Feast of Ignatius of Loyola

Happy Feast of Ignatius of Loyola! This is a link to a [2007] blog post about Ignatius, his feast, his rooms in Rome (which I had the joy of visiting), some new statues, the Infanta Juana, and related topics. I just fixed about half a dozen broken links, so everything should work.

This comes with deep gratitude to the worldwide Ignatian community.

Cross-posted on Facebook.

The Debt Debate in a Nutshell

[N.B.: In one sense, I regret having to put up so many recent posts on a single topic -- a topic that does not even have anything directly to do with the Anglican Communion, or with ECUSA. (Please note that reservation: I said directly. Indirectly, of course, if this country goes down the tubes at this particular point, ECUSA will follow it a short year or so later. Even Trinity Church in New York City, the primary landlord of Wall Street, will not be immune from the consequences, and the repercussions from the United States could well sink the Church of England and the current Anglican Communion, to boot.)

[Nevertheless, on reflection, and properly understood, the current debt crisis is, I humbly submit, the single most important moment in the history of these United States since Lord Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown in 1783. I would feel greatly remiss if I failed to convince one single reader of this point, and at the same time failed to give him or her the ability (and the ammunition) to converse responsibly about what is going on. Therefore, let us soldier on: Herewith, one more post about the debt debate -- which, I promise, will be not much longer than this Introduction.]

Given that the House of Representatives has now sent to the Senate not one, not two, but three separate bills to deal with the current debt limit/budget impasse; and

Given that the President's current proposed budget was a non-starter, which would have continued the year-to-year deficit at an unsustainable $1.2 trillion (with still greater deficits to come), and which even the Democrat-controlled Senate defeated by a 97-0 vote; and

Given that the Senate on their own, under Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid, has ducked their responsibilities, for which (for heavens' sake!) we pay them each nearly $175,000.00 per year, to negotiate and pass (let alone, say, propose) a budget for the Government's operations -- for over 821 days now (translation to the common tongue: 821 days is two years, three months, and one day); and finally,

Given that the Senate just tabled the third proposal in the last four months to resolve the current crisis, laid before them by their colleagues in the House, with no counter-response whatsoever, and that they did so because both the President and Senate Democrats want a free pass until after the next election, which the Republicans are not minded to give them, at the country's expense;

Then the current debate over the budget/debt limit boils down to this, in a nutshell:

Democrats: "You won't compromise with us to guarantee that we do not have to face this issue in nine to twelve months, right when the 2012 elections will be heating up. You meanies want to make this an issue for our re-election, right at the time when our actions will be fresh in everyone's mind. That's so rigid, so 'right-wing radical,' so terrorist of you, to hold our Government hostage for such a small 'gimme', which would demonstrate to our captive media that you are the namby-pambies and RINOs we privately say you are." (That last dependent clause, of course, is unspoken, but is implied in the stakes of the debate.)

Republicans: "It's not our job to help you get re-elected, so that you can continue on your mission to 'save life on this planet as we know it today.' We have been elected to represent the best interests of the country as a whole, and not just the interests of you Democrats who will face re-election. The country can no longer afford what you are doing. So if you want to prevent a default over the money your non-budgets have committed us to borrow just since January 1 of this year, you had better take our bill off the table, and pass it."

That is it, folks -- that's what all the spilled ink and gaseous rhetoric comes down to, after piercing through all the ad hominem jibes and the supercilious appeals to "bipartisanship". For anyone who needs a picture of the difference between the two parties' approaches to spending (once again, in defiance of all the spin stories promoted by the captive media), then please take a look at this one -- as always, click to embiggen:

You now have a ready, handy-dandy translation of all the rhodomontade to which you are currently being exposed, and will continue to be exposed in the days to come. This is a public service, happily provided in the interest of true understanding, by your trusty Anglican Curmudgeon (who won't deny that there is a religious element to all of this debate -- having to do, don't you know, with such currently out-of-fashion concepts as "stewardship"). That, however, is a topic for another day -- if, God willing, we survive the present ones.

[UPDATE 07/30/2011: The lawyers in the audience should find intriguing this analysis by Michael Stern of the tangled constitutional arguments about the need to raise the debt ceiling.]

[UPDATE (#2) 07/30/2011: It going down to the wire, folks. Hot Air has an open thread following the events in real time, with an excellent presentation of the procedural pitfalls, and the strategies being adopted on each side to avoid them. Also, don't miss Keith Hennessy's backgrounder on the President's apparent fallback strategy -- at least, as much of it as can be gleaned from reading between the lines. Finally, if you are sick and tired of all the gamesmanship going on, you might want to let off steam via Mark Levin's great rant (mp3).]

[UPDATE (#3) 07/30/2011:

A fantastic speech today, from the floor of the Senate, by the junior Republican from Florida -- the exchange with Senator John Kerry alone is a priceless example of what's at stake:

As long as a few of our legislators can get it as well as Sen. Rubio does, there may be some hope yet!]

[UPDATE 08/01/2011: For all those who have patiently waded through all the back-and-forth posturing, accusations and demagoguery, Havoc on the Hill has a perfectly marvelous pictorial summation of the process which is worthy of our own Christopher Johnson (it's not entirely safe for work, so a mild caution is in order). H/T: Above the Law]

This Fragile Earth, Our Island Home: An Ecological Spirituality of Lament and Hope

There's still room!

This Fragile Earth, Our Island Home:

An Ecological Spirituality of Lament and Hope

a weekend retreat-conference

led by Jane Carol Redmont

at Adelynrood Retreat and Conference Center

Byfield, Massachusetts

Friday, August 5 - Sunday, August 7, 2011

Spirituality is not only prayer, but practice. It is the way we walk on the earth, work together, build community, honor our bodies and those of others, celebrate and struggle, and listen to the promptings of the Spirit.

Today’s environmental realities call us to examine anew how we live on this fragile planet as people of faith.

In addition to short lectures, our conference will include time for meditation, prayer, sharing of resources, and personal and group reflection.

We will focus especially on the themes of lament and hope, which will be woven throughout our times of prayer.

We will leave nourished by the insights of theologians –mostly women— from several continents and more deeply aware of Earth’s body, our bodies, and the Body of Christ.

The theologians include Dorothee Soelle, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Ivone Gebara.

Registration information here. Some scholarships are available.

Summer

I have been in and out of town, partly for work and partly for the first real summer vacations (yes, plural) I have had in years.

I have been posting a lot of photos on Facebook, especially from the last trip, which took me to Spokane to speak and lead worship at the Women of the ELCA Triennial Gathering, then to Idaho for a couple of days of R&R including hiking and kayaking (and sleeping!), and finally (via Seattle) to Orcas Island in the San Juan Islands for nearly a week.

Here are a few photos from Orcas. Just a glimpse of the beauty: some views from Mount Constitution and some of my host's land.

As always, you can click on each photo to enlarge it and see more detail.

Madrone tree after the rain...

Washington Is Not Listening -- Let's Give Them Two Reasons to Do So

The Boehner Plan . . . The Reid Plan . . . both of them scarcely distinguishable from each other, yet they fill up and dominate the news from Washington these days. The reason they differ so little is that they are products of the same nursery, or (during these summer days, at any rate) hothouse. Washington is not listening to people outside the beltway, who have actually been there before, and have done this. (That's what happens when you become too accustomed to spending other people's money -- including money that pays for your salary and all your perks -- instead of your own.)

Herewith are two sensible proposals from outside the Beltway, both of which would introduce a novel element of self-interested feedback into trimming wasteful government spending. The first is a short-term one, tailored to the current crisis. The second is a longer-term one, which we could start to implement once we resolve the immediate crisis.

