The Press-Dispatch

December 15, 2021

The Press-Dispatch

Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1437336

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 28 of 32

D-4 Wednesday, December 15, 2021 The Press-Dispatch OPINION Submit Letters to the Editor: Letters must be signed and received by noon on Mondays. Email: editor@pressdispatch.net or bring in a hard copy: 820 E. Poplar Street, Petersburg It is nearly impossible for humans to conceptualize darkness and deaf- ness. Years ago, I took a tour to Mam- moth Cave National Park in Ken- tucky. We were guided far back into a cave where there was no natural light or sound. They would replicate total darkness and silence for the group. We were to remain still and try not to make a sound. Our encounter with total darkness would last one minute. They turned the lights off, and dark- ness enveloped us. It was impossible to recognize where we were or how to get out of the cave; that one min- ute in darkness and stillness seemed like an eternity. It was an eerie experience. The lights came on and we walked out safely and somberly. More than two-thousand years ago, a supernatural cosmic event oc- curred that continues to reverberate to this day. The reason for its signif- icance occurred thousands of years prior when light first appeared. Some people call it the "big bang," others refer to it as "intelligent design," and some call it when "evolution" began. One thing everyone agrees upon is the universe was dark and sound- less. The book of Genesis says that first there was God dwelling in total dark- ness for time incalculable. At some point "God said, Let there be light: and there was light. God saw the light, and it was good, and he divid- ed the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the dark- ness he called Night. And the eve- ning and the morning were the first day." Gen 1:3-5. The apostle John in his Gospel gives us another view. "In [Jesus] was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness compre- hended it not" John 1:4-5. God has given us two lights to walk by. One light is to guide our walk and the other light is to guide our soul. This second light is so im- portant that Jesus said, "Your eye is a lamp, lighting up your whole America should be shining the light of liberty, not government The Biden administration is host- ing, in upcoming days, a "Summit for Democracy," in which 110 nations worldwide have been invited to par- ticipate in this global virtual event. The U.S. State Department notes that the purpose is "setting forth an affirmative agenda for democrat- ic renewal and to tackle the great- est threats faced by democracies through collective action." The Biden administration lists on the White House website as among its priorities "Restoring America's Global Standing." This summit will accomplish ex- actly the opposite. The nations of the world will see on display that those at the helm of leadership in America have barely a clue what their own country is about. And then want to impose their frac- tured understanding of America's mission on the rest of the world. The State Department brings the phrase from the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, "to form a more perfect union," in noting the aims of the sum- mit. But the nations of the world are not part of a union, as are our states, bound by a constitution. They are autonomous nations, each marching to its own drummer, trying to live and, hopefully, thrive together on one planet. The State Department could have picked a much more relevant phrase from the constitution's preamble, to "secure the blessings of liberty." Liberty is the point. And I am sure it is no accident that the Biden ad- ministration chooses to focus on de- mocracy and not liberty. To appreciate the basic difference, we can turn to our Declaration of In- dependence that says that, among our God-given inalienable rights, are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- piness." Then, continues the Decla- ration, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The principles of liberty, on which our great nation was founded, pre- cede government. Men form govern- ment to protect their liberty, not to bestow it or deny it. But liberals love control. They don't love liberty. So, they want to grow government to impose their values, their worldview, on citizens. The State Department states that the themes of the summit are "1) de- fending against authoritarianism, 2) fighting corruption and 3)promoting respect for human rights." If authoritarianism is about gov- ernment imposing itself on individ- uals, what else can we call it when government takes over an increas- ingly large percentage of our eco- nomic activity. In 2000, the U.S. government con- sumed, per the Cato Institute, 17.7% of our GDP — our national econo- my. In 2020, this was up to 32 % . With the passage of the additional tril- lions that Democrats are now trying to move into law, the percent of our economic lives taken over by govern- ment will ratchet up another sever- al percent points. Coupled with state and local government spending, Americans are now turning over al- most half their economic sovereign- ty to government. The fact that the politicians who are enacting these vast government programs were