The Fate of Frozen Embryos

I started writing this post last July, but am only now getting around to publishing it:

My wife just pointed out an article in Parenting magazine entitled "The Fate of Frozen Embryos." If you haven't thought much about infertility & fertility treatments, now's the time to start. My hope is that you'll never struggle with infertility, but I also don't want anybody to make a short-sighted decision when they're blinded by pain & their emotions.

The story at hand is about the "tough decision" that couples going through IVF treatments face when creating embryos - "left over" embryos are generally frozen, and either saved for another attempt at pregnancy, donated to other infertile couples, donated to medical research, or frozen indefinitely (so they won't be "destroyed").

This whole industry of infertility bothers me. Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should. There are so many moral & ethical questions involved, and the industry tends to do what the abortion industry does, using clinical jargon to avoid dealing with facts and their implications.

According to the article, "Experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of embryos have accumulated in fertility clinics throughout the country." This word "embryo" gets thrown around like its a consumer good. If you're reading this, you were once an embroy. As was I. It's simply a stage of human development. I was an embryo, and a fetus, and an infant, and a toddler, and an adolescent, and now I'm an adult. Whether you want to try and medically or biologically define specific stages, they're all periods of human life.

Pro-life advocates rightly ask questions such as "Do you think it would be okay to kill an infant? How about a toddler?" In light of fertility clinics, I'd add "Do you think it would be okay to freeze an infant or toddler?"

I find some of the sentiments about the "left over" embryos in the article to be disturbing. Here are a few (I've left out the names, so know that the "shes" are not all the same woman):

When the time came to decide about the extras, she says, "I thought I was going to be calm and casual." And she was, until the first bill arrived to keep the embryos frozen. "I was petrified," she says. "There was no practical reason to keep them. I just wasn't ready to make the decision not to keep them." She paid the $600, hoping that her thoughts would crystallize as time passed. This year, she's paying the bill again.

"There was no practical reason to keep them." Was there a practical reason to create them? Was there a practical reason to pay $600 a year to keep them frozen when there's no practical reason to keep them?

She has a 2-year-old daughter -- and six frozen embryos. "I would love to have another baby, if I were younger -- I'm 40 -- and if money was not an object." She finds herself trapped in a mental loop; while she doesn't have the same mind-blowing love for the embryos as she has for her daughter, neither does she consider them anonymous laboratory tissue. And there's another wrinkle: One of the six embryos is biologically hers and her husband's; the other five were created with donor eggs and his sperm. "What do people do?" she asks. "You have all of these embryos in all of these labs. Are people going to keep doing what I'm doing and pay the $40 a month ad infinitum?"

"... she doesn't have the same mind-blowing love for the embryos as she has for her daughter ..." That's understandable - that's how we are as people. We're material beings and attach to people and things that we can see and interact with. But seeing is not believing. Do we have to see the suffering of people in places like Darfur to believe it? For it to be real?

On the option of donating embryos to other infertile couples:

"I couldn't take the thought of knowing I had another child," she says. "I knew my heart couldn't handle it. We're all better off not knowing."

On donating to medical research:

[Another woman] would have liked more children through in vitro, but complications from the birth of her twin girls two years ago left her unable to get pregnant again. She had five embryos left and spent more than a year reconciling her choices with her religious convictions. Those five clusters of cells forced her to think, almost daily, about how she defined life. She considers herself pro-life, so donating to another infertile couple felt natural. The more she and her husband thought about it, however, the more unsettled they became. The questions she had were too big to be left unanswered. She didn't know if she'd ever stop searching crowds for little girls who looked just like hers. "It's a life-altering decision," she says.

They eventually decided to donate the embryos for medical research, as a gesture of gratitude to a system that had given them their dreams. "We were ultimately still giving life, just not for those particular five embryos," she says.

Many couples find donating to research a middle ground that gives the embryos a status somewhere between born children and simple clumps of cells. Although the embryos will not survive, giving to science can be a very caring act, says Dr. Lyerly, who has studied the issues surrounding frozen embryos. Couples who donate to research, she says, "feel like they were helped by science and they want to give back."

That sounds like sacrificing to the modern day fertility gods.

