The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that a total of 101,000,000 people currently participate in at least one of the 15 food programs offered by the agency, at a cost of $114 billion in fiscal year 2012.
That means the number of Americans receiving food assistance has surpassed the number of private sector workers in the U.S.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there were 97,180,000 full-time private sector workers in 2012.
The population of the U.S. is 316.2 million people, meaning nearly a third of Americans receive food aid from the government.
Farmer Joel Salatin is a rising star in the slow food world for his appearances in the documentaries Food Inc., Fresh, and in Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma. What gets minimized or overlooked in these treatments are Salatin’s Christian, capitalist and libertarian leanings.
Michael Miller had the chance to explore this under-reported side in an interview with him at his farm in Virginia. Some choice bits from their conversation are at Salatin’s PovertyCure Voices page, and you can see video excerpts from the interview in the PovertyCure DVD Series.
Also, former Acton intern Elise Amyx recently had the chance to interview the self-described “Christian-libertarian-environmentalist-capitalist-lunatic-Farmer.” In the first of a three-part series, she describes Salatin as “a farmer of faith … dedicated to holistic stewardship in order to heal creation for a higher purpose.” In the same piece, Salatin describes his approach this way:
Every day I pray, “Lord, let me operate this farm exactly like you would if you were here in person.” It’s a ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ situation, realizing that the land is holy; indeed, all of creation can be sanctified by our interaction with it.
We live in a country where many believe that business leaders are greedy while politicians are benevolent. This is why they put so much confidence in government to meet society’s needs instead of in the private sector. That is, business men and women look out for their own “selfish” interests where as politicians are generally good-natured people who look out for the interest of the other as an innate disposition.
Time and time again, however, we are confronted with the reality that if business people can be greedy, then so can politicians. Why? Because both roles are occupied by real people who are morally flawed and need accountability. The key difference between the two is that business people can be greedy with money that is earned by themselves or their employees whereas politicians are greedy with money that is taken from other people under threat of being thrown in jail. American taxpayers would be wise to remember, then, that politicians are morally flawed people who, when given the opportunity, will pursue their own financial self interests like anyone else. Why? Because they are human and power has a corrupting influence for those in national as well as local politics.
The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, for example, reports that East Point, Georgia (an adjacent suburb to the city of Atlanta) cannot account for $200 million taken from taxpayers.
Both the working poor and small businesses got some welcome, albeit temporary, news yesterday: the Treasury Department announced it is delaying what’s called the “employer mandate” under the Affordable Care Act until January of 2015.
That mandate requires companies with more than 50 full-time employees to offer health insurance or pay a $2,000 penalty. Most businesses with more than 50 employees already offer insurance, but smaller companies and startups often cannot afford the cost.
Even some supporters of Obamacare admit this mandate was a bad idea. As the Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein says, “it creates an incentive against hiring more full-time workers, and for cutting the hours of some of the full-time workers you already have. This was obvious from the day it was introduced.”
Wes Selke thought he might be called to seminary. Instead, he wound up in business school. That doesn’t mean he’s any less filled with a sense of mission and purpose.
An article in Christianity Today has Selke discussing his desire as a Christian to invest in social entrepreneurship and how his faith and his work life intertwine. As co-founder of Hub Ventures, Selke seeks to help entrepreneurs get off to a solid start through a 12-week, intensive training course. He also sees his work as worship:
Selke is an investor who views his work as a form of worship. But worship isn’t just where you might expect. For some, a mall can be a modern temple, complete with iconography and rituals, a false faith of consumerism directed at shaping people’s desires. For Selke, worship is embracing capital as a means of achieving human flourishing, an outpouring of his talents in finance and his faith in God.
“The market is a great servant but a horrible master,” says Selke, paraphrasing 20th-century missiologist Lesslie Newbigin. “Our culture tends to become slaves to the market and greed, when in reality the market should be our servant in attaining the best allocation of goods and services.”
Selke believes that by investing in entrepreneurial ventures, he can do good in the world and practice stewardship by creating profit.
