Letter to a Trump Supporter #4: Barack Obama’s Christian Faith

This is the fourth in my series of “Letters to a Trump Supporter,” from correspondence with a family friend who supports Mr. Trump.

Continuing our conversation about Christianity, he sent me a chain email accusing President Obama of silencing Christians and promoting Islam.

Below is my response.

~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr. ——,

Thanks for passing along this email on America’s relationship with prayer. Some of it is true, but not all of it.

President Obama did not encourage schools to teach the Quran for extra credit, for example, and the so-called “Muslim Prayer Day” was not an official event hosted by either Congress or the President, but rather an unaffiliated group of Muslims exercising their right to peaceful assembly.

Actually, I would expect most Americans to be thrilled at the news of Muslims gathering peacefully, since that’s exactly what we’ve been wanting them to do, rather than turning toward violent extremism. “We need to change the face of Islam,” said one of the event organizers, “because we love America.” That sounds to me like something a Republican politician would say.

Similarly, there’s only a grain of truth in the claim that President Obama dismissed the National Day of Prayer ceremony. He never said anything about “not wanting to offend anyone.” George W. Bush is the only president who consistently held a ceremony at the White House. George H. W. Bush only did it once in four years, and Ronald Reagan only did it once in eight years. So they “dismissed” it too.

I have to say, I’m continually shocked at how Christian Americans can accuse President Obama of being anti-Christian, when he has spoken more eloquently about his Christian faith than any president since Lincoln.

I don’t know if you’ve ever read either of his memoirs, but he writes about his conversion to Christianity in great depth and vulnerability. “I felt God’s spirit beckoning me,” he says. “I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

Contrary to accusations that he’s against public prayer, he talks about his desire for it when he first joined a church, “I thought being part of a community and affirming my faith in a public fashion was important.”

He openly admits that his Christian beliefs shape his political decisions, “It’s hard for me to imagine being true to my faith — and not thinking beyond myself, and not thinking about what’s good for other people, and not acting in a moral and ethical way.”

He quotes Saint Augustine and the great theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, showing a rich understanding of the religion that few politicians can equal.

In fact, arguably the most memorable speech of the Obama presidency was his eulogy at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC, where he wove together the American experience and the Christian experience, tracing our Christian values from the Declaration of Independence through Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. to today.

If you haven’t seen it, you really owe it to yourself. Not only is his oratory masterful, but he sings “Amazing Grace,” a testament to his Christian beliefs more powerful than anything I’ve ever seen from an American politician.

But the thing that Republicans should love about this speech, especially in this heated time of racial debate and protests, is how he argues that Christianity teaches us to forgive the white murderer who killed the innocent black Americans whom he’s eulogizing. “The essence of what is right about Christianity is embedded here,” he told his staff before the funeral. “They welcomed the stranger. They forgave the worst violence.”

Those words came from the heart. His speechwriter drafted different words for much of that speech, but the president scratched them out and wrote his own. He explained to the young speechwriter that he knew what he wanted to say because he’d been “thinking about this stuff for 30 years.” This is a man who has dedicated himself to a lifetime of faith with impressive study and contemplation.

It’s not difficult to understand why so many myths have been promulgated about Barack Obama’s faith. He doesn’t look like what many Americans think a Christian looks like, and he takes the freedom of religion enshrined in our Constitution seriously.

But it is difficult to watch him be persecuted for his heritage and his tolerance. At least we can say that, in these experiences, he is following in the steps of many great Christians who have come before him, paving the way toward a kinder, more peaceful future against all the odds.

Best regards,
Anthony

Republicans Want to Replace Obamacare with…Obamacare-Lite?

Americans Trust Democrats Over Republicans on Health CareEver since Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010, the Republicans in Congress have tried to repeal it. This week’s vote was their 50th attempt.

And yet, despite their unyielding opposition, their earnestness rings hollow to most Americans for the simple reason that they have not offered an alternative path to health care reform. Even the party’s own strategists have chastised it for its negative approach, for failing to offer a plan of their own, for obstructing rather than leading.

Finally, their pleas have been answered — in the form of the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act, or “PCEREA,” sponsored by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch, Tom Coburn, and Richard Burr.

At long last, we can answer the simple question that Democrats have been asking Republicans since March 23, 2010: You got a better idea?

Unfortunately, the answer is a disappointing “no.”

The ACA, better known as “Obamacare,” has four major provisions: (1) a ban on price discrimination against sick people, (2) an “individual mandate” requiring everyone to purchase health insurance or pay a fine to the IRS, (3) tax credits for Americans who cannot afford to purchase insurance, and (4) a Medicaid expansion for the poorest Americans who don’t pay enough taxes to qualify for the tax credits.

