1. A Concise Overview of a Pneumatological Philosophical Theology
The pneumatological perspective engages an outlook that is incarnational, liturgical
and sacramental. It embraces the essential Christological and pneumatological
approaches of Anglican, Orthodox, Roman and other catholic traditions while
emphasizing nonhierarchical vehicles in the practice of the faith (not over against but
as a complement to institutional models of church). It enjoys an increasingly global
P2P (peer to peer) interactivity among the world’s catholics.
It is described using an indefinite article (“a” not “the”) because normative
philosophical and interpretive theological methods are autonomous.
Furthermore, these methods employ falsifiable hypotheses and not a priori
positions.
A metaphor that mixes both manufacturing and natural processes may be helpful in
understanding this perspective.
References to a phenomenology, ontology or metaphysic may be reconceived in
terms of raw materials. In this pneumatological architectonic (group of basic
categories), these raw materials are described as different types of relationships
(intraobjective identity, intersubjective intimacy, intrasubjective integrity and
interobjective indeterminacy). An inventory of these raw materials considers reality’s
givens, its basic furnishings.
What is called an axiology (think values) refers, then, to the sought-after products.
These include end-products (intrinsic values), by-products (extrinsic values) and
waste-products (disvalues and evil, which invite transformative processes). The endproducts and byproducts represent higher and lesser goods. The category of wasteproducts invites both theodicy hypotheses (why is there evil?) and questions of
soteriology (what to do about evil?).
Any discussion of methodology, including epistemology, may be thought of as
processes.
These represent the means by which we pursue our ends, the strategies ordered
toward our goals. They include our descriptive sciences, evaluative cultures,
normative philosophies and interpretive religions. They require prudent risk
management, both attenuation and amplification, ordered toward the augmentation
of value-realization. This prudential judgment employs an axis of co-creativity,
where one pole represents the high frequency-low amplitude approach of our
formative influences (think soft power) and the other – the low frequency-high
amplitude approach of our redemptive interventions (think hard power). The
aesthetic teleology (process ordered toward enhanced beauty) of emergent reality
does not forcefully coerce what it can otherwise gently coax (or at least politely coopt). Prudence avoids the competing and insidious axis of codependency, where
one pole represents the low frequency-low amplitude approach of an apathetic
disposition (such as depression and isolationism) and the other – the high
frequency-high amplitude interventions of a pathetic
over-involvement (such as codependency and militarism).
The products that result from the processing of life’s raw materials are ordered
toward a consumer, a human being, who is a radically social animal. In this mixed
1

2. metaphor, then, any talk of an anthropology refers to the role of the consumer.
Different human value-realizations of the truth have been described in various
historical narratives that have been inescapably eschatological (Spirit-oriented).
Beauty has been celebrated in cultural (mostly individualized) and social (mainly
institutionalized) realities that are, respectively, theological (Spirit-sanctified) and
ecclesiological (Spirit-empowered). Goodness has been advanced and preserved
by economic orders that are essentially sacramental (Spirit-healed).
All of these value-realizations require a context of freedom advanced by political
realities that are soteriological (Spirit-saved).
None of this is to suggest that truth, beauty, goodness and freedom are optimally (or
equally) realized in every historical, cultural, social, economic and political
milieu, only to recognize that it has been the Spirit, Who has gently coaxed and,
sometimes, more coercively cajoled, reality on a journey that is unmistakably
pneumatological (Spirit-inspired).
This is all to suggest that what we call the secular order is no reality from which
the Spirit has been either partially bracketed or fully abstracted but represents,
rather, humankind’s pneumatological consensus to date, even if such an accord
is somewhat implicit and unconsciously competent and not otherwise negotiated
through explicitly conscious dialogical processes. Other semiotic (think meaning)
realities are similarly negotiated (our theoretic concepts), non-negotiable (our
semiotic concepts without which meaning, itself, would not be possible), still-innegotiation (heuristic concepts or placeholders) or nonnegotiated (dogmatic
concepts) across the human community of value-realizers writ large.
Thus we interpret the products of our trialectical axiology, the raw materials of
our triadic phenomenology, the processes of our trialogical epistemology, the
tripartite anthropology of our consumer and the trinitarian theology of our
Producer.
Sorting Truth Claims
Whether embedded in discursive analysis or mythopoetic narrative Is this a claim that can be safely abstracted from its context within the whole without
doing violence to its integrity? rather than, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, being wrenched
from its context in the whole and swollen to madness in its isolation?
And the general default stance would be that most truth claims should have some
interreligious, intercultural significance as human beings are, for the most part, vis a
vis the human condition, similarly situated and, furthermore
Despite any pretense to the contrary, individual truth claims are not going to be
inextricably bound within or to systematic formulae because they are otherwise
ordinarily going to be related as individual strands of cable that collectively impart
strength and resilience one to the other in a way that
is much more informal. And the distinction in play, here, is that between
foundational and nonfoundational epistemologies, between deductive reasoning
from a priori, apodictic propositions and a form of reasoning that otherwise cycles
through abductive and inductive inferences in a cumulative
case-like approach. Further, one must consider the distinction between
2