“Impact investing is a holistic view of profits, the planet, and people. It’s the stewardship of resources,” Selke says. “Christians thinking about ways to leverage their resources are called to make sure their capital is doing good.”
Over at Mediate.com we have the opportunity to see one of America’s famed black public intellectuals provide another example of unreasonable commentary. Michael Eric Dyson, University Professor of Sociology at Georgetown University, in response to the recent Supreme Decision striking down one section of the 1965 Voting-Rights Act said that Clarence Thomas joining the majority opinion is like “A symbolic Jew [who] has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people.” Dyson also believes it is asinine that, in America “we should trust [Southern] states to police themselves.” Whites simply cannot be trusted.
One has to wonder why a network like MSNBC would want this type of commentary, but it is important to understand what Dyson is implying. It is pretty well known that black progressives hate all the things that Clarence Thomas represents, so we should not be surprised that Dyson would criticize anything Thomas did. However, to accuse Thomas of being like a self-hating Jew who wanted Hitler to kill his own people is beyond ridiculous. If I were Jewish I might even be offended at the reduction of comparing the Holocaust to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Perhaps for the first time in American history, orthodox and traditional Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others may need to form a new alliance in order to defend their religious liberties in an America that’s increasingly less tolerant of principled diversity.
Religious and cultural progressives, secularists, and militant atheists pose a significant threat to religious freedom all in the name of “fairness.” What is not “unfair” is that religious communities are not free to not embrace cultural morality. In the coming years, fairness will be forced upon traditional religious groups by progressives (secular and religious) to destroy religious liberty. Religious communities that hold to classical teachings will not necessarily have their freedom directly undermined by a single President, specific laws in Congress, or maybe not even judicial activism, but primarily by the unchecked power of government regulatory agencies who operate essentially as our fourth branch of government.
India’s best-known heart surgeon was interrupted during surgery to make a house call. “’I don’t make home visits,’ ” said Devi Shetty, “and the caller said, ‘If you see this patient, the experience may transform your life.’ ” The request came from Mother Teresa, and the experience did change his life. Shetty’s most famous patient inspired the cardiac surgeon and healthcare entrepreneur to create a hospital to deliver care based on need, not wealth.
In 2001, Shetty – who the Wall Street Journal has given him the title of Henry Ford of heart surgery — founded Narayana Hrudayalaya (NH), which Fast Company magazine describes as “Walmart meets Mother Teresa.” Today, NH is one of India’s largest multi-specialty hospital chains and has created a record of performing nearly 15,000 surgeries on patients from 25 foreign countries. The hospital group believes it can soon cut the cost of heart surgery to a mere $800 per procedure.
If it can be done in India, why can’t it be done in the U.S.?
It could — maybe — but we’d need to learn the following lessons from India’s most innovative hospital:
Today at Acton University, Fr. Michael Butler gave an engaging lecture on the subject of Orthodoxy and natural law. Despite the contemporary ambivalence among many Orthodox (if not hostility) toward natural law, Fr. Michael argues that it is present in the Eastern Tradition from the ancient to the medieval and modern periods, focusing especially on the thought of the seventh century Byzantine Saint Maximus the Confessor.
A few months ago, I observed,
While it may be that there are important differences between a Thomist understanding of natural law and an Orthodox understanding of natural law, the historic difference is most assuredly not that Thomists accept it while the Orthodox do not.
Fr. Michael’s research further strengthens this statement and helpfully highlighted some of the similarities and differences between natural law in St. Maximus and that in Aquinas. The audio of his lecture will be available on Ancient Faith Radio in the coming weeks, but in the meantime I will briefly share some of Fr. Michael’s insights here. It’s a little heady, but worth consideration. (more…)
As long as I live under the capitalistic system, I expect to have my life influenced by the demands of moneyed people. But I will be damned if I propose to be at the beck and call of every itinerant scoundrel who has two cents to invest in a postage stamp.
This, sir, is my resignation.
As the economist Walter Williams once observed, in the market system you don’t have to love your neighbors, you just have to serve them, even if they happen to take the form of an “itinerant scoundrel who has two cents to invest in a postage stamp.” That, apparently, was something that Faulkner just couldn’t tolerate.