Confessions for Others' Sins
I've added something at the end--6/22/2015.
******************
We're studying the book of Daniel in Sunday School right now, and just recently were assigned chapter nine, where Daniel confesses to God the wrongdoings of the people of Israel. Thirty-two times in that chapter, he identifies with the sins of the people, despite the fact that he personally was not guilty of most of them.
In reading that prayer of confession, I was awed at Daniel's humility. I had never considered the possibility that being the public confessor for a group is part of the job description of a leader, or perhaps for any single member of the group. I'm still not quite sure about all the implications of this.
Daniel knew about the prophecy of impending deliverance for God's people, by way of an end to captivity. Yet, as he surveyed the situation, he realized that the people were no more ready for deliverance than they were at the beginning of their captivity, because they had not yet repented and turned to God.
Apparently Daniel did not beg the people directly to repent. Instead he acknowledged the truth of how things were, sought God's forgiveness, and begged for mercy. God heard his prayer and sent his messenger Michael to tell Daniel that his prayer had been heard and God was already acting to answer the prayer. This tells me that Daniel's prayer was appropriate, and did, in fact, move the hand of God.
***************
I am no leader--certainly not a political leader, but I feel like as a citizen of the state of Kansas, I should perhaps be confessing that we in this state have behaved shamefully. I'm glad if you haven't heard of the fiasco involving our budget and tax situation, but if you have, and wonder what on earth people were thinking, I want to let you know that many people here are figuratively wearing sackcloth and ashes. One legislator dissolved publicly in tears as he tried to apologize for what had happened.
I'll spare you many of the details, but anyone could tell something was amiss when the regular legislative session went on and on and on--till 23 days of overtime had accumulated, for a salary cost to the state of about $900,000.00. It was the longest legislative session in Kansas history.
Lawmakers had to stay until a budget had been approved and fully funded as the law requires, or, as of July 1, the state would no longer have been able to pay any of its employees, pay its bills, or provide its services. Furthermore, the governor had made it clear that he would veto any budget and tax bill of which he did not approve, and if a bill did not reach him before the end of the day last Friday, on Monday he would initiate funding cuts in all departments to insure that the state could continue to function without the $400 million that was still needed to balance the budget.
With a massive shortfall in the state treasury (following a surplus when the present governor came into office), either taxes needed to increase or the budget needed massive cuts. A tea party majority in the legislature could not bring themselves to do either one. One called for breaking a promise and the other looked like political suicide. And so they dithered--until 4:00 AM last Saturday morning.
Part of the backstory is that some legislators were elected in a wave of tea party fervor on the strength of promises that they would never vote in support of any new taxes. In 2012, under the present administration, in a rammed-through, somewhat underhanded way, the state income tax had been abolished on both individuals and businesses. The theory was that if people and businesses could keep more of their earnings, it would be a huge stimulus to the economy, and this increase in economic activity would somehow result in more money in state coffers. Part of this was to come from people having increased purchasing power, which would result in additional sales tax revenue flooding into the state treasury. The theory is known as supply-side economics.
Tax cuts are always popular with people, and it seemed like a good deal--till it didn't. The results didn't develop as advertised. The economy did not roar to life, and the sales tax revenue didn't increase by any appreciable amount. The long and short of it was that the tax cuts resulted in a major state revenue shortfall. People who know about such things declared that it was inevitable, since income tax, one of the three "legs" that provided state revenue, was cut off--the other two being sales tax and property tax.
What to do?
Legislators and common folk began to see that many cherished government services (like funding for good roads and schools and hospitals) would not survive the governor's threatened budget cuts unscathed, and the people would not look kindly on the legislators on whose watch these cuts occurred. Thus the political suicide specter. But there was also the specter for some of having to renege on those earlier promises if these cuts were to be avoided. Enough bitter pills were being manufactured in that cauldron of misery for every legislator to swallow a massive dose. And so they did.
What they decided to do was to raise the sales tax rate across the board, and increase some "sin" taxes by massive amounts--50 cents tax increase on the purchase of a pack of cigarettes, for example. This means that, in the city of Hutchinson, where most of us do our shopping, the combined special taxes, city, county, and state tax on purchases will be as high as 10.1% (at the Hutchinson mall). In other words (unless you're buying cigarettes, in which case one pack will cost more than a dollar in taxes), if you make a $10.00 purchase at the mall, you will pay $11.01 at the cash register. At 6.5 per cent, the overall state sales tax rate is the second highest rate in the nation. It was a plan the governor would not veto, since his prized "no income tax" initiative was preserved.
