may recall, is small “c” communism, and NOT socialism or Communism. There is a Trotskyite political movement today which tries to influence people’s ideas to make politics and economics more caring and is all about sharing. Remember that in the early Christian church, there was no poverty and “they held their goods in common.” We are far from that today, and I don’t propose any such thing. I just want to humanize our society and make it more caring, but to do so in some way that money and power can accept, and I believe that the ideas here do exactly that.
Trotkyism as a political ideology does not even include, as do most socialist thought, especially the monsters of Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, any insistance about ownership of the means of production. My ideas are not even really Trotskyism at all. I use the word, a.) because it does include a pure sort of sharing of burdens and responsibilities, as well as rewards, mostly at the lower two levels of the church and the family; and b.) out of my own shared hatred for socialism and communism, which ruined and destroyed what might have been a workiing sort of decent, almost good socialist philosophy. There were many different ideas contending for dominance in the late nineteenth century and Trotskyism never had a chance to develop into anything with any chance. As for me, if I absolutely had to, I would consider myself a Democrat, but only as the lesser of two evils, and a party with a chance at governance, since none of the lesser parties really have a chance, do they?
Nationally capitalism can well be caring and you just make it a little fairer and it is fine, Churches are already sharing burdens and responsiblities among their members, and are a wonderful help to America with their charity. Under the plan, they would do so with additonal money taken from just a little of the entitlement money. Think what wonderful things they would do with this money and it’s a drop in the bucket for entitlement money. For families I take the family values idea and we already have the shared responsibilities, burdens and rewards but it is a top down sort of thing at the family level, as per family values.
Look at the Harvest for Hunger advertisement, below. Think what such an organization could do with two or three times the money it has now! Thus, individual churches should be free to contribute a percentage of the money they get this way to the regional or national organizations, and the money could be distributed in this enormously helpful way for many church sorts of charities, such as People to People. This is the future of charity in America.
Overall, the powers that be need to not worry at all about this. Money will still be money, and power can continue its rule with no worry out of this plan. Free enterprise capitalism just needs to be a little humanized and made just a little caring. Politicians are human beings and I know they really care, too. Why not simply make a few caring changes you need to be re-elected anyway? And what better agency to do this then that of using our churches to distribute even a few or maybe even five times what they’re getting in funding now?
Think about it: by handling the church money at the individual level, conservative churches would take care of their conservative members and liberal churches would take care of other liberals, but these institutions are fair and the monies would be distributed responsibly, as the charity money is today. Faceless entitlements, some of which, however, work very well, do not know conditions at the local or neighborhood level, and the individual churches know who actually needs what and could decide upon the means testing they would want to do, if any.
This is, in a way, God’s plan. It is fully logical and it is caring and so it is “correct” logic, and includes the logic of the whole universe, as per Logos, an ancient Greek condeption which the early church said was the same as Jesus Christ.
I will have more to say about the plan later. More is in the book I’m writing, which is further along in the plan than is written here, although only the introduction to that book has been written thus far, mainly discussing the history of Trotskyism. Really though, regardless of the book, this is the plan, right here in this introduction. It is not logically complex and the rules are fairly simple. I believe in my heart and soul that this is the right idea for America’s future.
From December 5, 2014 (needs an edit)
I want to correct any misperception on where The Daily Walk with Miracles stands in its economic positions. In the blog section of The Daily Walk with Miracles, I did not fully explain myself as to what my position is on the economy and economics. I took an economic position overall which I at one point described as “middle of the road.” I stated that I had certain ideas on governing our nation, and for example, entitlements and the poor, which might even be described as “progresssive,” or that I had that tendency. My views have taken a more specific direction that I want to explain to my readers.
What I have written up till now about my “progressive” ideas in economics is not really accurate, except that I so very much care about the ordinary citizens of the United States, and hate to see suffering by them or anyone else. In the past, I took fairly progressive stances on the economy, yet I am taking large steps in the direction of “austerity” (as I did explain in the “About Us,”. I have recently taken the strong step of deleting from my site all of the articles, except for a few, from before this current year of 2013, because I am in fact a changed man from the knee-jerk liberal or progressive who I once was. However, in the last few months, I have found myself returning to some of my more liberal ideas in economics. In other areas, such as abortion and full support for free enterprise capitalism, as well as support for the Patriot Act and our fine men and women who guard this nation from harm, I am more conservative, as people generally understand the terms. I refuse to be put in a straight jacket and still consider myself as “nonpartisan.”
The overriding reason for future austerity in our national budgets is our unsupportable $17.7 trillion (about) national debt. This is not something which we dare to burden our children with, nor can we allow the debt to continue to grow each year. Please note that this puts me fully at odds with the Democratic Party’s positions, but Obama does see the necessity for reducing our debt. Did you know that the annual debt is now one half of what it was when Barack Obama took office?