The short-term plan (kudos to Morgan Worstler, at Big Government blog):

No one understands “what” is going to be cut. Saying discretionary spending is going to be cut over ten years sounds like a Nigerian email scam.

So please Boehner, for the love of god, listen to your buddy Morgan…. Just cut federal employee pay.

Give Obama three choices:

1. Cut Federal Employee Pay in every department except Military by $30B per year (off baseline) starting 2012: Ten-year savings $300B

2. Cut Federal Employee Pay in every department except Military by $60B per year (off baseline) starting in 2012: Ten-year savings $600B+

3. Cut Federal Employee Pay in every department except Military by $90B per year (off baseline) starting in 2012: Ten-year savings $1T+.

Make Obama choose. He can’t win.

Tell him that if he chooses low, when the credit card is maxed out again, he is getting the same deal next time. Suddenly, ALL Federal public employees are with our program.

Do you see how simple this is, and how brilliant? Let's let Morgan spell it out:

Overnight, the entire Federal workforce will be desperate to help Republicans make real cuts. Overnight, our “servants” will be finally pushing out the deadwood, over the howls of their union bosses. Let’s get public employee interests aligned with the public.

To give you an idea of how easy these cuts would be, if we cut the full $90B off baseline, Federal Employees would be earning what they last received in 2008. A $30B cut is just paying them what they received this year.

Mr. Speaker, put Federal Employee pay on the chopping block, Americans will be grateful to know where it is coming from… and that is not coming from them. And the Tea Party Freshman will see you know which hostage to take.

The hero takes the bad guy as a “hostage,” and he chooses the bad guy who can actually DIFFUSE THE BOMB.

If we can’t trust Federal Employees to really help Republicans cut spending, they are the bad guys.

Given the overwhelming recent growth in Federal pay, I'd say this cuts right to the source of our current problem, and could be implemented in a heartbeat. Plus, it would teach a very valuable lesson: there is no free lunch on the People's Money. If the People start to hurt as a result of your bozo policies, then you, who devised and implemented those policies, will have to suffer some of that hurt, as well. (Incidentally, as an aside: did anyone else notice the name of the Standard & Poor's executive in charge of reviewing the grade for the government's debt? It's David T. Beers -- no known relation to the PB's Chancellor.)

The long-term plan builds on the same idea, but is even more permanent and fail-proof. I no longer know whom to credit for it; it was proposed by a long-forgotten economist in an article I read in the 70's in an obscure little journal called The Washington Monthly. The basic idea was so good, and so simple to grasp, that I've never forgotten it, although I've forgotten the name of its inventor:

1. The Government announces the creation of a new currency, to exist side-by-side with the dollar.

2. The purpose of the second currency is simple: it will be legal tender, and henceforth, the only legal tender, for all transactions involving the U.S. Government.

a. All payments made by or from the Government will be made only in the new currency.

b. All payments made to the Government (taxes, fees, customs duties, etc.) will also be made only in the new currency.

3. All future government budgets, calculations, projections, etc., will be produced in terms only of the new currency.

4. The dollar will cease to exist as a currency recognized by the U.S. Government. All dollar accounts held at Federal Reserve Banks will immediately be converted into units of the new currency, at an initial ratio of 1:1.

Now, this is the key point -- so read carefully:

5. The dollar will continue to be the basic, and only, legal tender for the private economy. All of our daily business will continue to be transacted in dollars, just as before.

6. In order to deal with the Government, persons holding dollars will need to convert them into the new currency. (We need a convenient name for the new currency. The original author, I remember, suggested the name "Budget Bucks", or "BBs" for short, and that will do fine for now.)

7. All persons having dealings with the Government -- federal contractors, members of Congress and their staffs, the President and his staff, all federal judges and their staffs -- will be paid in BBs, and so they will need to convert them to dollars in order to buy groceries and pay their normal bills.

8. Dollars will freely be convertible to BBs, and vice versa, at all banks, or at local post offices.

And that's it! See how simple it all is, once again? Consider these aspects of the plan:

A. The convertibility of dollars into BBs, and vice versa, will establish over time an exchange rate, which will be set by the market, just as with any foreign currency. (As we saw above, the initial official exchange rate, to be fair, will be exactly 1:1 -- but it will apply only to those holding accounts at Federal Reserve Banks. Immediately thereafter, the BB will be free to float on its own.)

B. If the supply of dollars exceeds the supply of BBs, the latter will grow in value to be worth more than the dollar.

C. But -- and here's the kicker -- if the supply of BBs grows without bounds, due to profligate government spending and "budgets", the value of a given BB will drop in terms of the dollar.

D. And the dollar, freed of its government tether, will actually have a value in proportion to all of the goods and services which people using it create.

The beauty of this plan is that it will let the politicians play with their money -- the BBs in circulation -- all they want, and will divorce from us their ability to mess with our money supply. To the extent the politicians bring their own house into order, and balance their budgets, they will be rewarded in seeing that their salaries are actually worth something in the real world, when they exchange their BBs for dollars. But to the extent they run wild, then the more they try to make up for the loss in BB purchasing power by raising their salaries and perks, etc., the more their BBs will depreciate. As I say, the scheme is self-regulating, and therein lies its simple genius.

Doubtless the implementation of a real dollar-BB system would require a conference of monetary scholars and economists to work out all the finer details of implementation. But the basic idea could be expressed in a law to be passed by Congress (since it already has the constitutional power to regulate money) -- and then enshrined as a Constitutional amendment once the kinks were ironed out, in order to prevent Congress from tampering with the idea for its own benefit.

So call or write your Congressional representatives, and let them know that you want them to implement the Worstler (federal pay reduction) plan tomorrow, and start the wheels churning for an eventual two-currency system down the road. You will have no trouble sounding rational and sensible, because those plans are far better than anything Washington has thus far come up with on its own.

It's Money That Matters

Yes, Rick Warren actually tweeted that. And begun the pile-on has: here, as well as here; here, and here, just to name four. Most of those are with either analyses of the statement (no, it is neither true nor correct) or with references to Scripture (probably someone somewhere has even reached to the "10 Commandments" to say something about bearing false witness, i.e., telling lies).

I would prefer only to point out that Warren retracted this tweet. Not, apparently, because he saw the light and realized the inhumanity and stupidity of what he said; but rather, because it embarrassed him. Perhaps he didn't like being reminded that people matter more than things and ideas; perhaps he realized he stood as exposed and malevolent as Ebenezer Scrooge declaring the poor should die and decrease the surplus population. I don't know that he realized the life his Lord and Savior led, or who he lived among on this earth, or he'd never had typed that tweet in the first place.

And I'd rather not respond with more scriptures. A), that's been done; B) it smacks of prooftexting; and C), I prefer the words of St. Basil and St. Ambrose, who more directly addresses Warren's particular sin:

"What keeps you from giving now? Isn't the poor person there? Aren't your own warehouses full? Isn't the reward promised? The command is clear: the hungry person is dying now, the naked person is freezing now, the person in debt is beaten now-and you want to wait until tomorrow? "I'm not doing any harm," you say. "I just want to keep what I own, that's all." You own! You are like someone who sits down in a theater and keeps everyone else away, saying that what is there for everyone's use is your own. . . . If everyone took only what they needed and gave the rest to those in need, there would be no such thing as rich and poor. After all, didn't you come into life naked, and won't you return naked to the earth?

"The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry person; the coat hanging unused in your closet belongs to the person who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the person with no shoes; the money which you put in the bank belongs to the poor. You do wrong to everyone you could help, but fail to help."