3. propositional claims and nonpropositional posits.
As one moves within and across various communities of value-realizers,
one must consider the nature of the concepts being employed vis a vis to what extent
such concepts enjoy theoretic (negotiated), heuristic (still-in-negotiation),
dogmatic (non-negotiated) or semiotic (non-negotiable) status.
One must further distinguish between articulations of any given theory of truth
(correspondence & congruence) versus a proposal for a test of truth (coherence,
consilience & consonance)
next between nomological (descriptive/interpretive) & axiological
(normative/evaluative) truth claims
and then further distinguish between prudential (moral/practical) norms and
relational norms (unitary/unitive), the latter which foster realizations of absolute
unitary being and/or intersubjective unitive intimacy, distinct realizations, to be
sure, but both from which solidarity and compassion seem to inevitably ensue? and
which have profound existential import?
The relational norms (ceremonial, liturgical, ascetical & mystical) may, perhaps, be
the most interesting when they lead to phenomenal experiences that do not so
much lend themselves to phenomenological descriptions (much less
metaphysical/ontological hypotheses?) as they will otherwise bring about a
practitioner's affective attunement with reality vis a vis how friendly and safe it is
notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary (ridding folks of angst, perfect love
driving out all fear)?
These relational norms are discussed here in the context of a personal God but
certainly apply to degrees of intimacy in human interactions.
There is a "Taste and See" approach to such truth claims that engages our
participatory imaginations more than our conceptual mapmaking?
This is not to say that empirical, logical, moral and practical propositions are
unimportant, only to realize that 'marital propositions' are far more ' engaging' and
meaning-giving, inviting what I like to call an existential-disjunctive: "I am going
to live as if She loves me."
And when so many efficacies ensue from thus living AS IF ... perhaps
truth will come flying in on the wings of beauty & goodness? as it is not merely
informative but robustly performative, even transformative?
Our existential responses can be mapped along either the axis of co-creativity
(formative and redemptive poles) or the axis of codependency (a/pathetic poles)
based on their frequency and amplitude, revealing behavior to be existential or
neurotic, life-giving and relationship-enhancing or their opposite.
Distinctions & Neologisms
pansemioentheism
pneumatological consensus (the secular as)
3

4. nomological vs axiological truth claims
prudential vs relational norms
unitary vs unitive
descriptive sciences
evaluative cultures
normative philosophies
interpretive religions
theoretic concept
semiotic concept
heuristic concept
dogmatic concept
intraobjective identity (absolute unitary being)
intersubjective intimacy (intimate unitive communion)
intrasubjective integrity
interobjective indeterminacy
simple phenomenal experience
vague phenomenological concepts
robust ontological descriptions
risk management, both attenuation & amplification, ordered
toward the augmentation of
value-realization
value-realizations as
intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards
end-product vs by-product
axis of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles)
axis of codependency (a/pathetic poles)
theoretical theological capitulation
practical pastoral accommodation
universal ethical norms of justice & ordinary virtue (morality
as end-product)
Christian unitive norms of love & extraordinary virtue
(morality as by-product)
A Pneumatological Consensus?
In a pluralistic country, might we perhaps discern how much,
on the whole, its people cooperate with the Spirit?
Might we observe how well its:
1) culture sanctifies
2) history orients
3) society empowers
4) economy heals &
4

