Budgets Speak

 

            Each month Christy and I engage in a small, but important, ritual. She sits down and sorts out the details of our budget. We set goals together, but she handles the heavy lifting of developing the detailed plan. She records it on a card and gives it to me. Then I fulfill my portion of the Robinson Budgetary Process, better known as the RBP. I go online and move money and pay bills via the internet. It is a small part, but it is my part, and I enjoy doing it. If you were to examine them, those cards speak loudly about our priorities as a couple.

            Peruse those cards and you will get a good picture of what we think is important. On each card you will find house and auto payments. Since we live on a dirt road that is frequently covered in snow during the winter and Christy often drives to Lubbock by herself, I support the expense of a good all-wheel-drive car. You will find out which charities we support and from that data glean a bit about where our heart lies. What we do with our share of this world’s resources says a lot about our morality. We are among the blessed who enjoy more resources than we need. And truth be told, for most Americans that is the case. Oh, we may get ourselves into such a situation that every dollar is spoken for; but, that is more due to our rapacious appetite than our actual physical needs. Just as our budgetary plans reveal what is important to us, our nation’s budget reveals our corporate priorities.

            A scan of the most recent budget proposals from the House of Representatives and the White House says much about what we consider important. Evidently, we consider providing tax relief to the wealthiest much more important than taking care of the most vulnerable in our society. Despite our protestations regarding deficit spending, we’re quite willing to add another trillion or so to the national debt to fund tax relief for the wealthiest and defense industries. We do not mind cutting out support for women, infants, and children. Medicaid designed to ensure that weakest among us do not go without basic healthcare is less important than a new weapons system…or two…or three. Protecting the environment, something we all depend on, does not rate very highly in our estimation, nor does improving our infrastructure, another thing we all depend upon. Our draconian reductions to the USAID budget send a very clear message to the world.

            We just do not care about those who suffer. All foreign aid consumed 1.17% of the budget in 2023.¹ Despite this rather parsimonious effort, our current administration has gone to great lengths to not only eradicate those funds, it has also sought to shutter the USAID department. These actions speak loudly concerning our priorities. They tell the world that we just do not care about those who suffer. We have no interest in the problems that they face. We cannot really justify these reductions as part of a plan to address the problems of our own people since we’re cutting what we spend to help our own population or poor families.

            If we want to be a nation known for our compassionate care for those who are less off, we must be willing to adjust our budget to reflect that. Contrary to popular belief, most taxpayers in the U.S. enjoy a lower tax rate than most of the rest of the world.² We think we’re highly taxed; however, an examination of the data shows otherwise. We also like to think that current government programs transfer wealth from the top to the bottom. Again, the data shows that is not the case.³ If we want to make judicious decisions regarding the construction of our budget, we must do so from an informed perspective.

            We must carefully think through our societal goals and the budgetary decisions that support those goals. For those of us who have the means, will we willingly allocate the funds needed to help the less off, or will we simply hoard our blessings to satiate our own desires. I believe that there are adequate resources to enable us to enjoy a high standard of living while helping those who are less off. After all, all of us have received help of some sort or another in our journey. We should willingly help those who are less well off. While we make lofty sounding pronouncements about concern for those less fortunate, our budget speaks more loudly. We wring our hands and spill much ink over a national debt; however, our budget shows that we do not really care. We like to believe that our economic system enables people to move from poverty to middle class; yet, our budget erects or strengthens barriers to such transitions. We talk about protecting the American Farmer, while we eviscerate the mechanisms and programs that support rural life. Our words paint one picture while our actions seek to erase that reality.

            If we want to live in a nation which fosters the spread of democracy, shows compassion for the weakest, and builds a thriving middle class, we must address our budget. Future generations will well understand our hypocrisy. They will read our words and evaluate them by our actions. I suspect that they will find us wanting in moral courage and strength of character.

           

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-data-says-about-us-foreign-aid/

2.  https://www.worlddata.info/income-taxes.php

3.  https://www.epi.org/explorer/international

Free Speech Anyone?

 

            Free speech is a tricky thing. I enjoy free speech when it is mine. After all, I’m a reasonable guy who always thinks things through carefully. Ask any of my friends…shoot you can even ask my wife and kids. They will tell you that I always say things that are worth listening to. Right?