Basil
4th Century

"The large rooms of which you are so proud are in fact your shame. They are big enough to hold crowds--and also big enough to shut out the voices of the poor....There is your sister or brother, naked, crying! And you stand confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering."

Ambrose
4th Century

17 centuries later, and it's a lesson we still struggle to learn.

UPDATE: Rick Warren has not only removed the tweet, but tweeted again to acknowledge "it did sound mean." Which is a lovely use of the passive voice and a masterful misdirection: Rick Warren didn't say the poor don't pay taxes and would love to see the rich taxed! The tweet did! And it was mean! Not wrong, ignorant, or cruel; not directly contradictory to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth! No. It was just "mean." No, wait; let me be accurate. The tweet wasn't "mean." It "sounded mean."

Silly me, I didn't even know tweets had voices. I thought they were messages created by real people. Tweets are alive! Or at least, they are independent of their creators.

Well...that's okay, then. Mean ol' tweet. Good thing Rick Warren had no responsibility for it. He's not mean! He said so.

"Whole Sight; Or All the Rest is Desolation"

I was teaching rudimentary logic and logical fallacies to a Composition and Rhetoric class this morning. I realized there were several involved in the Norway bombing/shooting story, which I first heard about on BBC World Service the day of the event.

Several Americans with ties to Norway called "World Have Your Say" as the news was first being reported, to lament the crime as Norway's "9/11," and to decide for the Norwegians that they would have to increase their border security and airport security, because clearly this was the action of foreigners, probably Muslims (I don't think that was ever said explicitly, but the subtext was clearly that radicals from outside Norway had done this). There was even speculation reportedly coming out of Norway that this action was by foreign terrorists.

Of course, the man who says he did it is as Nordic as they come, and he did it because he hates Muslims and sees them as a threat to Norway and to Europe. Far from being Norway's "9/11" (the observation is not new with me), this was Norway's "Oklahoma City."

Right-wing pundits in this country were harsher and more belligerent than any of the callers I heard on BBC that day; and now they are clinging to their conclusions like barnacles on a ship. Which isn't much of a surprise, but it is surprising how quickly we jump to conclusions in the absence of any information; how readily we believe in the evilness of the "other," and how banal and homegrown such evil often is. Just after the Oklahoma City bombing, people were blaming foreigners and "Muslims" (a catch-all category for evil people). When it turned out to be Timothy McVeigh, suddenly it wasn't such a dynamic story anymore; and it didn't produce the introspection and examination of our right-wing violence that it should have. As Think Progress points out (in the link), the right wing pundits in this country who first decreed Muslims were responsible for the horrors in Norway, still insist we must remain vigilant against Muslims around the world.

That the suspect here is a blond Norwegian does not support the proposition that we can rest easy with regard to the panoply of threats we face or that homeland security, intelligence and traditional military can be pruned back. To the contrary, the world remains very dangerous because very bad people will do horrendous things. There are many more jihadists than blond Norwegians out to kill Americans, and we should keep our eye on the systemic and far more potent threats that stem from an ideological war with the West.

There are a number of logical fallacies in that paragraph, too, including the conclusion that even if Muslims didn't do it, they might as well have.

Still no recognition that it was the hatred of Muslims that drove Anders Brievik to act, and that he acted thinking an attack on the ruling Labour Party would make him the savior of Norway.

"The operation was not to kill as many people as possible but to give a strong signal that could not be misunderstood that as long as the Labor Party keeps driving its ideological lie and keeps deconstructing Norwegian culture and mass importing Muslims then they must assume responsibility for this treason," according to the English translation of Heger's ruling that was read out after the hearing.

Still not enough self-awareness, in other words, among the right wing pundits in this country that it is precisely their ideology that created a massacre in a peaceful country. And no, I'm really not exaggerating:

While [Frank] Gaffney’s [anti-Islam] views may seem absurd, he is incredibly influential. He regularly appears on Fox News, major conservative conferences, and his writing is referenced in the manifesto by the alleged Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik. Moreover, Gaffney was a pivotal figure in organizing the hysterical protests against a planned Muslim American community center in lower Manhattan.

I live in the world of ideas; sometimes, I think, too much so. But I don't live in the world of ideas to the exclusion of my humanity. At least, not as much as some do:

When it emerged that these acts of terror were the work of a native Norwegian who thought he was striking a blow against jihadism and its enablers, it was immediately clear to me that his violence will deal a heavy blow to an urgent cause. [...]

In Norway, to speak negatively about any aspect of the Muslim faith has always been a touchy matter, inviting charges of “Islamophobia” and racism. It will, I fear, be a great deal more difficult to broach these issues now that this murderous madman has become the poster boy for the criticism of Islam.
....
Perhaps Brievik’s inexcusable act of vicious terror should serve not only as a warning that there may be more elements on the extreme Right willing to use violence to further their goals, but also as an opportunity to seriously reevaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere. While there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act perpetrated this weekend in Norway, discontent with multiculturalism’s failure must not be delegitimatized or mistakenly portrayed as an opinion held by only the most extremist elements of the Right.

The Big Idea must prevail, or all else is desolation. As I have said before:

Ideas don't matter. Things don't matter. People matter.

It is not too much to say that the supremacy of the Big Idea above all else is precisely what drove Breivik to act as he did:

Heger said Breivik had accused the ruling Labour Party of betraying Norway with "mass imports of Muslims."

He said his bombing of government buildings in Oslo and massacre at a summer camp for Labour's youth wing was aimed at deterring future recruitment to the party.

"The goal of the attack was to give a strong signal to the people," the judge quoted Breivik as saying.

The people of Norway are not mourning the loss of an Idea, or even of their security. They are mourning the unnecessary, inexcusable, unacceptable, loss of lives. They are mourning people. People are who matter.

The Game Is Rigged - Time to Move Outside the Box

The drumbeats are getting louder and louder. Except for the fact that it is such a cliché, one would almost suspect that "the Democrats are getting restless tonight."

Consider just this panic post, or this (both from just one liberal Democratic website). Democrats and their friends in the media are lining up to smear Republicans for their reluctance to approve an increase in the debt limit without any conditions attached (such as cutting spending). The real-life equivalent of taking away the punchbowl produces caterwauling the likes of which this Curmudgeon has seen to date only in Greece, Ireland and similar countries that have spent themselves into ruin.

The Republicans seem to be getting themselves into a box of their own making, from which there is no decent escape. Their attempts to enact spending curbs are seen by liberals as mean-spirited at best, and at worst a ploy to bring about a complete "default" (not really) by the United States -- the first one in its 222-year history. (Of course, the United States began with the demise of the Articles of Confederation, triggered by an inability of the government to make good on the Revolutionary War debt which the Continental Congress had issued in the form of paper "Continentals". But the less said about that today, the better, because liberals like all the paper debt being issued by the government in ever greater and greater quantities since Barack Obama became its President.)

As usual, the solution to this dilemma lies in making a move "outside the box" -- without regard to the constraints Democrats are trying to force on Republicans. First of all (trust me on this), the Republicans in the House should enact a simple measure approving a rise in the authorized debt ceiling.

WHAT??! you say -- ARE YOU CRAZY??!

Bear with me a moment, please. In a game of chess, it is always best to see at least three or four moves ahead of your opponent.

The House, I say, should enact a simple, one-line bill raising the debt ceiling: and not by a trifling amount, but by something humongous. Current authorized debt is around $14.2 trillion dollars (see the link for a graphic visual depiction of that amount of money), but the government's unfunded liabilities (i.e., the promises the legislators have made to all their constituents over the years, in order to get re-elected again and again) amount to almost one hundred and fifteen trillion dollars (see figure at lower right of the clock, and see again the huge skyscraper of stacked dollars at the bottom of this link). Therefore, I say, raise the debt ceiling to a comfortable margin over that: let's say ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY TRILLION DOLLARS.