Here's another option the article calls "Thawing Without Donating:"

Some couples find themselves unable to escape the shadows of infertility without allowing their embryos to pass on naturally and with respect. Dr. Lyerly knows of a few women who've found a doctor willing to perform a "compassionate transfer," implanting the embryos into the woman at a time pregnancy is unlikely -- envisioning it as a way to return the embryos to their keeping. Other couples want to perform a ceremony of some sort during the thawing and disposal to show their reverence.

Finally, I found this to be the most helpful quote of the whole article:

"I don't think anybody knows what their opinion is until they're in this situation,"

I couldn't agree with that more. But I think that's because people don't think about it until or unless they're in this situation. Which is why I urge to you think about it now, before you find yourself in the middle of a situation that seems like there's no such thing as a good option.

All Things TSA

Maybe I'll get an extra special full body search next time I fly just for posting this. Here are a couple of good articles written about TSA security:

• The Things He Carried: Airport security in America is a sham—“security theater” designed to make travelers feel better and catch stupid terrorists. Smart ones can get through security with fake boarding passes and all manner of prohibited items—as our correspondent did with ease.
• Don't Touch My Junk: The junk man’s revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy.

I'm hoping the American people, government, and airlines all wake up and realize that the TSA does a much better job wasting the people's time & money than they do making them safer.

(HT: Challies)

Stem Cell Research

I couldn't let an entire year go by without posting something. Joe Carter shares the following:

The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is back in the news after a federal judge clarified that the government cannot use federal funds for such immoral research. Although the debate has been ongoing for almost ten years, the complexity of the issue and the peculiar terminology used often prevents many citizens from developing a fully informed opinion on the matter. To help, in some small way, redress that problem, I’ve compiled a brief primer, a “least you need to know” guide, that helps clarify and explain the questions most frequently asked about stem cell policy.

He goes on to provide brief answers to these questions and more:

• What are stem cells?
• How are stem cells different than other types of cells?
• Why are stem cells so important to research?
• What are embryonic stem cells?
• Where do the embryos for ESC come from?
• What are adult stem cells?
• What is a stem cell “line”?
• Why is there a controversy over ESC research?

Read the full thing here.

Myths About Embryonic Stem Cell Research

From Justin Taylor:

Yuval Levin--author most recently of Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy--shows four basic myths that the public and the media believe about embryonic stem cell research and policy:

1. Obama has restored federal policy to what it was prior to Bush’s 2001 stem cell policy announcement.
   
2. The Bush policy was a ban on embryonic stem cell research.
3. There are no viable scientific alternatives to the destruction of human embryos.
4. The promise of pluripotent stem cells is quite certain.

Read the whole thing.

See also:

• The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research, by Robert P. George and Eric Cohen
• Obama's False Choice, by Yuval Levin
• Science Over All? by Yuval Levin
• Winning Smugly, William Saletan (pro-choice journalist)
  
• Obama Also Rescinds Executive Order for Alternatives to ESCR, By Wesley J. Smith
• Perpetuating a Needless Stem-Cell War, by Ryan T. Anderson
• Stem Cells: A Political History, by Joseph Bottum and Ryan T. Anderson

I haven't taken the time to read any of the linked articles yet, but based on prior experience, I'd recommend Robert P. George and Wesley J. Smith.

Galatians

From Challies.com's A La Carte:

If Galatians was Published in Christianity Today
The Sacred Sandwich imagines what would happen if Paul’s letter was to be written and published today.

More Quotes!

Here are a couple of unrelated quotes, neither of which came from Of First Importance (from where I've been borrowing liberally lately).

The only way in which a state-controlled school can be kept even relatively healthy is through the absolutely free possibility of competition by private schools and church schools; if it once becomes monopolistic, it is the most effective engine of tyranny and intellectual stagnation that has yet been devised. (J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, 167)

(HT: Desiring God Blog)

No, Machen is not a contemporary politician, he wrote those words in 1933.

---

"If our theology does not quicken the conscience and soften the heart, it actually hardens both; if it does not encourage the commitment of faith, it reinforces the detachment of unbelief; if it fails to promote humility, it inevitably feeds pride."

J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness, page 15.