5. 5) politics save ----------- its people?
Might the secular there manifest, for better or worse, a
"pneumatological consensus" with its implicit theology
(sanctifying), eschatology (orienting), ecclesiology (empowering),
sacramentology (healing) & soteriology (saving)?
Of course, we are talking about proleptic (anticipatory)
realizations of Kingdom values that are yet unfolding toward a
future fullness.
This would clearly differ from any overly dialectical
perspective that would essentially run counter to a robustly
incarnational and profusely pneumatological approach to all of
reality, even while recognizing significant differences in any
degree of cooperation with the Spirit. Of course, failures to
cooperate might result from either inabilities (due to poor
formation or even deformative influences) or refusals (known
to God alone).
Also, this might differ, somewhat, from any Niebuhrian realism
that would draw too sharp a distinction between the
eschatological and temporal significance of Gospel
imperatives? For example, nonviolence then but not now?
Or from any exegetical interpretations that would too sharply
distinguish between our personal vocations and political
statecraft? For example, coercion there but not here?
Or that would suggest so-called dispensational distinctions?
For example, signs & wonders then but not now, there but not
here)?
And we might introduce a distinction between the Gospel's
robustly unitive norms (how to live in loving intimacy with
God and others) and general revelation's merely moral norms
(how to live in harmony with God, others, creation & self,
pursuing what's good and right, avoiding what's evil and
wrong), morality realized as a by-product of the former, an
end-product of the latter, necessary in any case.
Because of our radical human finitude and sinfulness
(personal, social & institutional), any sanctioned departures
from these unitive norms would represent, then, no theoretical
theological capitulations (eisegesis even) but, rather,
practical pastoral accommodations (for example, regarding any
use of coercive violence).
At any rate, these unitive norms - and not any essentially
moral norms, which are otherwise transparent to human reason
without the benefit of special revelation(s) - differentiate
the Gospel brand in the marketplace. Love is a suitable means
to the ends of justice but its unitive aims clearly exceed
those, even breaking open a new category.
5

6. The whole point of my exploration is that we might more
broadly conceive just when and where and in whom we might encounter the Spirit!
The unitive vs moral norm distinction moreso differentiates the Old & New
Testaments, as I see it. Keep in mind, though, that 'good people doing good things for
good reasons' characterizes moral norms.
Our unitive norms entail a striving for loving intimacy, relating as lovers. So, what I
am saying is that morality is not what separates the Gospel messages from other
messages b/c anyone can do morality, which is transparent to human reason without
the benefit of special revelation, which is why we see good people doing good things
for good reasons everywhere. The Good News tells us that we are loved beyond
imagining by a God, Who wants us to relate to Him as Daddy, or, if one prefers, as
Betrothed.
To some extent, this unitive striving can be distinguished from those practices of the
East that are ordered toward gifting one with an experience of absolute unitary being,
which I consider an intuition of intraobjective identity, our great causal
connectedness, reality's immense solidarity. The unitive striving gifts us with an
intersubjective, interpersonal intimacy. Both lead to compassion.
The thrust is that the Spirit just might be at work in every history, every culture, every society, every economy
and every political effort, albeit in varying degrees.
And the efficacies of the Spirit are being realized not just in the
past or future but now, not just here and here but there and
there. And that the Spirit's invitation takes us -- not without but -- way beyond mere
moral & practical concerns to robustly relational concerns.
What is at stake in adopting an interpretive stance toward
reality involves relational values & relationships, evaluative posits of various types
(truth, beauty, goodness, freedom/love), normative approaches (how to best avoid or
acquire dis/values) and descriptive accounts (what is that?).
To some extent, we can roughly map these endeavors as science
(descriptive-truth), philosophy (normative-goodness) and culture (evaluativebeauty).
Religion is an interpretive stance that takes us meta- via creed (truth), cult-ivation
(beauty), code (goodness) and community (relational).
The Spirit (based on Lukan Christology, too) orients, sanctifies, empowers, heals and
saves us and these functions are manifest in our churches,
respectively, via eschatology, theology, ecclesiology, sacrament and soteriology,
mapping roughly over an otherwise, again respectively, secular history, culture,
society, economy & body politic.
More commonly, we see the terms orthodoxy (truth), orthopathy
(beauty), orthopraxy (goodness) and orthocommunio (community), as applied to our
needs for believing, desiring, behaving and belonging.
A New Testament emphasis would, in my view, for purposes of
formative spirituality/development, while viewing all of these aspects
6