            One of the things that I discovered as a soldier was that I had given up a certain amount of my free speech. Army Regulations prohibited me from speaking out against the President, members of congress, Army leadership, and other members of the government. And should you think these were empty unenforced rules, I had a fellow officer and friend cashiered for attending a political rally in uniform. There was no discussion, no appeals, no second chances. He was summarily dismissed from the service. If this sounds harsh, remember that as soldiers we serve all presidents, no matter the party and no matter our personal political inclinations. So as a soldier, I had to always remember that I needed to be circumspect in the words that I let slip from my lips. So as someone who’s had to self-censor, I’ve watched the ongoing battle of wills between President Trump and certain schools with great interest. After all, this is fundamentally about freedom of speech. Do not be fooled by various proclamations and news reports. At its core, this conflict is about free speech and its exercise.

            President Trump and many others in the Republican (MAGA) Party find fault with higher education in general and the Ivy League specifically. They make grandiose claims about these universities being totally devoted to liberalism. With grave speech they trot out a seemingly endless parade of examples of how far out of mainstream thought these schools are. They also provide many examples of how more conservative students are hounded and abused by their professors and fellow students. And while such behavior is unacceptable, it does not represent the student experience as a whole. Again, this is a battle over free speech. While it is true that the academic world is predominantly liberal; it is not one vast sea of blue with only the occasional island of red. A dispassionate examination of the data reveals a more complex picture. Any university worthy of the name university seeks to broaden its ideological makeup. A diverse faculty and student population leads to a vibrant and thriving educational institution. This diversity supports the academic ideal.

            In a clash of ideas free speech enables competing ideas a full voice. Ideally each side provides the idea and supports it with data. Unfortunately, in this method one of the ideas is found wanting and rejected, leaving the rejected side feeling…well, rejected. None of us like losing. The bitter sting of defeat should lead us to introspection and reexamination of our logic and data.

            The academic world is built on this principle. Someone develops an idea, does the appropriate research, develops their argument, and then presents their proposal for examination by recognized experts in their field. If their idea survives then it is accepted into the cannon. One of the keystone components of this system is a dedication to the truth, no matter where it leads. Unfortunately for many, their proposals do not pass muster and are discarded. If that is the case then one must revisit your idea and evidence, seeking the means to strengthen your case. This rigorous competition leads to a fuller understanding of our world and how we best interact with it, which is why the actions of our current administration in relation to the university world concerns me.

            The administration seeks to shape the academic world through various types of coercion. These tactics include cutting off all government support, denying foreign students visas, and dictating university policy. Of course, the government may deny a specific grant application for pursuit in an area it does not support; but, to simply cut off all funding is the tactic of a bully and will have a deleterious effect on important other research efforts. All of these are an unacceptable intrusion into the academic world.

            Our nation has built a constellation of universities which draw the brightest students from around the world. As a nation and culture, we profit greatly from this system. We should not tear it down simply because of a perceived liberal bias. If we want to change the university world, we must engage it in the realm of ideas. To coerce a university into submission through such oppressive tactics transforms it from an educational institution into a propaganda arm of the government, an organization not to be trusted. To continue to pursue this process is to demean the academic freedom and free speech. The current administration takes umbrage at the criticism coming from the academic community, which it feels is unfair. Perhaps some of the criticism is unfair. The solution lies not in persecution but in academic engagement.

Memes Rarely Communicate (Or Posting Responsibly)

 

            As a teacher of English at both the High School and College level, I often lectured my students concerning the meaning of words and the need to choose their words carefully. Words have very specific meanings and when communicating we must invest the time required to identify, select, and use the word that carries the exact meaning we desire. Clearly communicating a position or concept takes time and effort; both things most of us find in short supply. This is why we often resort to using Memes. These pictures coupled with a few short, often sarcastic, phrases attempt to communicate large ideas or policies with one hasty viewing. Many memes are simply humorous and highly successful in generating a chuckle, occasionally even a belly laugh. Often these humorous memes take advantage incongruencies or congruencies of the English language. I do not fault those memes. What I find distressing are those memes which abuse the language, especially in word choice.

            Often those who compose memes sling about words such as “Marxist,” “Fascist,” “Communist,” “terrorist,” “radical,” “reactionary,” and others. These words do not truly communicate. Rather, they inflame. Sometimes I do not think we want to communicate or convince. We just enjoy stirring things up. I often see such things shared under the line, “Watch how ______ owns the libs/conservatives.” We let our political inclinations and intellectual laziness guide our word choice. And in our current cultural and political milieu this tends to separate instead of illuminating or bringing together. We often employ words that we would find nearly impossible to define with any accuracy, especially political words. We use them to shore up our own bona fides within our circle or to provoke those who we disagree with.