(HT: Vitamin Z)

Warning Against Chronological Snobbery

C.S. Lewis has been credited with coining the phrase "chronological snobbery." Dr. Art Lindsley, a Senior Fellow of the C.S. Lewis Institute, writes:

One of the often-heard objections to faith in Christ is that it is old fashioned or outmoded, a relic of the distant past and therefore easily discarded. After all, what could a two-thousand-year-old faith have to say to us in the twenty-first century?

This was one of the obstacles that C.S. Lewis had to overcome in order to come to faith in Christ. He dubs the problem as one of “chronological snobbery.” His friend Owen Barfield often argued with him on this issue. Lewis’s question was: How could this ancient religion be relevant to my present setting? Lewis defines this chronological snobbery as “the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate of our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that count discredited.”

(Quoted from C.S. Lewis on Chronological Snobbery)

Here's a lighthearted look at the problem of chronological snobbery:


(HT: Tim Challies)

Family/Children Part II

Japan has a slightly different take than Speaker of the House Pelosi:

TOKYO, Japan (CNN) - Even before one reaches the front door of Canon's headquarters in Tokyo, one can sense the virtual stampede of employees pouring out of the building exactly at 5:30 p.m.

In a country where 12-hour workdays are common, the electronics giant has taken to letting its employees leave early twice a week for a rather unusual reason: to encourage them to have more babies.

Japan is in the midst of an unprecedented recession, so corporations are being asked to work toward fixing another major problem: the country's low birthrate.

Read the rest.

(HT: Vitamin Z)

Family/Children Part I

Denny Burk comments:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is defending the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars of the forthcoming stimulus package are to be spent on “family planning.” Her argument is very simple. The economy is bad. Having babies costs money. Would-be parents need to save their money by not having babies.

Without a doubt, Pelosi’s remarks reflect the spirit of the age. In general, our culture has come to view children as a burden rather than as a blessing. Even among those who are married, children are increasingly viewed as add-ons—an option that may or may not be pursued by the couple.

This view of children is anything but biblical, and it is positively sub-Christian. From the very beginning of creation, having children has been associated with blessing from the Lord. God commanded Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply”—which was apparently the necessary condition of their ruling over the earth (Gen 1:28). Psalm 127:3 states very clearly that “children are a gift of the LORD; The fruit of the womb is a reward.” When his disciples attempted to dismiss curious children as a nuisance, Jesus said, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Mark 10:14).

For a more helpful perspective on welcoming children into our families, take a listen to Russell Moore’s conversation on “The Albert Mohler Program” last week. You can download it here ...

I listened to Dr. Moore on the Albert Mohler Program mentioned. It was really good - I wish I had been taught some of this stuff earlier. Unfortunately I bought into society's philosophy of waiting until you were "ready" or could "afford" to have kids. My biggest regret in my marriage is that I kept my wife from having children for more than 3 years because I wasn't "ready." I got to the point where I actually asked my sister why anybody would have kids. Thank God (and my wife) for showing me grace and patience. If only somebody had knocked me upside the head and told me to grow up and be a man instead of just asking when we were going to have kids. At least now maybe God can use me to do just that for somebody in the next generation.

UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I owe an apology to anybody - particularly family and/or friends - who may have knocked my upside the head, but I was still too thick headed to feel it. Nobody else is responsible for me but me, and it was wrong of me to try to pass the buck and blame somebody else. I won't accept that in politicians; I won't accept that in my kids; and I will not accept that in myself. Particularly as I trust in God's sovereignty, I cannot honestly look back and say that I would change anything, because it's all a part of His plan to bring me where I am today. So looking forward, I hope in God & pray to Him that I will lead a life and a family that communicates the inherent value of children as a blessing from the Lord, as well as the responsibility of parents - particularly fathers - to disciple their children and pass on lessons such as these.

(HT: Vitamin Z)

Culture Of Death

From the Washington Times' Jeffrey T. Kuhner:

Social conservatives are mobilizing to prevent President-elect Barack Obama's nominee, Thomas Perrelli, from becoming the next U.S. associate attorney general - the No. 3 post at the Justice Department. In a Jan. 6 story in The Washington Times, veteran reporters Stephen Dinan and Jerry Seper show that prominent special interest groups, such as the Traditional Values Coalition and the Family Research Council, are urging Republicans to oppose Mr. Perrelli's appointment.