The cause of a great outcry, and the sackcloth and ashes response, however, is the fact that these elevated sales taxes apply also to food, as they have in Kansas historically. In most states that is not the case. Only Mississippi charges a higher tax rate on food than Kansas. It is for this reason that lower-income people are said to be bearing the brunt of our state's tax policy. A large portion of their income must be spent on food and other necessities, on which they pay a high tax rate. It's true, of course, that their income isn't taxed either, but in many cases it was too little anyway to put them even into the lowest of income tax brackets.
The already-wealthy are said to benefit because their already-high income is not taxed at all, per se, and this formerly significant revenue stream for the state has run dry. The amount the wealthy need to spend for food is only a small portion of the whole of their income, so the great majority of their sales-taxable spending can be assumed to be for nonessential items.
It's more complicated than I'm able to explain here, and I don't claim to know what is best overall. This I regret, though:
1. Lack of foresight on the part of some state leaders
2. Lack of enough humility in some state leaders to say "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I will do all in my power to correct the problem in an equitable, compassionate way."
No confession of sin (or even errors in judgement, simple mistakes, etc.) on the part of the most responsible leaders seems to be forthcoming. For them, I apologize, beg forgiveness and plead for God's mercy.
*******************
Added later:
The Week magazine (June 26, 2015, page 5) gave this story space on their single page that gives the U.S. News at a glance. It was one of only six stories. Their assessment did not enhance the image of Kansas. They noted that the governor insisted that taxes were not increased, and that in totality the average person's tax rate has fallen since 2012. Here are some excerpts from the short news article:
"GOP lawmakers in Kansas have approved the largest tax increase in the state's history in an effort to close a $400 million budget deficit. . . . an analysis from Washington's nonpartisan Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy showed that the poorest 20 percent of Kansans will now pay 1.5 percent more in taxes than in 2012, while the wealthiest 1 percent will pay 1.9 percent less." The last statement directly counters the governor's claim.
******************
We're studying the book of Daniel in Sunday School right now, and just recently were assigned chapter nine, where Daniel confesses to God the wrongdoings of the people of Israel. Thirty-two times in that chapter, he identifies with the sins of the people, despite the fact that he personally was not guilty of most of them.
In reading that prayer of confession, I was awed at Daniel's humility. I had never considered the possibility that being the public confessor for a group is part of the job description of a leader, or perhaps for any single member of the group. I'm still not quite sure about all the implications of this.
Daniel knew about the prophecy of impending deliverance for God's people, by way of an end to captivity. Yet, as he surveyed the situation, he realized that the people were no more ready for deliverance than they were at the beginning of their captivity, because they had not yet repented and turned to God.
Apparently Daniel did not beg the people directly to repent. Instead he acknowledged the truth of how things were, sought God's forgiveness, and begged for mercy. God heard his prayer and sent his messenger Michael to tell Daniel that his prayer had been heard and God was already acting to answer the prayer. This tells me that Daniel's prayer was appropriate, and did, in fact, move the hand of God.
***************
I am no leader--certainly not a political leader, but I feel like as a citizen of the state of Kansas, I should perhaps be confessing that we in this state have behaved shamefully. I'm glad if you haven't heard of the fiasco involving our budget and tax situation, but if you have, and wonder what on earth people were thinking, I want to let you know that many people here are figuratively wearing sackcloth and ashes. One legislator dissolved publicly in tears as he tried to apologize for what had happened.
I'll spare you many of the details, but anyone could tell something was amiss when the regular legislative session went on and on and on--till 23 days of overtime had accumulated, for a salary cost to the state of about $900,000.00. It was the longest legislative session in Kansas history.
Lawmakers had to stay until a budget had been approved and fully funded as the law requires, or, as of July 1, the state would no longer have been able to pay any of its employees, pay its bills, or provide its services. Furthermore, the governor had made it clear that he would veto any budget and tax bill of which he did not approve, and if a bill did not reach him before the end of the day last Friday, on Monday he would initiate funding cuts in all departments to insure that the state could continue to function without the $400 million that was still needed to balance the budget.
With a massive shortfall in the state treasury (following a surplus when the present governor came into office), either taxes needed to increase or the budget needed massive cuts. A tea party majority in the legislature could not bring themselves to do either one. One called for breaking a promise and the other looked like political suicide. And so they dithered--until 4:00 AM last Saturday morning.