The PCEREA does away with the first provision right off the bat. The most popular feature of Obamacare, the one that appeals to our basic sense of fairness, is the rule prohibiting insurers from charging different prices to different consumers based on health status. The Republicans would erase this rule, once again making insurance least affordable for the people who need it the most.

With the first provision gone, there isn’t much need for the second one. This is what most people have trouble grasping about the individual mandate: As unpopular as it is, it’s necessary in order to sustain the most popular part of the law. Without an individual mandate, a ban on price discrimination will simply result in insurers charging high rates to everyone, driving all but the sickest consumers out of the market. Insurers can only afford to charge reasonable rates across the board if healthy people are required to buy in.

The PCEREA replaces these two provisions with two new provisions called “continuous coverage” and “auto-enrollment.”

Under “continuous coverage,” Americans would be given a one-time opportunity to buy insurance at prices that aren’t based on health status. So long as they keep this insurance plan for the rest of their lives, they’ll never be discriminated against. If they miss this opportunity — say, by being born after the window passes — they can be discriminated against. If they lose their plan — say, because they change jobs — they can be discriminated against. Basically, “continuous coverage” is a con, a “first come, first serve” lottery that doles out the right to fairness like it’s a privilege, a prize in some twisted game, and then snatches it out from your hands if you fall on hard times or dare to exercise your freedom of choice.

Under “auto-enrollment,” states can sign you up for insurance without your consent, but you can opt out. Basically, the Republicans are assuming that the problem with the insurance market is that Americans are so stupid that they aren’t signing up for insurance that they need and can afford.

Astonishingly, the Republicans have simply taken the provisions of Obamacare and made them temporary — and called it “reform”! We’ll give you fair prices, but only for a little while. We’ll require you to sign up for insurance, but only until you back out.

The third provision confirms this ploy. Just like the ACA, the PCEREA offers tax credits to Americans who purchase insurance on the individual market. The only difference is that the Republicans’ tax credits are far less generous, helping far fewer people.

Finally, the PCEREA addresses Medicaid by restricting its availability to only certain types of Americans, apparently the ones whom the Republicans deem worthy: pregnant women, children, the disabled — but not, for example, working parents. It would also change Medicaid into a block grant program, where it would get a chunk of money every year regardless of how much it needs, leaving most states with tremendous shortfalls during recessions and leaving patients out in the cold when they need help the most.

This last provision is just cruel, but the Republicans can slip it into the bill because the rest of the proposal looks so thoughtful and measured that they’re hoping you won’t notice that it will do almost nothing to address the serious problems ailing our health care system. It is little better than the status quo that existed before Obamacare — and in that sense, they haven’t really offered an alternative after all.

==========

This op-ed was published in the Huffington Post, and an abbreviated version was published in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The Poor Don’t Lie and Cheat Any More Than the Rest of Us

Those no-good, dirty, rotten poor people. They lie, and they steal, and they spend our money.

Or so I’ve been told by readers since my last op-ed column, where I did the math proving that government benefits aren’t generous enough to make people want to be poor.

But you’re just doing the legal math, said one reader. What about what goes on under the table? Surely all that welfare fraud is proof that poverty can be the good life, if only you have the gumption to bilk the taxpayer.

Food Stamp Error RateFirst of all, the government has conducted investigations of fraud in programs like welfare and food stamps, and they’ve found it to be shockingly low. Less than 2 percent of the programs’ budgets get ripped off. That’s lower than the private sector, where the average business loses 5 percent of its annual revenue to fraud.

Second, and perhaps more surprising, investigators have found that the majority of government fraud is committed by the middle class and the rich, not the poor!

After Hurricane Katrina, for example, the investigative reporter Eric Schnurer discovered that most of the $500 million lost to fraud did not go into the pockets of the poor people who lost their homes but rather to the “shifty contractors” who were supposed to be rebuilding the homes.

Similarly, reports Schnurer, “Medicare and Medicaid fraud is largely committed not by patients — very few people are trying to rip off taxpayers to obtain unneeded spinal taps or root canals — but by providers: unscrupulous (or sometimes just incompetent) doctors and hospitals billing for procedures the patient didn’t need or didn’t receive.”

Throw in another $100 billion a year in defense contractor fraud, and you quickly find that fraud is more likely to make the rich richer than it is to make the poor want to be poor. It’s redistribution alright, but the wealth is moving up, not down, the ladder.

Once upon a time, I might have been surprised by these findings, but in writing my new book Letter to the One Percent, I found a consistent pattern in the research literature. Psychologists have conducted many experiments on the rich and the poor, and they’ve found that the rich are less likely to have empathy for other human beings. They’re more likely to break the rules and feel that they’ve earned the right to do so. They’re less likely to think of the moral consequences of their actions, especially when money is involved, and they’re more likely to put their own needs ahead of others’.