            Such practices are intellectually dishonest and do not serve the nation well. Currently, we desperately need to find common ground. Instead of using social media platforms to communicate ideas and build consensus, we’re deepening the chasm which separates the various constituencies that make up our political landscape. At a time when we need to come together, we’re pulling apart. This is due in large part to the reckless way we use social media, embracing the relative anonymity of the internet world.

            Most of us do not create the meme, we just “share” it. In our minds this puts some distance between us and the offended. When taken to task for our intellectual dishonesty, we blame the offended. “Well, you just have thin skin.” We ridicule others for being “easily triggered.” As if that somehow absolves us from our coarse, rude, or dishonest behavior. Often memes, especially the political ones, traffic in lies and fabrications. The creator makes the casual assumption that the reader either is ignorant of the facts or is unwilling to make the effort to verify. When we share these kinds of memes we share in the lie and the resultant cultural chaos. Simply passing it off as a joke, after all they shouldn’t be so easily offended, does not absolve us of our guilt. We are responsible for how we use available media.

            Scripture reminds us that “to whom much is given, much is expected,” Luke 12:48. The modern internet is a tremendous resource. With it I can communicate near instantaneously with people around the globe. I can conduct legitimate research into any subject my mind can conceive. With my smart-phone I can access and share data any time and almost any place. Sadly, this astounding capability also enable me to spread lies and disinformation just as easily. For those of us who are Christians, are we truly comfortable with how we use this tool? Do we glorify the Lord and further the spread of His kingdom through our postings and sharings? For those of us who do not claim the name of Christ, how will our children, grandchildren, and other future generations judge our behaviors? Are we improving things or are we contributing to the chaotic erosion of things that are good and meaningful in our culture? Perhaps if we thought a bit more about the veracity and potential impact of our postings we might hesitate before hitting post, send, or like. Are we moving our society, culture, nation, and neighborhood in a good direction? Have we carefully considered our word choice? Do we even think, or are we simply enjoying the momentary rush of being sarcastic? These are questions we ought to consider as we navigate this brave new digital landscape.

A Hat or A Plane?

 

            As a retired Army Officer, I often sport a hat emblazoned with U.S. Army Retired. I like wearing it. After all, I spent twenty-seven years as a soldier, NCO, and officer. Due to our current cultural climate, many people stop and thank me for my service, to which I reply, “It was my honor and privilege to serve.” And it was.

            Not everyone can serve, and many who start a career shipwreck their service on a variety of different shoals, drug use, DWI, excessive debt, and a variety of other improprieties. Serving our nation in the military is a privilege. Sometimes a person’s behavior limits or curtails the privilege to serve. Among the behaviors is accepting a gift, or emolument. Marriam-Webster defines emolument as: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites. Interestingly the older meaning of emolument is an advantage.

            Most of the time, this does not figure in an officer’s career. But as a member of the Signal Corps, this played a fairly significant role in my career. As a Signal Officer, I constantly dealt with contractors. I oversaw contractors in the fulfillment of their contract. I worked with contractors seeking to renew their contract. I also worked with contractors seeking to procure a contract for equipment and services. Due to this role, I attended numerous training sessions and briefings concerning how to interact with contractors, and in all of them we were warned about accepting gifts, or emoluments, from contractors. The general rule of thumb was that if the price of the gift exceeded the price of a baseball cap, I could not accept it. Regularly I had to graciously refuse a gift, once a contractor offered to take me and my wife on a nice golf outing in Germany. But most of the time they knew the rules and acted accordingly. We had to ensure that we did not even give the appearance of inappropriate behavior; which makes the President considering accepting the Qatari offer of a 747 rather stunning.

            Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, better known as the emoluments clause, states: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. As reported, the Qatari gift of the 747 would go from Air Force One to the Presidential Library and be available for President Trump’s personal use after he leaves office. It is hard for me to accept the idea that somehow this is akin to picking up a put in golf. Even some in his own party are very uncomfortable with such blatant disregard for the constitution.

            President Clinton allowed generous donners to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom and appropriately endured a lengthy investigation. Our leaders must not allow even the whiff of impropriety to cloud their ability to discharge the duties of their office. For our president to even consider accepting such a “gift” calls into question his judgement regarding any other transaction with the Qatari government. It also erodes trust in his decision-making process for all other transactions.

            It is a privilege to serve, and we need leaders who understand that concept and willingly embrace the stringent nature of public service. Public office should not be considered an opportunity to enrich oneself at the expense of propriety, the voters, and trust in our national institutions. Congress needs to step in and investigate. If we allow the president to flout the constitution, how can we hold others accountable to the same document and standard. If we enable such behavior, we enable institutionalized graft and corruption.

