Delivery of Social Services through Faith-Based Organizations

Excerpt taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/faithb.html

The growing interest in the provision of public social services via faith-based organizations stems from several factors. First, some faith-based organizations have demonstrated dramatic success in curbing or alleviating social problems in particularly distressed communities. For example, the efforts of Reverend Eugene Rivers of the Azusa Christian Community in the Dorchester section of Boston have been credited with reducing the juvenile murder rate in that community to almost zero. Second, social science data has increasingly documented a strong inverse correlation between religious commitment and social pathologies. Beginning with Harvard economist Richard Freeman’s work on church attendance and juvenile delinquency, numerous studies have shown that religious commitment tends to lessen the tendency of both children and adults to engage in counterproductive behaviors, ranging from delinquency to addiction and violence. Third, dissatisfaction with the outcome of government programs has led both to reduction in federal welfare spending and increased pressure to enlist the help of faith- and community-based organizations in caring for the poor. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act included a "charitable choice" provision that permitted states to direct funds to faith-based organizations for childcare and other services aimed at helping welfare recipients return to work. Several states are taking advantage of these provisions.


The Debate

Advocates of enlisting faith-based organizations in the provision of public services point to anecdotal evidence of the success of faith-based programs. They argue that the dangers posed by the social problems such as drug addiction or teen homicide outweigh any threat to the separation of church and state posed by the use of faith-based organizations. They often argue that faith-based or religiously oriented approaches are inherently more effective than secular approaches in changing behavior.

Opponents argue that directing government funds, at either the federal or state level, to sectarian organizations raises serious separation issues. While organizations such as Catholic Charities and Lutheran Charities have long received large subsidies from the federal government, such traditional charities have pursued their efforts in a self-consciously nonsectarian manner. Critics argue that newer faith-based approaches, such as that embodied by Eugene Rivers program in Boston or Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship, rely explicitly on proselytization as the means of effecting behavioral change. Subsidies to such organizations, according to critics, can amount to violations of the Constitution’s establishment clause because they involve the state directly in supporting the spread of particular religious views.


The Communitarian View

Communitarians emphasize the role of the community as a potent "third force" in shaping the conduct and quality of both individual and collective life. Communitarians argue that a healthy and strong community can frequently exert a deeper and more lasting influence on individual behavior than the state acting via law and law enforcement. The restoration of vitality and safety to beleaguered neighborhoods and cities usually requires a revitalization of the organic community institutions that enrich and order community life. Healthy families and churches and neighborhood communities and like institutions are the key to shaping the conduct of children in such a way that they will become productive adults.

For this reason, communitarians generally support a creative division of labor, which permits the state to channel resources to community organizations, including faith-based organizations, for the provision of services within a community. Community-based organizations, including church organizations, have a comparative advantage in dealing "close-up" with community members. Communitarians believe that safeguards need to be in place to protect the individual’s free exercise of religious rights under the Constitution. Social service should not be provided as a quid pro quo for religious adherence; secular alternatives should also be available. But for those individuals who choose them, faith-based alternatives have been shown to accomplish dramatic improvements in the quality of both individual and community life..

A division of labor that permits faith-based organizations to act as service providers observes the key communitarian principle of subsidiarity--which posits that no unit of society should perform functions more appropriately performed by a smaller entity. The neighborhood should not usurp the normal function of the family; the city the function of the neighborhood; the state the function of the city; or the federal government the function of the state. Similarly, the bureaucratic government should not usurp the immediate functions of the family and the church. Use of faith-based organizations as service providers--with proper Constitutional safeguards--permits common resources to be directed toward strengthening the community rather than enhancing the power of the state, often at the expense of community institutions.

Marriage and the Separation of Church and State

Will you have this woman/man to be your wife/husband to live together according to God’s decree in the holy estate of marriage? Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honor and keep her/him, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, faithfully keep to her/him alone, so long as you both shall live?

If you have answered I will to the question above in front of witnesses and you are a Christian, then you are married.

If you have said or have had said to you in front of witnesses "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel" and you are Jewish, then you are married.

I could go on but the point is that there is no need for government to be in marriage. If a persons vows to the other are not enough we have contracts that can lend legal binding to an agreement. Marriage is for the couple their families their community and frequently their church not the state.

by Matthew Bartko

Government should stay out of any marriage

Marshfield News Herald (Marshfield, Wisconsin)

Published Opinion.

August 9, 2003.

Editor:

Lately, homosexual marriages have been a subject of much unnecessary controversy. The simple solution to the gay marriage conflict is to privatize marriage. This would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one's private life would have official government sanction - exactly as it should be.

In the last century government intruded upon the marriage contract, among much else. The modern mistake is to think that important things must be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the government. Let's get the government out of marriage and allow individuals to make their own marriage contracts.

