http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm

Posted by: Matt Hartzell | June 10, 2008 1:50 PM

Rose Marie,
You could always shred the check if you don't think you deserve it. Though the fact that you decided to donate the money to charity rather than shred it (or give it back to the govt) raises an interesting bias on your part that I would urge you to consider: your own actions indicate that you'd rather see your money in a charity's hands than the government's. Why?

Posted by: jesse | June 10, 2008 2:02 PM

I agree with Chris (well, I think there are 3 things in the list, not 1, but I am nitpicking). The federal government is funded by my tax dollars, and I am not in debt to those people. I still applaud and admire sending your stimulus check to people in need (mine went to bills). And of course I believe that we all have an obligation to care for those in need. But there is a difference between debt and charity. I just reject the sense of entitlement that seems to be so pervasive these days.

Posted by: Amy | June 10, 2008 2:33 PM

I respect and admire Rosie Marie's decision and I largely agree with the sentiments expressed in her column. But our family will be keeping our stimulus check and using it to pay for health care. We are fortunate enough to be one of the American families that does have health insurance, but our insurance company does not cover the type of care I currently need. We will be spending every penny of the rebate check to pay for doctor's visits and medications. For our family, this check is an answer to prayer and we are grateful for it.

Posted by: Rachel | June 10, 2008 4:44 PM

"It is the church's job to spend money on programs of social uplift, not the government's."

I believe the job belongs to all of us, Chris.

Posted by: Paul | June 10, 2008 5:07 PM

Just to point out that, with unemployment rapidly rising, and state and local governments cutting programs and laying off staff, the economy could use some stimulus; this is precisely the situation in which deficit spending is economically useful. That said, my check went to Habitat for Humanity; they'll put it right to work.

Posted by: David in Nashville | June 10, 2008 6:00 PM

Thank You Rose Marie...

My sentiments exactly.

To a charity of my choice...good idea. I'd considered sending it back with a similar letter but why keep throwing good after bad...

Posted by: pedsrn | June 11, 2008 6:14 AM

Posted by: Paul | June 10, 2008 5:07 PM
"It is the church's job to spend money on programs of social uplift, not the government's.

I believe the job belongs to all of us, Chris."

Yes, the job belongs to each individual, not a group. When individuals band together as a group, like a church, then it's a group effort. But ultimately it must be an individual effort. The government taking our tax dollars and spending it on anything not clearly spelled out in the Constitution is wrong. And it's theft.

If you want money to be given to a specific charity then please, by all means, give and give generously. But don’t confuse personal charity with government vote-buying.

Posted by: Chris | June 11, 2008 5:32 PM

Defense...........................730.8
TOTAL.............................730.8

Health Care.......................925.1
Education.........................848.2
Welfare...........................445.2
Social Security...................615.7
TOTAL............................2834.2

Umm, what is your source for these figures? And what year(s) are you talking about?

Posted by: Don | June 11, 2008 8:05 PM

Posted by: Don | June 11, 2008 8:05 PM

Umm, what is your source for these figures? And what year(s) are you talking about?

Google it - there are several sites that will give you more or less the same info. If we were not at war in Iraq - the Defense budget would be considerably less.

Back in the 80's we could have given every family on Welfare $40,000.00 a year with no problem. We were collecting 4 times that ammount and still had the problem. I don't think I want to know what it is today...

Blessings -

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 11, 2008 9:14 PM

Posted by: Don | June 11, 2008 9:57 PM

usgovernmentspending.com

these figures are fed - state - local, gov spending for fiscal 08

Blessings -

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 12, 2008 9:30 AM

I have heard the expression, "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" all of my life. Would someone enlighten me as to exactly what this means?

Posted by: Oak | June 12, 2008 11:57 AM

I and I, thanks for the welcome. You're right; I'm new to posting here. And if this is how you welcome newbies I'm not sure I want to stick around for what comes next!

Haven't you heard of a difference of opinion? I'm interested in hearing all opinions even if I think they're misguided. My posts have expressed my opinion. I haven't been negative, nor have I called anyone names or assumed I know the motives behind posters with whom I disagree.

I would appreciate it if you'd drop the sarcasm and engage in thoughtful debate. Thanks.

Posted by: chris | June 12, 2008 2:34 PM

Posted by: Steven K | June 12, 2008 4:29 PM

Rose Berger was taking her numbers from federal spending, of which more than half is spent on Defense.

I believe that she is leaving out a lot that does play into the mix - that is OK. I did not see a budget item for 'Polar bear' so I could not comment on that one. Although - the Polar Bear population in the 50's and 60's was about 5000 give or take a few hundred. Now they are more than 25,000+ that we know of so I am not sure what they are using for stats to prove that the population is decressing. My brother lives up there and laughs at most of what is being said down here. None of their commercials are running up there.

Blessings -

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 12, 2008 4:57 PM

Chris - out of curiousity (no attack, I just don't get what you're saying) :

Which one are you saying _is_ the govts responsibility & why aren't at least most of the others?