It is rare for a sub-Cabinet nominee to generate such fierce criticism, but Mr. Perrelli deserves it. He was one of the lawyers responsible for the death of Terry Schiavo. While representing Mrs. Schiavo's husband, Michael, Mr. Perrelli played a key role in having the Florida woman's feeding tube forcibly removed. The 2005 landmark right-to-die case rightly outraged the pro-life community. As Mrs. Schiavo lay in a coma, her parents and siblings repeatedly said they were willing to take full responsibility, including paying for her medical care. Mr. Schiavo refused. He ordered her feeding at the hospital to be terminated - an act of coldblooded murder.

...

The selection of Mr. Perrelli is symptomatic of Mr. Obama's radicalism on social issues. He is staffing his administration with hard-core liberals bent on promoting a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-euthanasia agenda. The president-elect has tapped the likes of Dawn Johnsen, the former legal director of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), to head the Office of Legal Council. He has chosen a fiercely partisan pro-choice Democrat, Tom Daschle, as health and human services secretary. Mr. Obama's intended secretary of state, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is a pro-abortion feminist, who will use the power of the State Department to promote a secular humanist agenda abroad.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama vowed that one of his first acts as president will be to pass the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) - a sweeping law that will entrench Roe v. Wade and eliminate state restrictions on abortion and parental notification laws. He is a fierce critic of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits use of federal Medicaid dollars for abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in jeopardy. The law has saved countless lives. Yet, Mr. Obama and liberal Democrats plan to repeal it.

...

Mr. Obama is a prophet, but a prophet of the culture of death. He refuses to lift a finger to protect the most vulnerable and innocent in our society - the unborn. He now wants to appoint Mr. Schiavo's lawyer to a senior Justice Department position and he must be stopped in his tracks. Conservatives must vociferously object: Mr. Obama needs to know Terry Schiavo has not been forgotten - and that her death was not in vain.

Read the whole piece here.

A Little Perspective, Please

I'm a complainer, and am an impatient person, especially when it comes to seemingly minor things. Comedian Louis CK provides some perspective on our selfish, thankless, impatient society:

(HT: Vitamin Z)

A Forgotten Word?

Tim Ellsworth has some good reflections on saying "No" to our kids:

One of the most difficult things about parenting is knowing where to draw
the line when it comes to buying things for my kids.

On one hand, it
gives me great pleasure to provide good things for them. But yet, I don’t want
to spoil them, and I don’t want them to grow up with any kind of entitlement
mentality.

While I know there are undoubtedly times when I cross the line, I think
too many parents make “crossing the line” more the rule than the
exception.

...

In short, children need to learn what “no” means. Parents need to teach
them. It won’t kill you. Otherwise, we’ll raise a generation of kids who will
grow up to be insufferable, spoiled adults, and we have too many of those
already.

Read the whole thing.

Going Giftless at Christmas?

Shaun Groves just completed a 4-part series entitled "Going Giftless." He's got some good points that are well worth considering.

(HT: Vitamin Z)

High Stakes Gamble

LifeSiteNews.com carries a story about a UNICEF report about daycare, with some troubling data:

The report observes that "most children in the developed world are spending their earliest years in some form of care outside the home.” According to the organization, “80 per cent of children aged three to six are in some form of early childhood education and care outside the home,” and “about one in four under the age of three are also cared for outside the home — with the proportion rising to one in two in some countries.”

The report concludes that, "To the extent that this change is unplanned and unmonitored, it could also be described as a high-stakes gamble with today's children and tomorrow's world."

...

The most comprehensive study done in the US was released last year and found that the more time children spent in center-based care before kindergarten, the more likely their teachers were to report such problem behaviors as "gets in many fights," "disobedient at school," and "argues a lot." (See "Largest US Child Study Finds Early Child Care Linked to Aggression and Disobedience": http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07032607.html).

Other studies have found everything from increased frequency of illness to impaired social and emotional development in children attending preschool centers.

“The biggest eye-opener is that the suppression of social and emotional development, stemming from long hours in preschool, is felt most strongly by children from better-off families,” said UC Berkeley sociologist and co-author Bruce Fuller, who performed research on the question in California in 2005.

Who Would Have Thought?