7. as integral, would accord a certain primacy to belonging, which then forms our
desires, which then elicit our behaviors which will nurture our interpretive stance or
beliefs. And these beliefs engage our participatory imagination way more than our
propositional cognition, being way more performative than informative, much more
about practical living than theoretical speculation.
This does not correspond, however, to the Old Covenant mindset, which certainly
values belonging, desiring, behaving and believing but seems to
accord a primacy to believe this and behave like that and then you can belong (and
what's a desire?).
What we are doing in our dialogue is a theological task. We are unpacking our
densely packed jargonistic prose. There is nothing magical about
jargon but it is an eminently useful tool of any trade that consists, usually, of a
shorthand that is highly nuanced, hence saving time and space. When it is used, no
problem, but it needs translating when being taken to a different audience. And that's
all that was about. And this is aside from any discussion of ecclesiology or models of
church, which, again, I don't see as
mutually exclusive. I do see a role for experts in descriptive, normative and
theological sciences but that doesn't drive my pneumatology or view of the Spirit at
work in the world. We do want to collaboratively pursue the most nearly perfect
articulation of truth in creeds/myths, the most nearly
perfect celebrations of beauty in cult/liturgy, the most nearly perfect preservation of
the good in code/law and the most nearly perfect enjoyment of fellowship in
community and this will require our fostering of Lonergan's conversions: intellectual,
affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious, all toward the end of optimal valuerealization. In that, there are diverse ministries but one mission.
Pan-semio-entheism
I call my own approach a pan-semio-entheism precisely because
I choose to prescind from any robustly metaphysical descriptions (an ontology) to a
more vague phenomenological perspective, which categorizes our experiences of God
in relational terms based on our intuitions, evaluations and performative responses
that ensue in the wake of these experiences. Those categories include 1)
intraobjective identity – regarding
our vague intuitions of an absolute unitary being 2) intersubjective intimacy –
regarding our unitive strivings 3) intrasubjective integrity – think of
Lonergan’s conversions & formative spirituality and 4) interobjective indeterminacy
– which hints at the methodological constraints and putative ontological occulting
that thwart natural theological inquiry, as some claim in-principle (which is too
strong a position to defend philosophically) and as I acknowledge (instead for all
practical purposes) at least, at this
stage of humankind’s sojourn.
So, a suitably nuanced panentheism is not an ontology or metaphysic or natural
theology but, instead, a theology of nature, which employs metaphor, analogy, myth,
koan, song anddance. It does not aspire to describe what remains indescribable, to
say more than we can possibly know, does not attempt to prove too much or to tell
untellable stories. The above categories certainly have ontological implications
(which get analytically frustrated) that might flow from those distinct
phenomenological categories of our God-experience but they honor, with reverent
silence and respectful apophasis, the mysterium tremendum et fascinans. Our
7

8. panentheism is then saying much more about the value-realizations that grow out of
our God-encounters but much less about causal joints and divine mechanics.
We affirm THAT values are being realized from experiences without specifying
HOW.
It is worth noting that in our other metaphysical adventures, nowadays, we know
better than to use a modal ontology of possible, actual and necessary
but now substitute “probable” for necessary. Confronted with epistemic
indeterminacy and ontological vagueness in navigating proximate reality, how much
more folly we would engage when attempting to describe ultimate reality? Still,
everywhere in reality, necessity suggest itself even as, nowhere in reality, have we
found it physically instantiated. Charles Sanders Peirce speaks of our abduction of
the Ens Necessarium and I resonate
with that inference, weak though it may be. I precisely make the same appeal to the
Jewish intuition of God’s shrinking to make room for reality and my own theology of
nature then sees emergent reality participating in various degrees of semiotic
freedom in an ontological-like hierarchy (crowned by the imago Dei).
So, I don’t embrace some neo-Platonic participatory ontology of proodos, mone and
epistrophe as a description of metaphysical reality, much less
God ad intra or ad extra in a natural theology. But I do believe it is enormously
helpful to honor and thereby categorize the many human phenomenal experiences of
God that ensue from our subjunctive (as if)
encounters of God in creed, cult, code and community in a theology of nature that is
self-aware of its metaphorical, mythical, liturgical nature as qualifed by suitable
kataphatic, apophatic and relational predication and generally revealed.
The Trinity and God’s relational nature is specially revealed as Love, exceeding
anything we could otherwise infer empirically, logically, practically or morally from
nature.
At least this is my attempt to grapple with the same issues.
Systematic Theology?
Sometimes, to me, it feels like systematic theology is an
oxymoron, practical theology is a redundancy and natural
theology is a fool's errand. And where natural theology is
concerned, I'm talking about the kind that gets all
metaphysical using somebody's pet root metaphor, be that being
or substance or process or social-relational or flavah du
jour. Our realization of life's values just seems a lot more
informal, a lot messier, if you will, than all of the
otherwise neat formulas that the theo-wonks are fashioning
with the aim of shoehorning creation & Creator into some One
SiZe FiTs AlL Gospel sandals.
But a theology of nature that begins within the faith and
spontaneously breaks into lyric and psalm and myth and koan
and song and poem with metaphors cascading and collapsing --engenders fascination and mystery, awakens desires and
longings, fosters communal celebrations and forms ecological
sensibilities, reinforcing how everything belongs. In this
8