Let me just say something about the poisonous words “socialist” and “communist” and explain my wholehearted opposition to any implementation of any kind of model using the major methods coming from either of these systems. In the first place, “Communist” with a big “C” refers to Leninist, Stalinist or Maoist frameworks of government which are dictatorships and involve “government ownership of the means of production.” I cannot state strongly enough how very hard I would fight to prevent this becoming a reality in America. Socialism really implies simply a democratically based system that also includes ownership by the government of most or all of the means of production, and I am hardly any less opposed to that, too. As a former progressive I felt I needed to explain that, and I do feel that such an explanation was, sadly, necessary.
The main economic position I have which I have never explained before is one that involves three different levels at which I view economic stances. I have different sorts of ideas at three levels, and the consideration of Biblical principles is very important to me in considering these levels. I see one sort of economic stance for given families such as the traditional nuclear family. I see a different yet really rather similar set of positions at the level of individual churches. At the Federal level I strongly support free market capitalism, as unfettered by Federal regulations as is safe, for the United States taken as a whole. However, I feel that major reforms are necessary at the Federal level.
For a given family, I support a full sharing of resources in what I could almost call a “communalistic” sort of existence. Of course, I also support an adherence to the basic conservative model of “family values.” I see leadership within a nuclear family as coming from the top down, which works best with a responsible father in charge. Yet I do not like to even think about any misuse of family resources and believe strongly that money, goods and opportunities should be fully shared within the family. The family itself must function under the full authority of the family head. This is the overall meaning I take in employing the term “communalistic,” which may be a wrong word to use, I really don’t know. The word seems appropriate to me in the sense of a full sharing of opportunity and duty. I do not mean to endorse any sort of family system which does not involve fair sharing of resources for the benefit of every individual in the family. My values are Christian and no family will succeed without burdens, efforts and rewards being shared, yet I support the “family values” framework too.
I am no kind of expert in economics at all, but these are my ideas, which I strongly want to be made known, so that there might no longer be any misunderstanding about just where The Daily Walk with Miracles stands.
I supported candidate Obama in 2007, but see a lot of unfulfilled promises which caused me to move away from such support in 2011. One thing that Obama promised as his idea and plan for the economic future of America remains a totally false promise, which, however, is not his fault at all. He said that he would like to see a good level of support from the Federal government be distributed among our churches, for the churches fair distribution of those resources. As I see it, the local churches understand the situation in their community better than anyone else, and can best provide help where it is needed, in a caring, Christian way. Even as the knee-jerk liberal who I was back in 2007, this always seemed like a great idea to me, and I am sad that nothing was ever done to pursue this worthy idea. I think this was because it never was seen to have much of a chance in Congress, but, why not? I believe that this alone could save America and give us back a bright future.
Churches, to the extent I understand this, are governed in different ways in different denominations, and within a given denomination, governance of church budgets differs even between individual churches of the same denomination. Yet I am sure that whatever “board” or “pastor” or just whatever any group of church elders and trusted souls in charge of the church budget exists, could easily either serve themselves or else appoint a board, to govern the distribution of Federal economic resources by each individual church. Perhaps resources could be allocated based upon the number of members of each church.
There would, inevitably, have to be certain federally imposed rules and guidelines about how these resources could be distributed, hopefully allowing a wide range of latitude left to the churches. It honestly seems to me likely that, with Presidential support for such a huge, new program, there could actually be little problem in setting this up. Why not? Even most Democrats in Congress are Christians, and I am also certain that the Republican House of Representatives would ensure that such a system would be fair. Let me be clear: this is such a new and major change that there would need to be bipartisan support.
I see this as a situation that does not involve any First Amendment problem of separation of church and state. There would inevitably be legal challenges to a church distribution of resources so that it would likely reach the Supreme Court fairly rapidly. If I am wrong and the Supreme Court ruled that there is in fact a constitutional problem with this new system, it might be necessary to amend the Constitution. However if enough congressmen and the President supported this, and there was considerable explanation of the plan to the American people, I would hope that such an amendment would not be that hard to come by.
It is also a system where it would be absolutely necessary to have support and guidance from a friendly President who was in favor of the idea. Sadly, this means it would have to probably wait, I fear, until at least 2016 to be instituted. Could President Obama be persuaded to support an idea he once campaigned on, or was that just a popular campaign promise and in fact a lie? However long it takes, supporters of this plan could be preparing the ground within Congress and explaining the idea to the American people. I believe that Americans are fed up with the bloated and over-costly system of entitlements, which forces us into passing budgets which drag us deeper and deeper into debt.
As someone who deeply feels the pain of the millions of Americans who just scrape by from month to month, or who really cannot afford a decent standard of living, I believe that, properly conceived and properly explained to them, a plan like this would gain a huge amount of support. It is not my place as someone who in fact is not trained in economics, to get into the details of a church distribution of Federal resources. However, I strongly feel that it is an idea whose time has come.