For anybody who might have questioned my stance on never voting for any of the Congresspeople who voted for the $700 billion bailout bill (see here), here's one reason I took that stance:

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said he plans to introduce a bill Monday that would effectively put the brakes on the $700 billion financial rescue plan signed into law last month.

Sanders, who voted against the bailout package, lambasted the Bush administration for the way it's implemented the program thus far.

"I have very serious concerns as to how the Bush administration is spending the first $350 billion they were provided," Sanders said in a statement Monday. "The second $350 billion tranche must not be spent in the same way."

It's unclear how many other lawmakers would go as far to back a plan to halt the rescue program.

At the same time, criticism of the rescue program has been sharp.

Disapproval on Capitol Hill only grew last week, when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced that the department no longer plans to buy up banks' toxic mortgage-related debt - a key part of the plan when it was first pitched on Capitol Hill. Instead, Paulson said he plans to focus on actions that could boost the consumer finance sector, and thereby help consumers gain better access to student and auto loans.

Lawmakers have slammed Treasury for the about-face, saying it raises questions about whether Treasury has a clear roadmap for how to make best use of the funds. Meanwhile, leaders in the House and Senate have steadily called on Paulson to force banks receiving government funds to adhere to tougher executive pay limits and requirements on lending.

(read the rest here)

You mean it might not be a good idea to give one person a blank check with no oversight? You mean it might not be a good idea to just "do something" without actually taking time to think about and discuss what you want to do and the potential ramifications? Who knew? Funny how these Lawmakers who "slammed" the Treasury had no problem passing the bill that contained little oversight. Perhaps they should have read it before they voted on it.

Savior Sibling Thoughts

Last week I posted part of an article reminding me of a concept I've heard termed "savior sibling." (If you haven't already, read my previous post here, or the full article here.) I still haven't had the time to fully develop my thoughts, but wanted to post some before I forget.

The thrust of my thoughts result from the following portion of the story:

... Twenty-six eggs were fertilized and began to develop. Ten were genetically compatible. Two of those were disease-free, and both were implanted in CeCe's uterus in case one of them didn't develop.

I hate to use the phrase "collateral damage" here, since no real "damage" is intended, but that's what comes to mind. In order to cure their son's sickle cell anemia, 26 embryos were created. Two were allowed to continue to develop. The article speaks of CeCe's "guilt" at being pregnant with the twins, whose purpose was to save Carmani (this guilt was said to fall away after their birth), but there was no further mention of the other 24 embryos.

If I may, let me take a moment to detach my comments from the Boozers. I know that a single article cannot tell the whole story, cannot tell all the Boozers thought, did, and felt. I cannot imagine the hurt and anguish that they must have gone through.

So instead, I want to focus on the telling of the story. I think this speaks to the flippant way we view the miracle of life. We now have medical advances such as in vitro fertilization and advanced in utero diagnostics, so that we can tell (to various levels of certainty) if an embryo is a genetic match for a sick sibling, or likely to have Down syndrome, or even what gender the baby is very early in development. With the results of these tests we can decide whether or not a developing baby is worthy of life or not. We can convince ourselves that creating 26 embryos to try to have one baby to save another child is worth it, even if it means all the other embryos are frozen indefinitely (with the possibility of further attempts at implanting by in vitro), thrown out, or destroyed in research.

Back to the Boozers - my heart breaks for Carmani. My heart breaks for Carlos & CeCe having to watch their son go through a life threatening ordeal. My heart breaks for them going through the uncertain process of in vitro. My heart rejoices that Carmani has been cured. I hope that the whole family will glorify their Creator for years to come and ultimately enter into His rest. But my heart breaks for those other 24 embryos.

In closing I have a question. What do the following words have in common?

• Zygote
• Embryo
• Fetus
• Newborn
• Infant
• Toddler
• Adolescent
• Adult

These are simply stages of development that we all have gone through (assuming a purely adult readership). Why should any particular stage(s) have any more or less "right to life" than any other? Why should it be okay that, in America, more than 80 percent of babies diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome are aborted? Would we allow this with newborns/infants? Toddlers? Teenagers? Senior citizens? I really didn't intend to go on this much, but I'm reminded of a story that I heard from Glenn Beck and posted on my blog in November of 2006:

I want to share a story with you about a baby that was born -- baby Knauer -- born blind, missing an arm and a leg. The parents were just beside themselves.