9. belonging our desires are formed such that compassionate
behaviors naturally ensue. What we call our beliefs, then, are
more so interpretations, less so descriptions, what we might
call existential disjunctives that suggest: if we live as if
... then thus and such! So, we participate imaginatively by
celebrating with God, other, world and self as if we all
really belonged to one another in solidarity and compassionate
interactions then ensue toward others and our environment.
Finally, since all interpretive approaches are inescapably
tautological and all metaphors eventually collapse, one way
science can enhance our understanding of God's word and
creation is by providing more accurate descriptions for our
interpretations such that our metaphors are more robust (last
longer before collapsing - as we mine their meanings) and our
tautologies are more taut (tautologies do not provide new info
but that doesn't mean they are not true or that all are
equally true; there are criteria for how well they "fit"
reality).
The Gospel Brand
What differentiates the Gospel brand is an interpretation of reality as both created &
friendlier than we could ever imagine. Authentic friendship,
however, transcends the need for extrinsic rewards (what's in it for me?) and enjoys
the robustly relational intrinsic rewards (truth, beauty, goodness, freedom, trust,
love) that are ends unto themselves, their own reward, in no need of apology or
explanation.
Now, "to transcend" does not mean to "go without" but, rather, "beyond."
Still, for some, it might invite a re-EMPHASIS?
Another implication is that religion's core mission is to interpret reality and not to
otherwise describe, norm or even evaluate it, all activities (e.g.
science & moral reasoning) that are already transparent to human reason. This is not
to suggest that it would not have moral implications for, if we act as if we really
believe the Good News, we will then exceed the demands of justice!
An Existential Disjunctive - to live as if
Christian faith, as an existential orientation/interpretive stance
(Christology/Pneumatology), has normative implications. Beyond our practical and
moral norms with their extrinsic rewards, it introduces a new category of norms, the
unitive, which are intrinsically rewarding. These unitive norms provide suitable
means for moral ends but their aim
transcends our practical and moral concerns.
As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our imaginative participation in an
intimate relationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historical
perspective eschatologically, sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically,
empowering our societal institutions ecclesiologically, healing our economic orders
sacramentally and saving our political endeavors soteriologically. And what singular
reality orients, sanctifies, empowers, heals and saves? Love. Love transforms our
9

10. ultimate concerns. The norms of Christian love foster
our realization of solidarity with all of reality.
As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our imaginative participation in an
intimate relationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historical
perspective eschatologically, sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically,
empowering our societal institutions ecclesiologically, healing our economic orders
sacramentally and saving our political endeavors soteriologically. And what singular
reality orients, sanctifies, empowers, heals and saves? Love. Love transforms our
ultimate concerns. The norms of Christian love foster
our realization of solidarity with all of reality.
Communal Discernment
communal discernment - my favorite redundancy, and it applies
in science, philosophy & religion b/c, in my approach, at
least, epistemology is epistemology is epistemology (contra
any notion of, for example, a religious epistemology vs other
types). This is not to say that there is no such phenomenal
experience as "hearing from God" but, even then, the
individual will be processing (chewing & digesting) it through
(self-critical) lenses provided during formation in community
& the fruits of same (or lack thereof) are subject to the
prudential & theological judgments of community (another
source transcendent of one's mere self). We don't want to deny
signs & wonders, which may be proleptic realizations of what
may some day be an eschatological fullness but we want to
resist the tendency to sensationalize them in a way that
devalues the splendor of the ordinary and the stupefaction we
should all be experiencing in every waking (and dreaming)
moment at the ... the ... the ...
Church Polity
Beyond the difficult to pin down empirical data re: the exact
nature, rates, causes & handling of abuse incidents, in one
denomination vs another (and some fairly good studies are
emerging even as some fairly dubious & facile analyses
persist), there is a related issue in play re: church polity
vis a vis any question re: a grassroots 'people's
reform' of the church.
It may be that, in theory, the sense of the faithful (sensus
fidelium) or "what has been received & practiced by the
faithful" is what guides the Teaching Office (magisterium) but
it seems pretty obvious to me that, in practice, this process
has been seriously flawed.
Apparently, this is less the case with the methodologies
employed in formulating & articulating social teachings even
as it has clearly been the case where church disciplines (e.g.
celibacy, women's ordination), liturgical practices (e.g. open
communion, sacramental reception by divorced & remarried) and
10