How could we then look at junior officers and tell them, “Do not accept anything more expensive than a baseball cap?”

Due Process Part II

 

            As a young private in the Army, I felt that my rights were often trampled on, and they were. As a soldier, you give up many rights. I found that I could not say anything that came to my mind. I could not wear my hair as long as I liked, nor could I grow a beard. My moustache had to conform to what someone else thought was appropriate. My sergeants told me what to wear and what to do. Someone off in the deep dark bowls of PERSCOM (Personnel Support Command) told me where to live. I endured all of these constraints in order to say I was a soldier. But one of the few rights I still enjoyed was due process.

Once when I was in trouble, I was hauled in front of my company commander. The first thing that he did was to read me my rights. Knowing that I had behaved badly, we’ll not go into the details here, I threw myself on his mercy. He, in turn, handed me over to the 1SG for extra duty. I learned my lesson and did not make the same mistake again. But, had I desired, he would have provided me with a lawyer to give me counsel. Later in my  soldierly career as a commander, I periodically read my troops their rights and afforded them due process. Sometimes, I knew the end from the beginning. I knew my troops; however, I always allowed the process to play out. It was important to do so. After all, just having the power did not excuse abusing it.

One of President Trump’s campaign promises was to round up and deport undocumented immigrants. He now pursues the fulfillment of that promise with great vigor. In his haste, he willingly tramples on due process and civil rights.

“We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years.” President Trump on Truth Social

One of the challenges of living in a civilized law-abiding society is that it is often inconvenient and takes time and effort. After all, it is much simpler to form a posse and then string-‘em-up. Why bother with the process of a trial? Sadly, group think rarely provides good answers to difficult questions. Though imperfect, the judicial process provides the best protection for individuals and society. In any culture, the weak need protection from the strong. As President Truman said,

“The guilty as well as the innocent are entitled to due process of law. They are entitled to a fair trial. They are entitled to counsel. They are entitled to fair treatment from the police. The law enforcement officer has the same duty as the citizen-indeed, he has a higher duty-to abide by the letter and spirit of our Constitution and laws. You yourselves must be careful to obey the letter of the law. You yourselves must be intellectually honest in the enforcement of the law.” Harry S. Truman

When we discard due process, the weak innocent fall victim to haste and animus. This is the case with a two-year-old girl known in court papers only as V.M.L. Her mother, a citizen of Honduras was deported. Her father, a U.S. citizen sought to keep his daughter, another U.S. citizen, here. Again, in its haste, the Trump Administration has deported someone who had every right to remain in our nation, this time a citizen. As a nation we have the responsibility to protect the weakest among us.

“Never violate a woman, nor harm a child. Do not lie, cheat or steal. These things are for lesser men. Protect the weak against the evil [and] strong. And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil.” David Gemmell

            A two-year-old girl poses no threat to our nation. We do not know about her mother as she was denied due process, that messy and inconvenient thing. But that process is what protects all of us, the strong as well as the weak. We must speak up for the weakest in our society. Our strength as a nation does not flow from our weapons, manufacturing prowess, or large bank accounts. It flows from our willingness to shoulder the burden of doing the right thing, even when it is inconvenient. We claim to be a law-abiding nation whose legal system is founded upon Judeo-Christian morality. We need to remember this passage from Proverbs, a great book of wisdom:

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” – Proverbs 31:8-9

 

Fixing a Mistake to Restore Due Process

I have made many mistakes in my life, some large and egregious others minor and inconsequential. Large or small, the best thing that I could do after making a mistake was to admit it and then do my best to correct it. Fortunately, most of my failings were such that I could immediately apply a remedy. A few, that I’d rather not detail, were of such a nature that I could not repair the wrong. Such is not the case with the U.S. government and Abrego Garcia.

Scooped up in an aggressive ICE raid, Abrego Garcia was improperly deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration admits the mistake, citing an administrative error, yet they refuse to take the steps necessary to rectify their mistake, even in the face of a Supreme Court requirement. They have even used the fig-leaf of getting the president of El Salvador to publicly refuse as their most current reason. Such a callus refusal to observe due process and right and obvious wrong ought to sound the klaxon in the hearts, minds, and souls of Americans.

Garcia arrived on our shores seeking refuge from the criminal gang life in his home country and was granted protected status by our government. For that same government to refuse to correct an administrative error, leaving him incarcerated on foreign soil strikes at the foundational structures of freedom, due process, checks and balances. What is to keep the executive branch from denying me due process should they make a mistake?  I understand the reluctance to correct an error. I do not enjoy admitting that I’m wrong; however, adult behavior requires it when I make a mistake. For the current administration to simply ignore another branch of government is unacceptable, no matter which party one belongs to.

