Unfortunately the letter was political. Now, my family's long understood that their politics probably differ from ours, so seeing it's so didn't shock. But this item managed to be both offensive and pathetic; the Ivy Leaguers' eloquence somehow failed them. Here's the piece--Fisked.
GOP tax shift from rich to the poor is totally immoral
This being the Travesty, I wouldn't necessarily judge an item by its header--but:
The GOP's shift of the tax burden from the rich to the poor is totally immoral,
What shift? Are you going by partisan Democratic handouts? When taxes are reduced for everyone, the wealthier strata naturally benefit most, because, whether the system's progressive or flat, they pay more. Those whose low income kept them from paying taxes--still pay none!
and also hypocritical, given their claimed devotion to a young rabbi whose major concern was "the least of these."
Whoa there! It may be true that a majority of politically-involved avowed Christian voters, particularly on the traditional side, go Republican, but I don't believe the GOP claims to be the US Christian party, nor does it require a profession of faith from its members, even if some GOP officeholders may speak about their own faith--an activity they hold no monopoly on. (Yes, Virginia, there is a Religious Left.) And if you're alluding to the Gospel passage I suspect, then this isn't the first time I've seen the "my brethren" clause strategically omitted. I doubt Rabbi Josh cared more about people based on their social class.
For Congress to also repeal the estate tax, especially on the false promise that this is to aid ordinary farmers, would be criminal.
Oh? What law would it violate? As far as affecting farmers goes, I'll admit I'm not up to snuff on all the alleged statistics. Let's just say that I disagree with the assumption that the State is entitled to take some share of wealth from the deceased, and with the notion that it is an efficient user/distributor of such wealth. I can tell you that my family, with our decades in small business, has had to set up our inheritance carefully to avoid openings for Big Government to swoop down and seize assets.
This leads to a general observation: Denizens of academe--and I'm not trying to single out the good Professor Emeritus--often seem to think they know better than the rest of us how to run society when, ironically, their practical experience at running anything outside of a campus is little to nonexistent! In this case I happen to know we're dealing with Methodists, not Marxists, so we could argue from Scripture.
In general terms, to charge government with the duties of believers is a mistake. Government doesn't deal in--to use a favorite word of some politicians and commentators--compassion. Government deals in coercion. Don't confuse the two! It's one thing for you to donate your time, money and talent to improve your fellow humans' condition, and I wouldn't fault you for such efforts. But when the State requisitions your property, you can hardly claim that this makes you a charitable giver! The notion of the US government's carrying out your religious works, since it's not a theocracy, is fairly absurd. Rabbi Josh in fact declined to intervene in civil affairs when invited; when a guy asked him to get involved in an inheritance claim, he just said, "Man, who made me a judge and divider over you?"
Anyway, I must conclude that eloquence and scientific expertise failed here, because this letter appears a mere emotional outburst.
While I was working on this entry, who else should show up on the op-ed page but our "pal" Pastor K? His screed doesn't even deserve quoting. All he does is try to blame the US government's alleged poor response to the hurricane a month ago on the war overseas. Naturally he exempts city and state from consideration. That won't cut the mustard, Lefty!
Since then, someone else has chimed in on that page, explaining what's wrong with the original professorial opinion. Nice to see that.