democratically elect- ed simply says that Americans are choosing authoritarianism; they are voluntarily giving up their liberty. The Wall Street Journal notes, for example, that the Build Back Better Act just passed in the House con- tains $555 billion in "grants, cred- its and deductions" for green ener- gy projects. In order to qualify for these funds, firms must pay "prevailing wages." Meaning union wages. Nonunion and small contractors will be shut out. Of course, the reason that this can even happen in a nation founded on the principles of human liberty is be- A different park People want "public" rather than "private." Public is ... free, right? Wide open. Sharing. Available to everyone. All good things. "Private" is ... selfish, closed, for the rich. Clearly, public must be better. But then why do the words "pub- lic toilet" make me cringe? I think: dirty, smelly, ugly, maybe dangerous. Lots of people think that. I know because I watch tourists stare at the long line of people wait- ing to use a public toilet near my of- fice in Manhattan. "Yuck," they say, with a disgust- ed look. "Why would someone line up for that? " "A lot of people say that," laughed a bathroom attendant. Wait, a bathroom attendant? Yes. This is a different sort of bath- room, in a different kind of park. There is ice skating, pingpong, juggling lessons, yoga lessons ... all for free. Two attendants clean the bath- rooms 30 times a day, and the bath- rooms are furnished with flowers and paintings. Speakers play classi- cal music. This is a huge difference from 37 years ago, when Bryant Park was filled with vagrants and trash. It was then that urban redeveloper Dan Bie- derman managed to persuade city politicians to let him try to run the park. He got money from local business- es and tried innovative things, like playing music in the bathrooms. "It's just another element, along with flowers, recessed lighting and artwork, that makes people think they're going to be safe," says Bie- derman in my new video. Safety is important because crime is up. But there's little crime in Bryant Park because crime thrives in dark corners, and this park is filled with people. Plus little businesses like Joe Cof- fee Co. and Le Pain Quotidien. They pay for the park. Some people object to that. "A park isn't supposed to be about business! " they say. Biederman responds, "In the cur- rent state of things you can't have 'passive spaces.' Too many people are circulating who are violent or emo- tionally disturbed." To discourage such people, he fills his park businesses and activities — like the juggling lessons. When lots of people are in a park, he says, va- grancy is less of a problem. Still, he sometimes must deal with troubled people. The worst, he says, are people who take the drug K2 and suddenly get so hot that they take their clothes off. Our guards "guide them out of the park," says Biederman. It all works. Twelve million peo- ple visit Bryant Park every year, and none of it costs taxpayers a penny. Actually, the city makes money, says Biederman, because "the increased real estate taxes paid by the sur- rounding buildings — it's $ 33 mil- lion a year." "Why can't governments do this? " I ask. "They do, at times," he responds. He points to Central Park. But Central Park was rescued by a private charity, one I happen to work with. Before we started managing the park, it, too, was run-down, dan- gerous, covered in trash and graffiti. That often happens to public prop- erty. Politicians rarely spend much time on boring tasks like mainte- nance. "A typical thing for parks depart- ments to do is take old oil drums ... and use them as trash cans," says Biederman. "Oil drums are really ug- ly. What does that say to the public? " He installs elegant trash cans. Then he has them emptied often. "That signifies that someone cares," he explains. Biederman runs "private" parks in other places, like Salesforce Park in San Francisco and Fair Park in Dal- las. All save taxpayers money, while government-run parks cost taxpay- ers money. When government does things, most everything costs more and is lower quality. One of my first Stossel T V videos was a report on an NYC park that How would you feel about Con- gress snatching away your cred- it card or preventing you from par- ticipating in credit card reward pro- grams? Don't laugh. Left-wing groups in Washington are declaring that the plastic card in your wallet is the fi- nancial villain that needs to get reined in. A new study from researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston finds that credit card reward pro- grams are unfair because they cre- ate "an implicit money transfer" to wealthy cardholders from lower-in- come people who buy things with cash or debit cards. The study infers that consumers who pay with plastic and rack up re- ward points receive a $756 "subsi- dy" per year, while the poorer peo- ple who pay with cash pay $23 more. Egads. That's the price of a movie ticket. Left-wing agitators have asked the Federal Reserve Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bu- reau to do something about these in- equities. Don't be surprised if con- gressional members who hate credit card companies, including Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, call for regulations or cancellations