The notion that the poor are uniquely morally deficient, it turns out, is completely backward. They’re actually more virtuous, on average, than the rich.

And yet, we have politicians who assume that the poor are less trustworthy and therefore less deserving of our help. On the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, they took to the floor of Congress and criticized “single mothers” and “deadbeat dads” for dropping out of school and having babies and cheating the system. Then they proposed a budget that would cut government benefits for tens of millions of Americans.

Meanwhile, in Florida, they’re fighting a recent court decision that struck down a law requiring drug testing of all welfare applicants. But they don’t seem concerned about corporate executives who apply for billion-dollar subsidies. They’re not clamoring for drug testing doctors who receive Medicare payments or retirees who receive Social Security checks or Congress members who receive six-figure salaries.

Why? Because they assume that the poor are more likely to waste taxpayers’ money on drugs. Well, I’ve got news for them: The rate of illicit drug use is no higher among the poor than it is among the rest of us, and the rate of alcohol addiction is actually lower.

Human nature is human nature. There are liars and cheaters in every walk of life. But the facts are irrefutable: The poor are not poor because they lie and cheat, nor are they responsible for high taxes and mounting debt. If anything, they have contributed less to fraud and waste than the rest of us. The next time you hear Senator Marco Rubio and his Republican colleagues say otherwise, remember: That’s a stereotype, and it’s wrong.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel and Huffington Post.

Do the Math: People Don’t Choose to Be Poor or Unemployed

Long-Term Unemployment HistoryGod, I wish I were poor.

And unemployed. That’s the good life. Poor and unemployed.

I mean, just look at all the cool stuff you get. Medicaid and welfare. Food stamps and unemployment insurance. And don’t forget public housing.

This stuff is so awesome that it’s like a “hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.” That’s what Paul Ryan says, at least, and as the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he’s supposed to know these things, right?

According to Ryan and his fellow Republicans, if I have unemployment insurance, I’ll never want to work again. Senator Rand Paul says it will cause me “to become part of this perpetual unemployed group.” With an average benefit of $269 per week, I’ll be living on Easy Street.

This is a common belief. There’s an email making the rounds from a 54-year-old consulting engineer who makes $60,000 a year and has to pay $482 a month for health insurance under Obamacare, but that’s not his biggest complaint. He’s really upset that his 61-year-old girlfriend who makes $18,000 a year only has to pay $1 a month for health insurance.

He thinks she has it so easy that she can afford to pay more, but he’s wrong.

On average, Americans earning $18,000 a year pay more than $3,000 in taxes, so she really only has $15,000 leftover to pay her expenses. She lives in Monterey, CA, where the average rent and utilities add up to $15,000 a year. So, after paying taxes, rent, and utilities, she’s completely broke. She doesn’t have money for food, let alone health insurance.

The consulting engineer thinks people will choose her lifestyle over his. “Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlub for $20K per year?” he asks. (Nice way to talk about your girlfriend, by the way.) To which I’d like to reply: If being a “schlub” is so attractive, why don’t you do it? Why don’t you quit your engineering job and join the “$20K per year” club?

For that matter, why don’t we all quit our jobs right now and start collecting unemployment insurance? How far do you honestly think we can stretch $269 a week?

I’ll tell you how far: It would cover less than half of the basic necessities for the average American family.

That’s why unemployment makes you more likely to have to borrow money from a friend, withdraw money from your retirement savings, and have trouble paying your medical bills, rent, and mortgage. It makes you more likely to have a stroke or heart attack, lose self-respect, have difficulty sleeping, and seek professional help for anxiety and depression. It makes you more likely to kill yourself, kill others, and drink yourself to death.

And if you’ve been unemployed for more than a few months, most employers won’t even look at your résumé. It doesn’t matter how qualified you are. It’s like you don’t exist anymore.

The last time it was this bad, with long-term unemployment close to 3 percent of the workforce, was the peak of the 1980-81 recession. Back then, the federal government kept extended unemployment insurance in place for almost two more years, until the long-term unemployment rate fell close to 1 percent. In fact, that’s been standard operating procedure for every recession in the modern era, including 1990-91 and 2001. But now, with long-term unemployment as high as it’s been since World War II, Republicans have killed the emergency unemployment insurance program, and they’re fighting Democrats’ efforts to restore it.

They don’t seem to care that there are 2.9 applicants for every job opening. They don’t seem to care that people on unemployment insurance actually spend more time searching for work than their fellow unemployed who are ineligible for benefits. They’re sticking to their story.

On the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, many Americans are still operating under the assumption that people choose to be poor and unemployed, that they’d rather be lazy than rich, that they can afford the basic necessities of life. But the numbers tell a different story.

I don’t wish I were poor. Or unemployed. And I sure don’t wish it on anyone else. If you did the math, neither would you.

==========

This op-ed was recently published in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Huffington Post.