***
"You have outstanding bills with:

a) 47 million people in the United States without health insurance

SR (me): Sounds right to me - US citizens are missing out on the sort of public health care that the Australian and European and many (most) other OECD (western) nations provide for their people. Sems fair to say this one is right.

b) 27 million Iraqis

SR : Well we - or the federal govt - did invade and occupy their nation. Okay their not US citizens but if you take over a place & hurt other people don't you think you owe them something for fixing the damage? (Not that lives lost can ever be fixed.) :-(

c) 35.5 million Americans living without adequate food

SR : Isn't seeing that most US citizens have enough proper food at least partly the govts responsibility? Ok some responsibility goes to the individuals too here but .. surely feeding its citizens, the people ".. for whoem and by whoem" we're supposed to be governed should be a priority?

d) 744,000 people in the U.S. without a place to live

SR : Again, see my comment for c) above.

e) 2.9 million disabled U.S. veterans

SR : & the same applies even more so to those who risked their lives and lost their limbs for the sake of thatgovt & following its orders.. The veterans of wars (incl. Iraq should suerly be honoured, respectedand properly looked after -even if their political masters who sent them into illegal and counter-productive wars are arguably guilty of war crimes and deserve tobe treated as such.

f) at least one polar bear"

SR : Now okay, this is the weakest one. Polar bears aren't US citizens, don't even really live on US soil - & why the one polar bear and not either all or none beats me. But the US policies onglobal warming mean that we do share atleast some responsibility for their plight if the majority of scientists are right - and evidence most agree says they are.

As far as I can see, only one of those listed is the true concern of the federal government.
- Posted by: chris | June 10, 2008 1:19 PM
***

As far as I see it at least a) b) c) & d) are indeed at least ethically if not legally owed "the true concern of the federal government."

As for e) well its weaker case but I do see some justification in that we owe all Creation our best stewardship and all other living things esp. at the mammal level. It wouldn't necsesarily be my priority because people come first but doing something useful and creative to see polar bears don't go extinct seems wise to me. (Esp. if we're the one's who've put them at risk - & I think we are.)

So which ones do you think aren't owed & why?

Posted by: StevoR | June 13, 2008 12:08 AM

a) 47 million people in the United States without health insurance

but anywhere from 42% to 57% according to federal agencies could have insurance but elect not to.

b) 27 million Iraqis

this has been debated at length on this site -

c) 35.5 million Americans living without adequate food

why? could it be that there parents are gambling, drinking, smoking or injecting the pay/welfare check? happens all the time in the Twin Cities.

d) 744,000 people in the U.S. without a place to live

they could have a place - but again what are they doing with their money and is that the cause. I feel sorry for the children but the adults - not so much. My friend bailed his daughter's family out because they were loosing the house because of failure to make their payments. (gambling) They gambled the money he gave them to catch-up the payments. When they got kicked out - he took the grandchild in his home.

e) 2.9 million disabled U.S. veterans

Clinton stripped away over 33% of their benefits while in office - we need to honor them for their service.

f) at least one polar bear

I would like one mounted on my wall in my office. (just kidding - )

I will have have worked on behalf of several people that would fit into one or more of these catigories. But some are there because they just went stupid even when people told them that what they were doing was destructive. To quote that great humanitarian - Larry the Cable Guy. "Your can't fix stupid".

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 13, 2008 8:07 AM

I deeply appreciate Rose's letter. It marvelously blends issues of justice, greed, taxes, and charity with an audacious humor that helps the words touch our human conscience.

Having an outstanding debt with at least one polar bear is a poet's way of raising the ethical, if not constitutional, obligation to deal with global climate change.

Most of us have no idea how our tax dollars are used. As the former Director of the Peace Tax Fund Campaign (www.peacetaxfund.org), I learned a lot about how spending priorities drive individual conscience. I recommend three sites for those who want to know:
www.nationalpriorities.org
www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
www.wallstats.com

The figures I use here come from the amazing "Death and Taxes" poster created by Jess Bachman.
The U.S. is over $10 trillion in debt, most of which resulted from unbudgeted wars.
The annual $250 billion Social Security surplus is used to subsidize other government spending, making the $600+ annual deficit appear smaller.

Of the $1182 billion Federal Discretionary Budget (where most of our income taxes go), $799 billion (68%) is used for the Department of Defense and Global War on Terror while the remaining 14 Federal Departments and scores of other agencies compete for the remaining $383 billion (32%).
So an extra $.831 billion to research the Air Forces's Next Generation Aerial Refueling Aircraft or a 62% increase in the Army's budget for more CH-47 Chinook helicopters are offset by cutting over a billion dollars from the Health and Human Services Department or slashing 55% from the already measly $.3 billion Corporation for Public Broadcasting budget.

Sojourners has long-claimed that the federal budget is a moral document which reveals where our national priorities and allegiance really lie. In the same spirit that leads some citizens of conscience to redirect tax dollars to meet human needs, let us renew our efforts of justice AND charity, knowing God holds both governments and individuals responsible for acting on what they know.

Posted by: Alan Gamble | June 13, 2008 12:17 PM

The Constitution, if I recall correctly, says something about passing laws for the general welfare. I know it says something about defending us. Three thousand peole died on 9/11. But every year, over 20,000 Americans die because they can't afford healthcare. That's about 150,000 since 9/11. They are not all old people - our infant mortality rate is the highest of any developed nation. They are not all a bunch of profligates who don't choose to work. I am the office manager in a doctor's office. One of our patients is facing bankruptcy, though he has worked hard all his life, because he has a heart condition and cannot afford insurance. He will also die sooner than he would have with insurance because he has not been able to buy all the pills and preventive care he should have had. He is a single parent with minor children.
Those of you who feel entitled to your financial security and haven't faced problems such as these just may be a bit worried that it COULD happen to you. I believe that if we work together, we can all live in harmony and, not luxury, but health and happiness. As isolated individuals, we just worry and rationalize.
Maybe we should consider the 20,000 plus deaths each year and decide where our money can best be spent.

Posted by: p j batchelder | June 14, 2008 4:20 PM