THAT should get their attention -- and their overwhelming approval in two shakes of a lamb's tail. OK: default has been averted, and that issue is off the table. However, the measure raising the debt ceiling has one small caveat attached to it (overlooked in the general rush of relief at avoiding default for years and years to come). For what the measure actually says is this (or words to this effect; I have italicized the little caveat I have in mind, so you can think about it):

The total amount of debt which the United States of America is authorized to incur to pay its approved expenses is hereby increased to the maximum sum of One Hundred and Fifty Trillion Dollars ($150,000,000,000,000.00).

Do you see what the effect of the italicized words will be? Reflect on this simple fact: there is currently no lawfully enacted budget on which the Government is operating. The President's last proposed budget was voted "Dead on Arrival", because it made no meaningful attempt at reducing the sea of red ink in which the country is now drowning. The Senate (where the Democrats are in the majority, for the time being) has failed to produce any kind of budget measure for the last 800+ days (more than two years).

So what has our government been running upon, if no budget has passed both the House and the Senate for more than two years, and then signed into law by the President?

Answer: ever since Obama came into office, the Government has been running on a series of continuing resolutions, the first of which was passed into law in March 2009, and signed into effect by the newly elected President. The last such resolution was enacted in April, and its authority expires on September 30, at which time another continuing resolution will be due if the government is not to shut down.

To which I say: Nuts! The Republicans, having avoided the threat of default by taking the debt limit ceiling off the table, should now draw the line at spending another single penny without a fully lawful and duly enacted budget in place -- approved by both Houses of Congress and then signed by the President, as the Constitution has always contemplated.

That is where the Republicans have their leverage, and for which they cannot rationally be blamed by anyone, no matter how liberal. They simply say: "We are against spending any more money without an approved budget."

"But you have to authorize more spending at the current level," the Democrats reply, "otherwise the government will be forced to shut down."

"Balderdash and poppycock," the Republicans reply. "Why do we have to continue to operate without a budget? No sensible household in America tries to do that. Budgets are required by law, and we have (until Barack Obama became President) always had budgets, so why should we change our ways now?"

"But we do have a budget -- of sorts. We just keep spending at the same level we have been spending for the last two years. What's wrong with that?"

"Because revenues are down, that's what. More people out of work, and more businesses going under, mean that less and less taxes are being paid to the Government."

"Well, we can raise taxes -- that's no problem, if you'll go along."

"Raise taxes to bring in more revenue in a declining economy? Where did you go to school?"

And so on and so on -- trust me: the Republicans will have the upper hand on this one.

* * * *

The foregoing hypothetical is meant to demonstrate the sheer folly of drawing a line in the sand just now over the debt limit. As usual, the politicians and their captive media are not focusing on the real issue at hand: the Government is operating without a budget. Raising the debt ceiling in such an environment is an invitation to uncontrolled spending and borrowing, because without a budget, there are truly no limits. By bringing the debate back to the budget, Republicans can hope to build support for a balanced budget amendment if they gain back a majority in the Senate, and win the White House, in 2012.

But by playing chicken with the Democrats over the debt ceiling, the Republicans are agreeing to do battle on a ground that is deliberately rigged against them, and on which they cannot emerge as clear winners.

Doesn't anyone else see this as clearly? Am I off base in calling attention to this point? If so, I wish someone would deign to enlighten me. For the life of me, I cannot see a downside for the Republicans if they would just follow the above strategy.

A Stunning Film about Jerusalem Is in the Works

Take a look at this magnificent footage of the Holy Land, shot in IMAX and 3D, which will form part of the film Jerusalem, scheduled for release in 2013 (be sure to click the four-corner icon next to the "vimeo" logo to view the film in full-screen mode, for maximum impact):

Jerusalem | Filmed in Imax 3D from JerusalemGiantScreen on Vimeo.

Follow the link to "JerusalemGiantScreen" above to learn more about the movie, and to register for more footage and updates as they are made available.

Fiddling While Rome Burns

If there was ever any historical truth to the report that the Emperor Nero played his lyre while the main part of Rome was destroyed by fire in 64 A.D., then we should count ourselves unlucky to have to witness the same insouciance taking place before our eyes today. While the politicians in Washington dither and fume, President Obama is playing a game of Twenty Questions with them, forcing them to guess what mix of measures he would favor (think: higher taxes) and spurn (think: spending cuts today), without putting forward any specific proposals himself. Meanwhile, the government's insolvency looms closer and closer, when the Secretary of the Treasury's last shell game will run out of peas to shift around.

With the authorization of Congress granted in 1986, the Treasury since last May has been creating some "breathing space" below the debt ceiling by robbing cash and previously purchased Treasury securities from specific government funds which are required by law to invest their receipts in such securities: the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund is one such victim, and the Government Securities Investment Fund ("G-Fund") is another (scroll down the previous link).

The purpose of appropriating the cash receipts of these funds is obvious: when their cash is used to pay bills, instead of purchasing more Treasury securities, it keeps Government debt from increasing pro tanto. And when the Treasury takes securities from these funds and sells them to third parties for cash to pay its current bills, it is also thereby reducing the total amount of Government debt outstanding. By selling hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of the securities in the weeks since May 16, when he announced the commencement of his juggling operations, and by appropriating the funds' incoming cash, Secretary Geithner has been able to pay all of the government's bills as they fell due, without exceeding the total debt limit established by Congress.

However, all such shell games must eventually come to an end, and this one is no exception. The wizards at Treasury were able to forecast in May (see the previous link) that even by robbing the trust funds, the Government's outstanding bills would exceed the Government's ability to borrow more cash to pay them by August 2. That date, confirmed in an announcement on June 1, thus became the much-touted "Financial Armageddon" about which one has been reading so much lately.

With the wonders of the Internet, now you can play "Treasury Secretary" yourself, see just what bills you will face on August 2 (about $306.7 billion), how much cash you will be receiving with which to pay them (about $172.4 billion), and make your choices accordingly. Bloomberg has put up a very helpful interactive chart to illustrate the choices, and I encourage you to try it out. You will learn more there in a few minutes about the government's financial operations than you will ever learn by listening to statements from and speeches by politicians.

Secretary Geithner has helpfully spelled out what he sees would be the consequences of failing to raise the debt limit by August 2 in this letter he wrote on May 13, 2011 to Senator Michael Bennet:

As you know, the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past. Failure to raise the debt limit would force the United States to default on these obligations, such as payments to our servicemembers, citizens, investors, and businesses. This would be an unprecedented event in American history. . . .

A default would call into question, for the first time, the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. As a result, investors in the United States and around the world would be less likely to lend us money in the future. And those investors who still choose to purchase Treasury securities would demand much higher interest rates . . .

Default would not only increase borrowing costs for the Federal government, but also for families, businesses, and local governments - reducing investment and job creation throughout the economy. Treasury securities set the benchmark interest rate for a wide range of credit products, including mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards, business loans, and municipal bonds. Accordingly, an increase in Treasury rates would make it more costly for a family to buy a home, purchase a car, or send a child to college. . .

. . . Additionally, a default would substantially reduce the value of the investments - including Treasury securities - held in 401(k) accounts and pension funds, which families depend on for their retirement security. This significant reduction in household wealth would threaten the economic security of all Americans and, together with increased interest rates, would contribute to a contraction in household spending and investment.