Marriage is an important institution. But it's only because marriage is wedded to the state that it causes a political debate and social friction. Should the state force employers to provide "benefits" to gay spouses? No, but neither should the state force employers to provide benefits to heterosexual spouses.

Both taxes and adoption are state-related activities. If there were no income tax, the issue of filing taxes jointly would be moot. Given that we have an income tax, there's no reason why the government can't treat all kinds of families the same, without resorting to legally sanctioning "marriage." Similarly, there's no reason why state-controlled adoptions can't treat gay partners the same as heterosexual ones.

The institutions of marriage and family are actually made stronger in an environment of freedom where each marriage or family decides for themselves the parameters of their relationships.

Aaron Biterman
Brookfield

The Role of Government Chart

Ideal
Very little government responsibility.	A lot of personal responsibility. Responsibility for themselves, their communities, and their nation. (this would require lots of charity and voluntarism)
How We Are
Some government responsibility.	Some personal responsibility.
Where We Are Heading
A lot of government responsibility. Responsibility for individuals, communities, and the nation. (this would require lots of taxes and bureaucracy)	Very little personal responsibility.

MORE ON THE CENTRIST DEMOCRAT INTERNATIONAL

Taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/subpagina.php?hoofdmenuID=1&submenuID=1

The Christian Democrat and People's Parties International was founded in 1961 under the name Christian Democrat World Union (CDWU). It stemmed from the "Nouvelles Equipes Internationales" (New International Teams), the organisation that was the predecessor of the European Union of Christian Democrats (EUCD), from the Christian Democrat Organisation of America (ODCA) and the Christian Democrat Union of Central Europe (CDUCE). In 1999, it adopted its present name.

The evolution of the international system since 1989, the end of the East-West confrontation which dominated the international scene since the end of World War II, as well as the appearance of new independent states, the struggle for democracy and the conditions of globalisation at the dawn of this new millennium, offer the peoples of the world new opportunities and new challenges for coexistence, both in national and international communities, so that they may live in peace, freedom, justice and solidarity.

The Christian Democrat and People’s Parties International federates the political parties and organisations based on the principles of Christian or integral humanism, that is, a humanism open to transcendency and committed to brotherhood. This implies on the part of these parties and organisations:

1. the irrevocable recognition of the dignity of every person, irrespective of sex, age, colour, economic, social or cultural status or personal convictions;

2. the recognition and promotion of the individual rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and complementary treaties;

3. the orientation of their policy in accordance with the fundamental values of the ethic of Christian or integral humanism, particularly the values of truth, freedom, personal responsibility, justice and solidarity;

4. the search for peace through the aforementioned values;

5. the recognition and assertion of the social nature of human beings, who live as members of the multiple communities, particularly the family, upon which human society is built;

6. the attainment of the common good as the objective of political society and the guiding principle of public power;

7. the recognition and defence of democracy as the sole form of political organisation of nations guaranteeing the participation of all in public life, particularly through free, secret, general and regular elections offering the possibility of alternation, within the framework of the rule of law, which ensures constitutional balance between State bodies;

8. the pursuit of sustainable human development with a view to satisfying the material, cultural and spiritual needs of the individual, the family and society whilst respecting their freedom and the natural environment, the resources of which must be preserved and renewed;

9. the recognition, particularly in the economic area, of the necessity to reconcile the private interests of the individual with those of others and of society as a whole, through measures based on the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity and justice, by means of a social and ecological market economy;

10. the promotion of forms of community organisation and participation that contribute, as of civil society, to development based on equity;

11. for optimal attainment of all the aforementioned, the adoption and maintenance of a centrist position, from which to pursue a policy that is as inclusive as possible and that introduces whatever changes may be required in society with the highest level of progress achievable fo all peoples through dialogue and consensus.

More on Health Care Reform

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9d92b651-cfcc-4a4a-83c3-b43aea91fc11

THE BIG PICTURE
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We do not need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.
We must advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.
WHAT WE CAN DO
We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families should get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. Americans must have more control of their health care options, not less.
We need to utilize the states as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and our next President should encourage those efforts. He should work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.
Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.
Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.