of reward programs. These groups have invented a clev- er new term for this supposed injus- tice: the "reverse Robin Hood" effect. But reward pro- grams are the ultimate win-win marketing in- vention. First, they are popular with consum- ers — millions diligent- ly accumulate points so they can win free vaca- tions, home appliances, first-class upgrades on airline flights and oth- er freebies. They are a modern version of the old S&H Green Stamps program that was popular with shoppers for almost 100 years until the late 1980s, in which the more things you bought, the more green stamps you were awarded for purchasing other items. Merchants love the programs be- cause they encourage people to buy more goods and services at their stores. And the credit card compa- nies get more fees. So what, exactly, is the problem? Nowadays, credit cards are rela- tively ubiquitous. Merchants and re- tailers sponsor roughly 355 million rewards cards in the U.S. market be- cause the benefits of accepting them exceed the cost. These 355 million cards aren't all in the hands of the wealthiest 1% . Limiting or even outlawing these award programs would only ensure that credit cards would be less available to families and that only more afflu- ent people could access credit cards. This would only make the poor worse off. Credit cards are pop- ular because pulling out the plastic is convenient as we move closer every day to a cash-free digital society. That's especial- ly true when a family is temporari- ly short of cash and needs to make emergency purchases. Many rewards cards have no annu- al fee, and the only hurdle is whether one has a good credit score. There are millions of high earners with poor credit scores, and millions of middle-class people with excellent scores. An International Center for Law & Economics study rejected the idea of a "reverse Robin Hood" effect. The ICLE reports that "86 % of cred- it cardholders have active rewards cards, including 77% of cardholders with a household income of less than $50,000." It is entirely wrong to ar- gue that one must be rich to have a House prices are 20 percent high- er than they were a year ago due to lingering supply chain issues, in- creased cost of materials and labor shortages. With housing affordabili- ty threatened, American home build- ers are asking the Biden adminis- tration to temporarily lift tariffs on building materials such as steel and lumber from China and Canada. Duties on Canadian softwood lum- ber have gone on quite a ride in re- cent years, rising to 20.2 percent in 2017 and then settling down to 8.9 percent last year. However, this May, the U.S. Commerce Department an- nounced it was taking steps to boost tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports once again. In late Novem- ber, the Commerce Department re- ported that the average tariff will double, back up to 17.9 percent. These tariffs act as a tax on con- sumers and exacerbate price volatil- ity. Lumber prices skyrocketed this past year, adding almost $ 36,000 to the cost of a new single-fami- ly home. Factor in ongoing supply chain issues, and it's no surprise homebuilding has slowed. The gap between houses under construction and completed houses was the larg- est on record in September. Ultimately, these duties bene- fit only American lumber produc- ers, who seek to protect their mar- ket share. For decades, they have ac- cused Canadian producers of "dump- ing" their lower-priced lumber in the U.S., and every time, international trade arbiters have cleared Canadi- an lumber producers of the charge. Moreover, the U.S. International Trade Commission has found that Canadian lumber imports are not a threat to the American industry, so there's no justification for slapping duties on them. American lobbyists are good at getting what they want, but tariffs are a lousy way to treat any trading partner, much less a close friend and ally. They do no favors for this coun- try either. Jacking up duties on Ca- nadian lumber will result in thou- sands of job losses on both sides of the border, whether it's American home builders or Canadian sawmill workers. These individuals should not be put out of work just to line the pockets of U.S. lumber producers— especially now when both economies are grappling with the economic fall- out from the coronavirus pandemic. When thinking of home builders, it's easy to picture large developers. Still, most National Association of Home Builders members start 10 or fewer homes per year, and about half of them have five or fewer em- ployees. In other words, it's mostly small employers, not faceless corpo- rations, that are suffering. And with governments tending to impose tar- iffs on materials that go into life's necessities, like food, clothing and shelter, it's everyday consumers who Race for the Cure By Star Parker Give Me a Break John Stossel Continued on page 5 Continued on page 5 Continued on page 5 Continued on page 5 Eye on the Economy By Stephen Moore Will Congress take away your credit card? Heritage Viewpoint By Michel Kelly-Gagnon Points to Ponder By Rev. Curtis Bond Raising lumber tariffs will hurt Americans Concepts of Darkness and Light Continued on page 5 Court

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of The Press-Dispatch - December 15, 2021