All of us should clamor for the immediate return of Mr. Garcia. If we fail to register our displeasure at this, we fail to help the most helpless in their time of extreme need. We all have much at stake in this issue. How can we stand for freedom if we continue to allow our government to sweep up individuals and deport them to incarceration based on flimsy evidence and no chance to plead their case or have appropriate representation? Much of the evidence used is grounded on tattoos and in the case of Mr. Garcia an assumed connection based on an incorrect identification of his location. Despite all of this and a Supreme Court requirement to facilitate his return, the administration refuses to return him and afford him the due process required by our legal system.

Due process is a critical component of our legal system. It is the mechanism which protects individuals from incorrect prosecution and incarceration. Though it takes time and effort, it keeps us from wrongly punishing individuals, citizens and aliens alike. The current administration seems bent on ignoring due process. Those of us who claim the name of Christ must cry out. Scripture reminds us of how the Lord looks at this issue:

33 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:33-34 English Standard Version

Our brutal treatment of these individuals does not reflect our commitment to law, order, justice, and protection of the weak. We need to reaffirm our commitment to these foundational concepts. These are the things that make a nation great; not the heartless exercise of power and might. We need to revisit the Sonnet by Emma Lazarus found on the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, 

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 “…Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” Jesus of Nazareth in Luke 12:48b

As a shavetail lieutenant, my position required that I secure a Top-Secret clearance. As I have a somewhat colorful past, I was concerned about making it through the investigation process. But since I told them the truth up front, they were not surprised when they came across the random skeleton or two…or three. I was quite excited when I was finally allowed behind the “green-door." After reading about a million pages explaining how to handle classified material, including a large section devoted to the penalties of divulging national secrets, I signed on several dotted lines and was granted access. 

        What a let-down. I expected more exiting information. But hey, I was just a Second-Lieutenant and in the Army you start small. As my career progressed, I gained more responsibility and earned more trust, and the stakes grew higher and the information much more sensitive. I also learned a great deal about the systems we use to keep our secrets and why they are so important. Eventually towards the end of my career, I worked at very high levels requiring detailed excursions into my background to ensure that I was indeed trustworthy. To whom much is given, much is required. That is why the recent leak and ensuing chaos grieves me so.

This failure reveals significant problems within the current administration. When we circumvent the clearance granting system and the associated investigations, we assume great risk. This failure reveals three problem areas.

First, when we hire inexperienced and untrained individuals, they often make mistakes. As an inexperienced lieutenant, I had no idea about the complexity of how we gather, investigate, protect, and exploit sensitive information. Understanding how the various levels of classification interact and the human, physical, and automated systems we use to both disseminate and protect sensitive information takes time. Individuals with no experience must willingly take the time to learn how all this works, and accept the guidance of more experienced individuals.

Second, when we grant prideful individuals access, we assume great risk. Hubris leads individuals to believe that they know better. Our current cultural milieu tends to disdain education and experience. Large swaths of our society disregard not only those with more training and experience but the process of gaining knowledge and understanding. Disrespect for the systems, processes, and procedures leads to taking shortcuts and inevitable mistakes. In the realm of national defense and shortcuts and mistakes lead to lost opportunities and lives. An enemy just knowing that we know puts lives in peril. In this arena, we must take long-term goals and objectives into account.

  Third, people in leadership must act responsibly. If our overarching objective is to tear down and destroy without a clear picture of what the new looks like, then we often ruin things that we truly want to keep. Reductions in force may be a necessary and laudable goal, but great responsibility requires the ability to manage a variety of often competing requirements. Understanding this and making appropriate and responsible decisions takes intellectual and emotional maturity; traits normally born out of long experience.  Those who are simply infatuated with the exercise of power often take steps or shortcuts which do not serve our nation well. 

This world is a dangerous and complicated place. Understanding how to best use and leverage our enormous power takes great wisdom. Simply swaggering around and assuming that you know better because of a title granted not from experience, but from political expedience, does not serve the nation well. A myopic viewpoint which acts without careful consideration misses opportunities and frequently embraces vulnerabilities through impetuousness. Those in positions of power and leadership must forgo arrogant belligerence and assuming that they know better simply because they express disdain for those and what came before. Positions of great responsibility and power require teachable leaders equipped with wisdom and patience. Positions, such as the Secretary of Defense, require much more than simple fealty to the president and a desire to raze things to the ground. We need thoughtful men and women who not only seek to implement the President’s agenda but also keep the nation’s safety in mind.