11. moral doctrines (e.g. contraception, homoerotic behavior) are
concerned. Catholic social teaching has experienced three
rather seismic shifts in methodology. In Catholic social
teaching, Charles Curran describes three methodological shifts
in emphasis from: 1) classicism to historical consciousness 2)
natural law to personalism and 3) legalism to relationality-responsibility.
This methodological shift implicitly invites &
fosters the collegial participation of lay experts &
commissions (iow, us anawim - of both genders, even), social &
political scientists, academic theologians and so on in a much
broader & deeper consultative, active-listening process.
The good news, then, is that the seeds of reform are there for
the planting if only the church could cross-pollinate its
seminal social doctrine cultivation and plant and nurture them
in the furrows of its church discipline, liturgical practice &
moral doctrine rows. This will require pulling the weeds of
patriarchalism, hierarchicalism, clericalism, sexism and so on
from those rows as has been done on the others. Or, to change
metaphors, one has reason to hope that the seismic shifts that
have already taken place already, to the edification of the
faithful and the world community writ large, will cause some
tectonic reshuffling as their aftershocks emanate out from
that epicenter.
There are roles to play, then, in ongoing institutional reform
and there are end-arounds, too, via non-institutional vehicles
(not mutually exclusive). In some sense, it seems to me that
the hierarchicalism & clericalism is not just a top-down
oppression but that it reflects where so much of the laity
remains. We don't want to over-identify THE church with either
its institutional form or its clerical leadership but we
cannot deny that their re-formation and ongoing transformation
would help advance the Kingdom. A significant but
marginalized minority continues to voice prophetic protest and
live in loyal dissent; others change denominations or employ
non-institutional vehicles. Whatever the case, a denomination
is but a means and not the end, thank God.
The Role of Government
In an ideal world, there would be no coercion needed at all.
Government is a necessary evil because we are fallible,
flawed, finite. Political statecraft, especially at the
federal level, must maintain the public order, best it can. To
try to accomplish more than that, especially in a pluralistic
society, isn't workable and quickly devolves into the
counterproductive, precisely because coercive force encroaches
on personal dignity & will demoralize "the governed."
The government, then, is to be about the administration of
justice, leaving the demands of charity to individual
initiatives. Even what have traditionally been called
11

12. "entitlement" programs are not really in place to administer
mercy; rather, they are in place to maintain the public order
b/c w/o social security, medicare & medicaid, for example,
society could otherwise be brought to the brink of chaos and
disorder via outright criminality. That's why it is aptly
named "social" and not, rather, "retirement" security.
I would not go so far as to say that all can meet their own
needs b/c, sometimes, due to bad luck, misfortune and other
at-risk situations, even life's basic necessities will remain
out of reach. I am also not suggesting that the collective
resources of our population are so scarce that maybe even all
of our population's basic needs might not be met by them. The
nuance is that I am saying that the government is in no
position to commandeer those resources that we, thru our
selfish habits of consumption, are not otherwise willing to
freely share via our individual and nongovernmental charitable
initiatives. The Goose would selfishly fly away is the problem, I'm afraid.
The tax code should be socially & economically neutral & not
used to incentivize the allocation of private capital. They
can give the collected revenues away to whomever they'd like
per the wisdom of their appropriations commitees. Also, I hope
they seriously study the practicality of taxing consumption &
not income & never both.
In the case at hand, erroneously and so-called tax-breaks for
Big Oil, the incentives should be repealed for all
manufacturers or none. Again, neutrality.
To balance the budget, both spending cuts & revenue
enhancements are needed & the lionshare of the latter must
come from a rising ecomomic tide rather than tax hikes.
Spending cannot be based first on society's needs b/c those
will always exceed our available governmental resources, which
must be defined as a sustainable percent of annual GDP. Needs
require, then, some tragic triage decisions.
Some always focus on the Goose & some on the eggs. No goose,
no eggs!
12