Had enough doom and gloom yet? He's still not through sketching the consequences:

The unique role of Treasury securities in the global financial system means that the consequences of default would be particularly severe. Treasury securities are a key holding on the balance sheets of virtually every major insurance company, bank, money market fund, and pension fund in the world. They are also widely used as collateral by financial institutions to meet their day-to- day cash flow needs in the short-term financing market.

A default on Treasury debt could lead to concerns about the solvency of the investment funds and financial institutions that hold Treasury securities in their portfolios, which could cause a run on money market mutual funds and the broader financial system - similar to what occurred in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. As the recent financial crisis demonstrated, a severe and sudden blow to confidence in the financial markets can spark a panic that threatens the health of our entire global economy and the jobs of millions of Americans.

Even a short-term default could cause irrevocable damage to the American economy. Treasury securities enjoy their unique role in the global financial system precisely because they are viewed as a risk-free asset. Investors have absolute confidence that the United States will meet its debt obligations on time, every time, and in full. That confidence increases demand for Treasury securities, lowering borrowing costs for the Federal government, consumers, and businesses. . . A default would call into question the status of Treasury securities as a cornerstone of the financial system, potentially squandering this unique role and the economic benefits that come with it.

Moreover, the fact that the United States would not have enough money to meet all of its obligations would have serious economic consequences. If the United States were forced to stop, limit, or delay payment on obligations to which the Nation has already committed - such as military salaries, Social Security and Medicare, tax refunds, contractual payments to businesses for goods and services, and payments to our investors - there would be a massive and abrupt reduction in federal outlays and aggregate demand. This abrupt contraction would likely push us into a double dip recession.

There is no question that we should avoid the consequences of bumping into the debt limit -- they will truly be unpleasant for everyone. But the real questions are: How did we get ourselves into this situation? And what must be done to get ourselves out of it?

Secretary Geithner hinted at the answer to the first question when he wrote: [The debt limit] "simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past." (Emphasis added.) Our politicians, for various historical reasons, have always concerned themselves with current spending, and have left it to the Treasury to worry about the sum total of what year-to-year current spending adds up to. This has forced the Treasury to borrow money almost from the very first day of the Government's existence, as sketched in this earlier post.

There was only one day in our country's entire 222-year history when there was zero Government debt outstanding -- that historic date was January 8, 1835. President Jackson's resolve to stop government borrowing, however, was hijacked the very next day, when the Treasury had to issue new notes to pay bills that had accumulated from prior approved spending, because there were not enough cash receipts on hand.

And it's been like that ever since. Congress and the President are continually spending money which the Government does not have through its cash flow. The problem is that, although they have said each year they were establishing a budget, the budget gets overtaken by events, or else it was not accurate in forecasting receipts or expenses -- or whatever. So budgets came to be looked upon as just "guesstimates", while the limit on government borrowing had been set by earlier laws (back when the government tried to do things right). When the first debt ceiling was reached, Congress obligingly bumped it up a notch, and it's been doing so ever since.

So the first step toward remedying this problem is to implement zero-based budgeting, and to stop projecting steady increases in authorized spending over the previous year's levels.

The next step is to adopt a balanced budget amendment, which will prohibit Government from relying on borrowing to finance its current expenditures. Borrowing will revert to its original purposes: to finance capital outlays for infrastructure improvements, wars and national emergencies, and similar situations for which current cash flow is inadequate. And it would be managed just as any other business does it: debt would be kept below a level where the cost of servicing it robs too much of current income. Passing such an amendment will be a true test of integrity -- past attempts have been sabotaged.

But the real substantive step would be the systematic elimination of Government waste and fraud. Hundreds of billions, if not trillions, could be cut from spending if there were some kind of accountability measures put in place. (And the best way of all to do this would be to make all government employees and contractors self-accountable -- that is, it would be in their own best interest to minimize government waste and fraud. But that's a subject for a separate post.)

Finally, the Heritage Foundation has provided a helpful checklist of other measures necessary to get the government debt monster under control.

So that is the conventional answer to the questions posed above. I am pessimistic about the chances of such common sense ever descending upon our elected officials before time -- and money -- run out on them. They will continue spending and wasting our money as they always have, until the very disasters which Secretary Geithner so vividly portrayed will be forced on them by ever-increasing borrowing.

When lenders stop buying Government securities because of a fear they will never be repaid, or will be repaid in worthless dollars, then the Government will have to sell its securities to itself -- as it already has started doing, in spades. And when that becomes the Government's only source of funds, we will drown in a sea of paper dollars, and inflation will destroy any shred of meaning the dollar has left.

So raising the debt limit once again by August 2 is a virtual certainty; the only question is what accompanying measures can the Republicans force on the Democrats that will begin to reverse the current trend. If the measures are just more toothless promises, then long-term death by debt becomes that much more certain a future. Sic transit gloria Americae.

The High Inquisitor of Gould/Hogwarts

Once again, it is time to juxtapose two passages from current events and writing, without further ado or comment. The excerpts speak for themselves:

First, from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, by J. K. Rowling (2003), ch. 17:

The High Inquisitor of Hogwarts

All Student Organizations, Societies, Teams, Groups and Clubs are henceforth disbanded.

An Organization, Society, Team, Group or Club is hereby defined as a meeting of three or more students.

Permission to re-form may be sought from the High Inquisitor (Professor Umbridge).

No Student Organization, Society, Team, Group, or Club may exist without the knowledge and approval of the High Inquisitor.

Any student found to have formed, or to belong to, an Organization, Society, Team, Group, or Club that has not been approved by the High Inquisitor will be expelled.

The above is in accordance with Educational Decree Number Twenty-four.

Signed:

/s/ Dolores Jane Umbridge

HIGH INQUISITOR

Next, an ordinance passed by the City Council of Gould, Arkansas:

CITY OF GOULD

ORDINANCE NO.062011-S

BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY OF GOULD AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF LINCOLN, STATE OF ARKANSAS, AN ORDINANCE TO BE ENTITLED:

AN ORDINANCE TO DISALLOW THE GOULD CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL FROM EXISTING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF GOULD

BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Gould City Council:

SECTION 1: GOULD CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCILS ABILITY TO OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY OF GOULD. The Gould Citizens Advisory Council by passage of this ordinance is hereby banned from doing business in the City of Gould.

SECTION 2: That the said Council is, in effect, causing confusion and discourse [sic] among the citizens of Gould and as a result is contributing to the friction not only between the Mayor and Council but also among the citizens who deserve a cooperative government. Also no new organizations shall be allowed to exist in the City of Gould without approval from a majority of the City Council.

SECTION 3: Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety shall be in full force and effect from and after passage and approval.

And from the same City Council, a second ordinance:

CITY OF GOULD

ORDINANCE NO. 062011-4

BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY OF GOULD AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF LINCOLN, STATE OF ARKANSAS, AN ORDINANCE TO BE ENTITLED:

AN ORDINANCE FOR THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO GOVERN THE MAYOR'S ABILITY TO CALL ANY MEETINGS IN OR OUT OF THE GOULD CITY LIMITS AT WHICH CITY BUSINESS IS DISCUSSED WITHOUT A TWO THIRDS VOTE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Gould City Council:

SECTION 1: MAYOR'S AUTHORITY TO CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS. The Mayor of the City of Gould shall not call special meetings to discuss City business without two thirds of the City Council's vote to do so. This includes meeting [sic] held inside or outside Gould city limits.

SECTION 2: The Mayor nor City Council members shall attend or participate [sic] in meetings with any organization in any location without City Council approval by two thirds vote.

Now, these ordinances from Gould, Arkansas come with the following explanation/ commentary by a member of the City Council which enacted them:

"In everything, you have somebody in control over it. In everything," said Council Member Sonja Farley.