Part of the backstory is that some legislators were elected in a wave of tea party fervor on the strength of promises that they would never vote in support of any new taxes. In 2012, under the present administration, in a rammed-through, somewhat underhanded way, the state income tax had been abolished on both individuals and businesses. The theory was that if people and businesses could keep more of their earnings, it would be a huge stimulus to the economy, and this increase in economic activity would somehow result in more money in state coffers. Part of this was to come from people having increased purchasing power, which would result in additional sales tax revenue flooding into the state treasury. The theory is known as supply-side economics.
Tax cuts are always popular with people, and it seemed like a good deal--till it didn't. The results didn't develop as advertised. The economy did not roar to life, and the sales tax revenue didn't increase by any appreciable amount. The long and short of it was that the tax cuts resulted in a major state revenue shortfall. People who know about such things declared that it was inevitable, since income tax, one of the three "legs" that provided state revenue, was cut off--the other two being sales tax and property tax.
What to do?
Legislators and common folk began to see that many cherished government services (like funding for good roads and schools and hospitals) would not survive the governor's threatened budget cuts unscathed, and the people would not look kindly on the legislators on whose watch these cuts occurred. Thus the political suicide specter. But there was also the specter for some of having to renege on those earlier promises if these cuts were to be avoided. Enough bitter pills were being manufactured in that cauldron of misery for every legislator to swallow a massive dose. And so they did.
What they decided to do was to raise the sales tax rate across the board, and increase some "sin" taxes by massive amounts--50 cents tax increase on the purchase of a pack of cigarettes, for example. This means that, in the city of Hutchinson, where most of us do our shopping, the combined special taxes, city, county, and state tax on purchases will be as high as 10.1% (at the Hutchinson mall). In other words (unless you're buying cigarettes, in which case one pack will cost more than a dollar in taxes), if you make a $10.00 purchase at the mall, you will pay $11.01 at the cash register. At 6.5 per cent, the overall state sales tax rate is the second highest rate in the nation. It was a plan the governor would not veto, since his prized "no income tax" initiative was preserved.
The cause of a great outcry, and the sackcloth and ashes response, however, is the fact that these elevated sales taxes apply also to food, as they have in Kansas historically. In most states that is not the case. Only Mississippi charges a higher tax rate on food than Kansas. It is for this reason that lower-income people are said to be bearing the brunt of our state's tax policy. A large portion of their income must be spent on food and other necessities, on which they pay a high tax rate. It's true, of course, that their income isn't taxed either, but in many cases it was too little anyway to put them even into the lowest of income tax brackets.
The already-wealthy are said to benefit because their already-high income is not taxed at all, per se, and this formerly significant revenue stream for the state has run dry. The amount the wealthy need to spend for food is only a small portion of the whole of their income, so the great majority of their sales-taxable spending can be assumed to be for nonessential items.
It's more complicated than I'm able to explain here, and I don't claim to know what is best overall. This I regret, though:
1. Lack of foresight on the part of some state leaders
2. Lack of enough humility in some state leaders to say "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I will do all in my power to correct the problem in an equitable, compassionate way."
No confession of sin (or even errors in judgement, simple mistakes, etc.) on the part of the most responsible leaders seems to be forthcoming. For them, I apologize, beg forgiveness and plead for God's mercy.
*******************
Added later:
The Week magazine (June 26, 2015, page 5) gave this story space on their single page that gives the U.S. News at a glance. It was one of only six stories. Their assessment did not enhance the image of Kansas. They noted that the governor insisted that taxes were not increased, and that in totality the average person's tax rate has fallen since 2012. Here are some excerpts from the short news article:
"GOP lawmakers in Kansas have approved the largest tax increase in the state's history in an effort to close a $400 million budget deficit. . . . an analysis from Washington's nonpartisan Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy showed that the poorest 20 percent of Kansans will now pay 1.5 percent more in taxes than in 2012, while the wealthiest 1 percent will pay 1.9 percent less." The last statement directly counters the governor's claim.
posted by Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige) at
5:48 AM
4 Comments:
I really enjoyed this post. Very thoughtful and balanced. Keep it up.
By
Anonymous, at 6/19/2015
I'm not sure if the above post is spam or not. I'm choosing to assume that it is sincere, but without a signature or more specificity it's a little hard to tell.
By
Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige), at 6/19/2015
Bill is preaching through the book of Daniel. He is ready for chapter 10 this Sunday. It's a fascinating study.
By
Unknown, at 6/23/2015
We studied chapter ten last Sunday. I am finding Daniel really interesting too--especially as it portrays Daniel as a "statesman," as well as a prophet, intercessor, faithful friend, and humble servant.
By
Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige), at 6/23/2015
Post a Comment
<< Home