Promises, Promises!
Our problem with the cost of government — most particularly with the juggling of deficits — grows out of a tragically false and illogical concept of what government is supposed to be. And that same concept is yet another mark of our national and — all too often — personal biblical illiteracy. Our present national economic crisis springs in part from the wild, irresponsible and ruinous spending habits that have come to characterize our government at virtually every level.
Corruption, greed, collusion, lack of scruples, misguided philanthropy, a naive, unscriptural and do-good concept of social responsibility — plus, now and then, sheer stupidity — combine all too often to make our government a shockingly inefficient and ruinously costly indulgence. One of the remarkable aspects of our democracy is the fact that our spendthrift concept of government is grudgingly tolerated by the relatively intelligent but demonstrably masochistic citizens who bear without complaint the burden of its costs.
If it has not yet become one of those "laws" — like Murphy's or
Page 38
Demetrius's — then perhaps it is time we recognize this truth as such: no matter how trivial or how impromptu the cause for finding additional "temporary" government revenue, once the addition to the budget has been made the secularists who largely control the political apparatus inevitably will declare it a fixed and essential expense.
Demand an Alternative to "More Money"
For this and other reasons, Christians simply are not obliged to accept at face value the proposition that our government must forever find new sources of revenue in order to function effectively. That increasingly frantic search for revenue leads inevitably to a lowering of public scruples as to how we get it. There always are alternatives other than "more money," but too few will shoulder the responsibility of finding them. Ever seeking new sources of public revenue serves only to exacerbate the reckless spending problem and create the need for yet more money to pay the bills.
The ruling faction in the American political system can always dream up novel ways to spend newly discovered revenue — either on themselves, on their political allies, on their social theories or on whatever it takes to perpetuate themselves as officeholders. Under the protective mantle of "separation of church and state," they are careful to see that it is not spent on advancing the Kingdom of God.
"But," the proponent of legalized casinos and state lotteries is inclined to argue, "when we talk about legalizing gambling we are talking about reducing the cost of government. We're talking about huge sums of money
Page 39
pouring into state coffers — tax money from casinos and the state's 'take' from lotteries. The whole point here is to get money for things like education, roads and our elderly without the necessity of new taxes. With this new source of revenue we will certainly reduce the tax load."
New Ways to Spend Are Only a Few Steps Behind
But pledges that lotteries and casinos — or whatever form of gambling we legitimize — will reduce the citizen's tax load are specious at best. At worst, they are deliberate deceptions. Again and again they have yet to reduce the actual cost of government to the private citizen wherever they have been tried. After more than half a century of casino revenue, Nevada still finds it necessary to levy a 5 percent sales tax on all retail purchases. It has no better schools, no better roads, no more generous senior citizen benefits than most other states. The citizens of lottery states find they pay as much in taxes as they ever did; their state just spends more. In government, those who think up new ways to spend government revenue are only a few steps behind those who engineer new ways to rake it in.
Gambling — the motivation of greed notwithstanding — has indeed demonstrated it's ability as a source of significant revenue to help meet that relentless demand for more government services. That ability would have merit, however, only if meeting that demand were our chief legitimate concern. It is not; our concern is to redefine the role of government and lower the cost. We need a serious legislative crusade to lift the tax burden.
Page 40
Rather than lower costs, revenue from legalized gambling enterprises serves all too often to escalate extravagance in government spending.
The apparent motivation for some who favor legalized casinos or a state-sponsored lottery is the reasoning that all this new revenue for the state will come from the pockets of someone else, from a source as yet untapped. Therefore, it will save the rest of us money. Though they may be an endangered species, a few rational citizens do act logically on their awareness that insuperable odds rob them of any logical expectation of emerging substantial long-term winners. Those whose decisions are governed by that rationality are not likely to indulge in the wagering game. If they favor legalized gambling, therefore, it is because they see it as a discriminatory tax on their less rational fellow citizens who do indulge — and that makes them glad.
"Love . . . does not pursue selfish advantage," Paul wrote in his classical definition of agape. "It does not keep account of evil or gloat over the wickedness of other people. On the contrary, it shares the joy of those who live by the truth" (1 Cor. 13:5-6 Phillips).
A Tax on Those Who Risk Their Financial Stability
Some thoughtful Americans are beginning to contend that we are taxed already at federal, state, county and municipal levels far beyond what can be considered reasonable, fair or even necessary. Each year taxes take a larger and greedier slice of the pie. Support for state lotteries and other legalized and taxed gambling schemes aims at adding yet another digit or two to the
Page 41
cost of government. The fact that the cost is placed on the shoulders — or wallets — of those greedy enough and irrational enough to buck the odds does not make right the inequity. Government revenue from gambling is a tax imposed upon those willing to trade their own financial stability for a spark of hope that someday, against all odds and counter to any logical expectation, they will stumble onto the mythical pot of gold at the foot of the rainbow.
Conscientious Christians cannot justify that irrational shift of responsibility. We must not bow without protest before what proves yet another undermining contradiction to the moral fibre of our nation and to the reality of our faith. Far better to tackle the awesome task of reassessing our personal sense of civic responsibility, recommitting ourselves to a biblical definition of righteousness, reconsidering the purpose of our government as defined in our Constitution — and in Scripture — and bringing its costs under control again.
Perhaps, as we consider the magnitude of the task before us, it will strengthen our resolve to do battle, if — in this next chapter — we take a closer look at the ways both the governing and the governed respond to the lure of megabucks through some of our more corpulent state lotteries. Don't be surprised if it raises eyebrows!
Points to Ponder
1. Read Isaiah 9:6,7; 22:21 and Romans 13:1. Do these verses suggest that government rests in the hands of
Page 42
God? If so, which concept of government seems more biblical: "government is intended to serve the people, and they bear the financial burden of its function" or "people are intended to serve the government, and it bears the financial burden of their function"?
2. Find the text of the Constitution of the United States in an encyclopedia or at your library and read it to determine what our founding fathers had in mind for the government of this nation? Does government today attempt to go beyond the original proposal to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"?
3. Federal taxes on jewelry and airline travel were among the "temporary" taxes levied during World War II as a means of meeting necessary military budget increases. What quirk of human nature accounts for the fact that those taxes still are imposed more than 40 years after we won the war?
4. If you were called upon to redefine the role of government, what philosophy or concept would you consider most in need of change?
5. When revenue from gambling enterprises is used to pay the cost of government, the burden of supporting that government falls upon the shoulders of those who gamble. Does that suggest the possibility of an inequitable system of "taxation" imposed upon greed, desperation and unrealistic expectations?
Chapter Four || Table of Contents