Farley says no matter the group, if you discuss the city at all, the meeting must be approved by the city council.

"You couldn't just come in here and get with four people and decide you want to start an organization," said Farley. "You will go through your city council with documentation, the right paperwork and get an approval."

(H/T: Josh Blackman and Volokh Conspiracy)

Still Messing with Texas

Where to start? Well, let's start at the point where I learned about this controversy:

The firing of University of Texas System special adviser Rick O'Donnell sends a message to Gov. Rick Perry from the legions of University of Texas supporters: Don't meddle with UT.

O'Donnell lost his $200,000-a-year job last week after angering some state lawmakers.

Who, you may ask, was Rick O'Donnell, and why do you care? Well, he was appointed to a position as advisor to the Board of Regents of the UT system (there are several UT's besides the big one in Austin). That's the connection to Gov. Goodhair. And before O'Donnell lost his job completely, he got in enough trouble to be reassigned from his position as an advisor to the UT System Board of Regents:

O'Donnell was reassigned Thursday as special assistant for research, reporting to Scott Kelley, executive vice chancellor for business affairs, said Anthony de Bruyn, a spokesman for the system. O'Donnell will assist two panels advising the regents, one on productivity and excellence, the other on online and blended learning.

O'Donnell will continue to be paid $200,000 a year, de Bruyn said.

The controversy here is best explained by Paul Burka. O'Donnell's "advice" to the Board was to denigrate research in favor of teaching:

Another of the reforms is “split research and teaching budgets.” This may not seem like a big deal. The idea is simply to increase transparency and accountability by emphasizing teaching and research as separate efforts in higher education. But many observers, myself included, suspect that the real agenda is ultimately to curtail the role of research in higher education. Why? Because it costs money. Sandefer has written that academic research consumes two thirds of every dollar spent in American universities. Once the public sees how much more money is spent on research than on teaching, it will demand that spending on research be cut. This is why, to the UT brass, splitting budgets amounts to a frontal attack on the classic model of a research university. “Teaching and research are inextricably linked,” UT president Bill Powers told me. “Splitting the research and teaching budgets devalues the synergy between two essential components that are the essence of a world-class institution.” Like all the TPPF recommendations, the objective is not to improve the academy but to diminish public support for it in its current form.

Note those words Burka used: "transparency" and "accountability." I'm tempted to run down a side trail and point out that their casual use by Burka betrays his political leanings; but that's for another day. To continue the theme a moment, consider that "academic research" is probably code for "soft research," i.e., not the stuff associated with physics, chemistry, oil and gas engineering, etc. The University of Houston, not surprisingly, is noted for its "hard" research facilities. I don't think U of H is under attack at the moment, although Texas A&M, hardly a liberal arts outpost, is suffering its own problems from Perry's other idiotic idea: paying teachers based on student evaluations.

That's a particular hobby horse of mine, but think about it for a moment: if you, the student, know what the teacher is supposed to be teaching you, you aren't a student, you're a peer of the teacher. You don't need to be taught by that person. And if the teacher isn't making you happy, or piquing your interest, or keeping you entertained or interested? Is that entirely the teacher's fault? Is the teacher's job to please you? Or to teach you?

There aren't too many models in history of great teachers who win stirring evaluations from their students. Jesus is constantly shown berating his disciples for their inability to understand him; but that's pretty consistently the model for any teacher/student relationship.

Back to Perry, though; O'Donnell was forced to resign during the last Legislative session (6 months every two years; they're gone for good now) because UT Alumni heard about his proposals for their beloved UT-Austin, (and the system at large) and threw a fit even the Legislature couldn't ignore. Keep that in mind, because Perry's efforts aren't finished, they're just beginning:

The University of Texas and Texas A&M are public universities in desperate need of budget reform to provide transparency and accountability to the students and taxpayers that fund them. The higher education bureaucracy in Texas has created an inefficient system where:

• 22% of Faculty members do not teach a single class per semester;
• The average faculty member spends only 21% of his time teaching and the remaining 79% performing research or administrative tasks;
• The average course load of a tenured faculty member is 1.9 classes per semester;
• Yet despite these statistics, from 1999 to 2009 faculty salaries increased at almost twice the rate of inflation.

Perpetuating this wasteful spending are the “Edu-crats”, a ruling elite of academics focused on doing less, but making more, all the while ignoring the needs of students and caring nothing for the cost born by the taxpayers. Sign below to demand Higher Education Reform for Texas NOW!

We demand:

• An end to teacher tenure;
• That research and teaching budgets are separated;
• Disclosure of the salaries of tenured faculty, the number of students they teach, and the research dollars they bring in.
• That researchers keep 90% of the money their research generates;

Instituting these reforms will elevate the quality of higher education in Texas and ensure that universities prioritize the needs of students, parents, and taxpayers over entrenched, overpaid academics. Please sign below to tell the Regents at the University of Texas and Texas A&M to embrace these reforms!

That's a petition on offer from FreedomWorks, Dick Armey's lobbying group. If you don't live in Texas and/or don't care about Texas' systems of higher education, you might wonder why you should care. Well, maybe because Rick Perry is about to enter the GOP nomination race, and he's already showing up very favorably against Michelle Bachmann.

Does that mean I think Perry could win the nomination? No. I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell, and would be delighted if he did win it. It would be 1964 all over again, with Perry playing the role of Goldwater. What worries me is that such a radical and destructive idea could ever become mainstream, or even become law in a radical legislature. FreedomWorks got its head handed to it in Texas on this issue, but that doesn't mean it won't try again, especially with the Legislature out of session. The UT Board of Regents is strong, but not that strong; it took the ire of the Legislature to get them to fire O'Donnell. Without the Legislature, they might throw away UT's academic achievements in favor of this insanity.

Which, you may still say, doesn't affect you. On the other hand, if systems like UT and Texas A&M adopt such ridiculous policies, the rot would begin, and the resistance to it might not be as strong as you would expect. And if you think our educational systems across the nation aren't already a problem for us, the Pentagon respectfully disagrees with you:

By investing energy, talent, and dollars now in the education and training of young Americans -- the scientists, statesmen, industrialists, farmers, inventors, educators, clergy, artists, service members, and parents, of tomorrow -- we are truly investing in our ability to successfully compete in, and influence, the strategic environment of the future. Our first investment priority, then, is intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America's youth.

Those are all long-term goals; not a short-term calculus. The appeal of the position of FreedomWorks is to do something right now! that fixes everything for us. That is, of course, no fix at all. It is delivering power to those not worthy to wield it, and who don't have the public interests at heart. The statement of the Pentagon understands the nature of investment, and of the "continuing development and growth of America's youth," a promise that is always in the future. FreedomWorks wants change now!, and for its own sake. That is the radical change of mere destruction. Investment is about planting trees your grandchildren will enjoy sitting under. In education, that investment is made through research and investigation and the freedom to pursue thought that is guaranteed by tenure. The educational system may be imperfect, but it is not so riddled with "waste, fraud, and abuse", or, in the new and improved lingo of FreedomWorks, a lack of "transparency and accountability," that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If change is needed, it is not the radical change of destruction. If we need anything right now, it is more education and more thinking and more research; not less.

Maybe it would be a good thing for Perry to enter the primary race. If he can be associated nationally with this position, sunlight might prove, once again, to be the best political disinfectant.