The dad decided he's going to write and ask for some help because all the doctors weren't helping. They wrote somebody who is pretty powerful, and they trusted him. And they said, "Please, can you help us put our child into a better place? Please remove the burden on us."

Well, he saw the pictures. He read the letter, talked to the parents, flew out to meet with them, just filled with compassion, tears filling his eyes. He said, "I will personally give you my personal doctor to review the case." The doctor came back and said absolutely no justification for keeping this child alive. The baby was allowed to die.

Who was that compassionate, powerful man who so graciously put that baby boy to sleep? You probably guessed by now it was Adolf Hitler. Baby Knauer was the first victim of the Holocaust. Hitler later signed a decree permitting the euthanasia of disabled infants based on this case and creating a panel of expert referees which judged the infants and found out which ones were eligible for death.

Once he was through with the babies, the elderly were next. As it has been said over and over again with tragedies regarding the Holocaust: Never again.

"Savior Sibling"

Ever heard the phrase "savior sibling?" If not, I'd encourage you to educate yourself. It's a concept pregnant with moral & ethical controversy. I was reminded of the idea by a story on ESPN.com about Utah Jazz forward Carlos Boozer and his family. Carlos and his wife CeCe have a son Carmani who was born with sickle cell anemia, and they were told that there was no known cure. The story has many things I could comment on, but I don't have the time right now. It's a heart wrenching story that I wouldn't wish upon anybody. But the following paragraphs stuck out to me:

Finally, at a clinic in Atlanta, she heard something new. Doctors there had been doing bone marrow transplants for years and recently had been eradicating sickle cell anemia, among other blood diseases, with the procedure. It was a revelation, a possible way out.

She went back to the library and the phones to study up on bone marrow transplants and learned an infant sibling who could donate cord blood (rather than bone marrow), rich in stem cells, from an umbilical cord would offer the best chance of a successful transplant and a cure.

But a second pregnancy for CeCe and Carlos would mean the risk of a second child born with sickle cell disease. And there would be no guarantee that a second child, or a third, or even a fourth, would necessarily be both free of the disease and a genetic match for Carmani. They couldn't risk it. They began talking about in vitro fertilization and genetic screening instead.

CeCe pulled together a team that included an in vitro specialist, Dr. Michael Jacobs in Miami, who would biopsy the Boozers' developing fertilized embryos and later perform an in vitro fertilization; a geneticist, Dr. Mark Hughes in Detroit, who would test those embryos in order to determine which of them were sickle-cell free as well as genetically compatible with Carmani's immune system; and a transplant expert, Dr. John Fort at Miami Children's Hospital, who would transplant the sibling's cord blood into Carmani's system, replacing his bad stem cells with healthy ones. Twenty-six eggs were fertilized and began to develop. Ten were genetically compatible. Two of those were disease-free, and both were implanted in CeCe's uterus in case one of them didn't develop.

Six weeks later, the Boozers learned they had twins on the way.

I'd encourage you to read the whole story and share your thoughts. I'll try to share mine when I have some more time.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

(HT: Douglas Wilson)

What Does He Know?

Warren Buffett wrote an interesting Op-Ed piece recently for the New York Times.

THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

So ... I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

I particularly enjoyed these two paragraphs, near the end of the piece:

Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.

Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

Economic Crisis

Tim Ellsworth has an interesting take on the economic crisis, suggesting that the crisis could be good for the nation. Here's his conclusion:

Could the threat - or even the existence - of an economic depression be enough of a reality check to return us to a point where selfishness is not the predominant characteristic of our nation? Would it refocus us and make us reconsider what's important in life? I can't say for sure. But am I willing to put up with an economic downturn - perhaps even a depression - if it means a brighter future for my children? If it means a future in which they feel more connected to their neighbors and communities? If it means a future in which they recognize the value of the eternal more than the temporal? If it means a greater emphasis on the wholesome and the upright, rather than the decadence and filth that mark so much of American society?

If a depression is what it takes to achieve that, then bring it on. It's a price I'm happy to pay.

Read the full piece in the Jackson Sun.