Now let me speak for a moment more about my ideas on economics for our economy as a whole, the largest, purely Federal level of the positions I take on economics. I believe that free market capitalism does in fact work, and works well. People need to have a chance to be personally rewarded for their toil and labor. However, what exists now is a system where all the rules favor the rich and the large corporations, and this does need to change. The reforms I envision would give both conservatives and liberals what they want to reform corporate capitalism.
I believe that bringing our churches into prominence in helping make our system fair would go a long way to improving the lives of all Americans.
There are other steps we must take, too. We need to stop giving tax rewards to corporations which ship our American jobs overseas. There should in fact be tax incentives which favor job creation here in America. We also need to make it impossible for a corporation like General Electric to hire such a heady bunch of accountants and tax lawyers that, in fact, they pay zero federal taxes. In other words, we need to fairly reform the system of taxation. These tax reforms would have to go along with necessary though painful large cuts to the whole system of entitlements, in favor of the church based system I have described.
In fact, a church based aid distribution system might, at comparatively minor cost, replace most of the entitlement programs which now exist.
There has to be a “failsafe” level of Federal support for the working poor, senior citizens, the disabled, our veterans and those who have fallen through the cracks. The main idea I have at this point is that, lacking enough money to even get by, many Americans rely on and must be given adequate resources so that they can at least have enough to eat each month. This means that The Daily Walk with Miracles supports food stamps, as opposed to people like Paul Ryan and also apparently the House of Representatives taken as a whole. I will note, though, that the Democratic Senate has thus far gone along with the elimination of the SNAP food stamps program, as well. As a result, there will be about 3.8 million new hungry Americans. Even worse, more recently the House passed legislation which would cut food stamps in half over ten years. This is just for a savings of $34 billion, the cost of a few F-35 fighters. If we can’t now afford to give wage earners enough of a wage so that they can have the basic necessities in life, we can at least ensure that they do not go hungry. This is the least we can do as a caring, Christian society, and I feel strongly about this.
I feel myself personally just about ready to dismantle some of the remaining system of entitlements and start over, which is, I realize, a drastic step but one supported by many conservatives, and most Tea Party types. We should not do this until the church-based replacement system is ready to go into operation. This means we must be patient for a while longer – perhaps even several years – but we must keep our “eyes on the prize” and prepare the ground for an overall transformation of the whole Federal system, economically speaking.
Given that in 2007 candidate Obama was campaigning on the idea of distributing Federal resources through the churches, and that the idea then received the support of many liberals and progressives, I see no reason for a massive “knee-jerk liberal” attack on this whole idea. Who knows better than your community churches where the suffering and the need exists, and how to distribute what aid to which people? There must be means testing of some kind and there can be no kind of belief test whatsoever. Up until now, churches have had all-too-meager resources with which to truly help all of the community.
What exactly is there about this overall idea which needs to be divisive?
As I said, I am no economist. Over the years I have read the ideas of people like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and Bob Swern over at Daily Kos, and am currently reading, when I find time for it, from a lot from various economic theorists, including conservative ones. The ideas here, however, are original. Given that these are the economic roots I come out of, if this seems like the best idea to solve the deficit/debt problem to me, and to give aid to those who need it fairly, I would think that almost any fair minded American could support this plan. I would think that at least a plurality of Americans, who now view themselves as Independents and neither as Democrats or Republicans, should find this to be a very intriguing idea which they might well support. This is still basically be a new “solution,” and might elliminate the need for any “revolution” from the left or from the right. Besides hopefully being something liberals could support, and a lot of Independents, it is also the sort of radical shake-up of the whole economic picture that conservatives have been advocating, without really providing Americans yet with any sort of detailed plan which would replace the current system.
This idea is something that progressives once supported, although perhaps they never conceived of something on quite this scale. However, in all such ideas, the devil is in the details. Overall, I would try to make there be distinct Federal guidelines to ensure fairness in the distribution of resources, and leave the details up to the churches, who know best how to proceed. If you regulate the churches, that IS an insupportable breach of the separation of church and state. Regulate, only to the degree truly absolutely necessary for economic fairness, the basic underpinnings of the plan, and leave the churches alone.
If You Are Not Moved to See God’s Love for You
You Should Seek Help
Please Visit The Official King James Bible Online
(1611 King James Authorized Version)
Please Share The Daily Walk with Miracles: If you like what you’re reading here, would you help us out and share us with your friends and contacts? Thanks so much!
Have a Listen to Our Playlists of Classic Rock Only Music, the Liberal Christian Rock, or Pure Electronic Music, or just have a look at the master playlist of 230 Rock, Pop & Electronic Hits. Get your music fix while you browse the news.