Albert John Luthuli of South Africa

Eternal God, we thank you for the witness of Chief Luthuli, Nobel Laureate for Peace, who was sustained by his Christian faith as he led the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Strengthen us, after his example, to make no peace with oppression and to witness boldly for our Deliverer, Jesus Christ; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

For his feast on July 22 — posted early as I will be on retreat.
Ikon written by Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Four for Freedom

O God, whose Spirit guides us into all truth and makes us free: Strengthen and sustain us as you did your servants Elizabeth, Amelia, Sojourner, and Harriet. Give us vision and courage to stand against oppression and injustice and all that works against the glorious liberty to which you call all your children; through Jesus Christ our Savior, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

For their feast on July 20 — posted early as I am going on retreat.
Ikon written by Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Pot, Please Meet Kettle

The following two statements need to be juxtaposed, with minimal comment. First, from the Rev. Canon Mark Harris' Preludium blog, as he complains about the "secret meetings" between the Archbishop of Canterbury and those who would eventually found ACNA:

Many of us have know[n] that there were conversations going on with the Network folk as they began the move that became finally the Anglican Church in North America, but have had no proof of such meetings. Now, as it begins to be history and not current events, Anderson feels free to tell us that there were many meetings. He does so believing that he was betrayed by the Archbishop who exhibits "passive aggression in dealing with any dissent from the orthodox wing of the Anglican Communion."

Well, I care not that he was stung.

What I do care about is that at a time when we are being asked to trust a system of consultation between the "instruments of Communion" and member churches whose actions may or may not have been reasonable in the eyes of other member churches, we have here the example of the Archbishop of Canterbury deliberately engaging in matters internal to a member church of the Communion apparently without transparency or consultation with the Church itself. More, the people he was meeting with were set on the path to form a new Anglican body (see the Chapman Memo of December 2003). That memo was reported on widely and by Thinking Anglicans in January 2004. It is impossible to believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury and his staff did not know by January 2004 that the American Anglican Council and others were set to begin a process that would involve an attempted coup.

The whole history of the meeting, however many there were, the secrecy of them, and the role the Archbishop had in supporting or retarding the development of the Network and the Network into the Anglican Church in North America, is greatly disturbing to some of us in The Episcopal Church as we consider the matter of the Anglican Covenant.

If this is the kind of meddling statesmanship we can expect from the Archbishop as an instrument of communion and unity, we have every business being suspicious of the whole thing.

And the next quote comes from Bishop Mark Lawrence's address to the annual diocesan convention of the Diocese of South Carolina in March 2010, protesting the recent incursions into his diocese authorized by the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor:

I come now to the reason why this Annual Diocesan Convention was postponed. . . . In December of 2009 our Chancellor, Mr. Wade Logan, was finally informed by a local attorney that he had been retained by the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor. In a subsequent series of letters he presented himself as “South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church” and requested numerous items of the Bishop and Standing Committee, as well as information regarding parishes in this diocese. This way of presenting himself fails to acknowledge that this diocese is the only recognized body of The Episcopal Church within the lower half of South Carolina. There is no other representative or ecclesiastical authority of The Episcopal Church here but our Bishop and Standing Committee. Furthermore, this was carried out without the Presiding Bishop even so much as calling me. . . . The retaining of counsel now has all the signs of an adversarial relationship—one of monitoring through a non-constitutional and non-canonical incursion how a Diocesan Bishop and Standing Committee may choose to deal with its priests and parishes.

What is astonishing is that this Diocese of South Carolina, while seeking to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, historic Anglicanism and the received teaching of the Anglican Communion as expressed through its four Instruments of Unity, as well as to The Book of Common Prayer, and adhering to The Constitution and Canons of this Church, has experienced incursions not authorized by these very constitution and canons. . . .

All this is a profound overreach of the Presiding Bishop’s authority. . . . [T]he thing we are confronting now is . . . a challenge to how for over two hundred years The Episcopal Church has carried out its mission and ministry. . . . In standing up and protecting our autonomy or independence as a diocese in TEC, in protecting the diocesan bishop’s authority to shepherd the parishes and missions of his diocese, and in defending the bishop and, in his absence, the Standing Committee as the Ecclesiastical Authority, we are in fact defending how TEC has carried out its ministry and mission for these many years. Every Diocesan Bishop, every Standing Committee, indeed every Episcopalian ought to know that if this is allowed to stand, that if the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor are allowed to hire an attorney in a diocese of this Church, to look over the shoulder of any bishop or worse dictate to that Bishop or Standing Committee how they are to deal with the parishes and missions under their care, imposing upon them mandates or directives as to how they disburse or purchase property then we have entered into a new era of unprecedented hierarchy, and greater autocratic leadership from the Presiding Bishop’s office and his or her chancellor. It may then be the case that a chancellor who has heretofore been only a counsel of advice for the Presiding Bishop can now function, without election, confirmation or canonical authority, as the de facto chancellor of the Church, exercising power not authorized by this Church and therein dictating to the dioceses of this church how they shall deal with their parishes and property.

Recently, the Presiding Bishop and I have had a respectful conversation about this matter, during which she asserted once again what she has stated publicly on many occasions: That she has responsibility for the whole Church. That the property of The Episcopal Church must be protected and this is one of her duties. But if so, it is a duty that she has assumed, not one stated in the Constitution & Canons, nor assumed by any previous Presiding Bishop. . . . [S]hould a diocese decide to purchase property to plant a congregation, or alienate or sell the property it possess, it seeks no further authority than itself for such action. So too if a diocese chooses to close a congregation there is no higher authority than the bishop. The Presiding Bishop’s decision to hire counsel in South Carolina leads us all into such precarious waters that every diocese and bishop in this Church ought to be concerned, lest the polity and practice of TEC be changed by a precedent without constitutional or canonical authority. . . . Unfortunately, after lengthy and respectful conversation, the Presiding Bishop and I stand looking at one another across a wide, deep and seemingly unbridgeable theological and canonical chasm. . . .

. . . This is not to imply that a Church, diocese or parish should never go to court or enter into litigation. It is merely to suggest that the imposing of a model of indiscriminate and unbridled litigation on the 110 dioceses of this Church, as if one model fits all, has brought bitter acrimony, a multiplication of law suits and what St. Paul feared so many years ago, public disgrace and scandal upon the Church. For [the Presiding Bishop] to demand in this diocese such a policy would be an egregiously inept exercise of non-canonical pastoral leadership. Furthermore, this is the wrong time in the life of The Episcopal Church for such a centralization of power, especially one so far removed from the ethos and issues of regions and dioceses. The irony is that such remote hierarchical authoritarianism without constitutional and canonical restrictions, and in the absence of theological unity, would only exacerbate the crisis of spiritual authority we are experiencing in The Episcopal Church and across the Anglican Communion.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Fr. Harris. If you complain about the Archbishop of Canterbury "meddling" in ECUSA's internal affairs without any authority under the instruments of the Anglican Communion, then how do you justify the Presiding Bishop's meddling in the internal affairs of the Diocese of South Carolina, without any authority under the Constitution and Canons?

[UPDATE 07/18/2011: Father Harris has been accommodating enough to explain why he thinks I am off-base in my criticism. He writes (in part, with my italics added):

Well, the "sauce" in each case is different. In the first, namely the Archbishop meeting secretly with people who were clearly unwilling to be in a church they deemed doomed, the problem with the sauce was that it involved someone not of this church entering into deep conversations about ways to either change this church or replace it. I don't suggest that the Archbishop was for the development of what became ACNA (The Anglican Church in North America), but I do believe he ought to have been both transparent (at least by notification) and clear about his role. And yes, the ABC meets with many people and many conversations are private. But very few are secret, at least in the way that David Anderson described it. In any case it was an intervention in the life of this church by a prelate of another church in secret from, one supposes, the church leadership of this church. And my question was, how often did they meet?

In the second, the engagement of legal coun[sel] to advise the Presiding Bishop of matters in the Diocese of South Carolina, the "sauce" is quite different. There seems to be no question that the Bishop of South Carolina knew that there was legal coun[sel] from the PB's office. There was apparently a meeting between the Bishop and the Presiding Bishop in which they disagreed about the actions she took and the role she understood was hers. There may be serious disagreements about the canonical propriety of her actions, just as there are serious questions about the nature of the canonical changes effected in the Diocese of South Carolina. Those are arguments to which the Curmudgeon has given considerable attention. But that "sauce" is one of possibly bitter disagreement, not subterfuge.

Let me here explain why I have added the various italics above:

. . . namely the Archbishop meeting secretly with people who were clearly unwilling to be in a church they deemed doomed . . .

Hindsight is a wonderful tool, is it not? I question very seriously whether those who met with the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2003-2004 were from the outset convinced that they were "in a church they deemed doomed" -- and by using those words, the Rev. Canon Harris admits that the people in question were still (at the time) in the Episcopal Church (USA). They were, entirely appropriately, looking for support and assistance in their travails brought about by the very people who have dominated ECUSA's leadership since 2003 -- and who better was in a position to advise them of the possibilities they faced than the Archbishop of Canterbury? After all, he had been unequivocal in warning ECUSA, with the full support of all the primates of the Communion behind him (including Frank Griswold!), what would be the irreversible consequences (i.e., would "tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level") of its proposed actions in consecrating V. Gene Robinson as a bishop of ECUSA. So, "clearly unwilling", Fr. Harris? In your hindsight, perhaps; but that is not a substitute for the travails and worries they faced at the time they sought help.

. . . it involved someone not of this church entering into deep conversations about ways to either change this church or replace it . . .

As much as I regret having (again) to take issue with a fellow Episcopalian, I think it is largely when we expend the time and the concern to bring our disagreements into sharp focus that we have a chance of preventing further disagreements from careless communication. The last I looked at its Constitution, the Episcopal Church (USA) professed to be in communion with the see of Canterbury. So to hang one's hat on the argument that the Archbishop of Canterbury is "not of this church" is to deny the full reality of the situation. Indeed, in the same technical sense one could argue that the ABC is not "of" the Episcopal Church (USA), one could equally well pretend that the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA is not "of" the Diocese of South Carolina -- except to the extent that the Bishop of that Diocese invites her to be. (She has no right, for instance, to force her way through the door, or to perform any episcopal act, at any location in that Diocese without the consent of its ecclesiastical authority: it says so right in Article II, Section 3 of ECUSA's Constitution -- which was not, I hasten to add, modified or changed in any way by the adoption of new canons [Title IV] at GC 2009. Canons are inferior to the Constitution, and have no ability to alter or amend Constitutional provisions.)

In any case, the charge that the ABC talked with the dissenters "about ways to either change this church or replace it" is sheer speculation on Fr. Harris' part, since he did not partake of the reported conversations. As this chancellor recollects events at the time, the news of the meetings which came out shortly afterward was that the ABC endorsed (or at least did not actively oppose) the creation of a network of clergy and parishes which supported the resolutions of the Anglican Communion, including specifically Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, which ECUSA in 2003 deliberately chose to flout. Encouraging supporters of tradition to join forces is hardly a "change" in the church -- it was members such as Father Harris, who enthusiastically supported the ordination of Bishop Robinson, who were thereby changing, all of a sudden, the traditions which the Church had theretofore (for over two hundred and ten years!) observed. And as for replacing the Church -- in 2003-04? Please. That is just so much projection, bolstered by hindsight in light of what Fr. Harris fears is happening now -- after ECUSA has stubbornly persisted in its course, which continues to be at odds with the vast majority of the Communion. After eight years of its obstinacy, the regret is that the Communion has finally done nothing toward replacing ECUSA's "Anglican" franchise -- and that is the source of all of the current dissatisfaction which Fr. Harris discerns (including, frankly, my own).

In any case it was an intervention in the life of this church by a prelate of another church in secret from, one supposes, the church leadership of this church.

Only in your retrospective projections, Fr. Harris. As noted above, what was going on in 2003-2004 was the Archbishop agreeing to provide pastoral counseling and advice to those who felt most threatened by the course ECUSA was taking, before anyone knew what the Windsor Report would recommend -- let alone what the Communion (or its Primates, or the Lambeth Conference, or the Anglican Consultative Council) would decide to do with its recommendations.

In the second, the engagement of legal coun[sel] to advise the Presiding Bishop of matters in the Diocese of South Carolina, the "sauce" is quite different. There seems to be no question that the Bishop of South Carolina knew that there was legal coun[sel] from the PB's office.

Fr. Harris here conveniently glosses over entire parts of Bishop Lawrence's address to his convention -- in particular, this part (quoted in my original post, but now with italics added):

In December of 2009 our Chancellor, Mr. Wade Logan, was finally informed by a local attorney that he had been retained by the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor. In a subsequent series of letters he presented himself as “South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church” and requested numerous items of the Bishop and Standing Committee, as well as information regarding parishes in this diocese. This way of presenting himself fails to acknowledge that this diocese is the only recognized body of The Episcopal Church within the lower half of South Carolina. . . Furthermore, this was carried out without the Presiding Bishop even so much as calling me. . . .

Fr. Harris chooses to dwell upon the much later event, when Bishop Lawrence finally chose to confront Bishop Jefferts Schori directly with what he had belatedly found out, without her so much as informing him beforehand, about what she, in secret consultation with her Chancellor, had decided was necessary in his (Bishop Lawrence's) own Diocese: to hire a special investigative counsel to probe into diocesan affairs and the Bishop's own conduct vis-à-vis his clergy, with a view to gathering information that could be turned into charges against Bishop Lawrence -- eventually justifying a resolution of deposition (without a trial) on the ground that he had "abandoned the communion of this Church." This was the same strategy of an "advance purge" which the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor had effected with Bishop Robert W. Duncan of Pittsburgh, and it had the same result: it caused an acceleration of the measures taken by the Diocese of South Carolina to protect itself against interference ("meddling") in its internal affairs by the Presiding Bishop, without any authority to do so.

There may be serious disagreements about the canonical propriety of her actions, just as there are serious questions about the nature of the canonical changes effected in the Diocese of South Carolina. Those are arguments to which the Curmudgeon has given considerable attention. But that "sauce" is one of possibly bitter disagreement, not subterfuge.

Once again, I regret to have to disagree with you, Fr. Harris. The engaging of local investigative counsel in a Diocese without the knowledge or permission of that Diocese's ecclesiastical authority, without the bringing first of any formal charges, and in secret consultation with one's personal chancellor, is of the essence of what this church attorney, for one, dubs a "subterfuge."

On a final note, I am happy to acknowledge that Father Harris and I on occasion perfectly understand each other -- as, for example, when he concludes (emphasis again added):

I do believe . . . the struggle in The Episcopal Church is changing the role of the Presiding Bishop, as well as our common understanding of what it means to be in union with the General Convention, how that relates to [the] notion that dioceses derive their authority from a wider synodical context, and so forth. I disagree with almost everything the Anglican Curmudgeon writes, but I do agree with him that the changes matter. Our disagreement is about what they mean and what they portend.

The changes currently going on in ECUSA most certainly do matter; thank you, Fr. Harris. Where we disagree most is in how those changes have been brought about -- not by any current "struggle" in the Episcopal Church, for instance, but rather by pretending that new canons can alter -- just like that, as long as no one objects -- what Article II, Section 3 of our Constitution has provided ever since 1789.

(Note: the parallel language then was in the original Article IV.)

- END OF UPDATE 07/18/2011]