Core Values in Health-Care Reform

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Health2.html

Health-care reform is upon us. We urge that core values other than curbing costs and ensuring universal access be given due consideration. We all favor saving money; indeed, controlling health-care costs should allow the nation to provide more health services and higher quality care. We also strongly favor the inclusion of all Americans in our health-care system. However, we are deeply concerned that many of the reform efforts currently under review will unwittingly undermine the culture of care in their pursuit of savings and access.
We rise to speak for the moral commitments, the social and institutional arrangements that are essential to maintain both the trust between patients and health-care professionals, and the professional commitments of health-care personnel. Let us not turn the health-care community into a health industry; let us take the steps necessary to sustain and nourish the care in health care. Specifically, we raise a communitarian voice for:
. sustaining the balance between individual rights and social responsibilities, especially regarding that which we must do on our own, and for others, and that which we can legitimately expect from others in the way of health care. As a matter of simple justice, we believe that it is legitimate to ask one and all to make a contribution to the commons and not simply seek more from the commons.
. the need to protect the moral integrity and unique character of the health-care system. In particular, we warn against the intrusion of commercialism and the managerial imperative. Unless health-care reforms are carefully crafted, they may undermine a system which is far from flawless but treats millions every year--with a great deal of care.
. the imperative of providing coverage for and crafting a health system in which preventing disease and promoting health are an integral part of the plan, not afterthoughts.
. the imperative of reforming other aspects of American society to reduce the burdens on our health-care system. We must not treat health care as the social garbage can into which we deposit the ill consequences of our nations problems, and expect it readily to absorb the costs.
. the moral justification for cutting administrative waste, defensive medicine, lavish promotions and excessive profits before we begin rationing beneficial and humane health services.
. the priority of serving children, that vulnerable group of society which has no vote, has no political muscle and represents the future of the nation.
. and, the social responsibilities of health-care professionals, who ought to raise their moral voice to alert and counsel the society within which they work.
Only by attending to these signal areas, as we attempt to provide every American with decent health care, will we ensure that our health-care system will sustain rather than lose the culture of care and the moral values and institutional arrangements that sustain it.

to read more visit http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Health2.html

CDI Manifesto

taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/

The Centrist Democrat International on the side of the citizen
In a changing world, where the interdependence between West and East and North and
South is increasing, the Centrist Democrat view of society offers each person the
prospect of being able to thrive as an individual with specific talents, alongside other
individuals in the society. Centrist Democrats have clear answers to the new challenges
facing the international community. Placing themselves alongside the citizen, they are
building a world which also offers prospects to future generations.
The Centrist Democrat International (CDI) stands for the goals of Centrist Democrat
and related People's Parties and movements all over the world. As an international
organisation, the CDI supports the worldwide establishment of a free but socially
responsible market economy, which is the expression of the christian democratic ideal
for the shaping of our society.
The Centrist Democrat International sets out the following basic principles:
The fondamental values of Christian Democratic thinking, i.e. freedom and
responsibility, basic equality for all, justice, solidarité and subsidiarity, are the
keystones of a society in which individuals can thrive in coexistence with others. These
values hold out to the individual now and also to future generations the prospect of a
better world.
The recognition of fondamental human rights is the basis for building a society in which
individuals are able to fulfil themselves. Any attacks upon these rights must be opposed.
The nuclear family is the cornerstone of society, since it provides the best conditions for
the developments of the individual's personality. We must mobilise all available means
to ensure that the family is able to remain the environment in wich our children, the
adults of tomorrow, can grow into responsible people.
Poverty is a form of injustice. The international community must make strenous efforts
to abolish it. It is incombent on the developed countries
to help the less developed. We
must create the requisite conditions to enable countries to achieve their own
development. There is a need for a new set of development aid policies which will also
guarantee the personal safety of the aid providers.
Centrist Democrat and People's Parties, which place a high value on the principle of
solidarity, believe that economic policies must go hand in hand with a set of social
policies which will guarantee the weaker members of society the right to equal
opportunities for self-development. This concept of common responsibility also implies
the duty to integrate and support the disadvantaged in our societies.
Each society develops on the basis of the human resources available to it. Hence CDI
regards it as a priority to develop and support education and education systems.
Human beings ought to live in harmony with nature. CDI attaches great importance to
the development of a world environment policy designed to prevent problems and to
avoid shifting problems on to the less developed countries. Social development must not
lead to environmental damage. The present generation bears the responsibility for
managing our Earth properly and passing it on intact to future generations.
CDI is convinced of the need for cooperative links between countries. They support the
concept of federalism, in the spirit of genuine subsidiarity, and promote the idea of
regional cooperation agreements all over the world. In line with this process of
regionalisation, they strongly support mutual
cooperation between regional entities with
the goal of reducing the discrepancies between the various regions of the world.
The blueprint for cooperation on which the CDI is working is based upon a firm resolve
to establish peace and security across the world's borders. That is why the CDI is calling
for the setting up of efficient structures capable of guaranteeing peace and security.
They are convinced that the United Nations Organisation has a vital task to perform,
together with regional peace-keeping
organisations, in maintaining peace and
guaranteeing security. Dialogue and negotiation in all their forms in use in civil society
must take first priority in order to avert conflicts. In this respect, the process of
disarmament must be taken further, and
the international arms trade must be
discouraged.
In order to initiate, stimulate, and nourish the process of consultation among those who
share our view as to how society ought to develop, the CDI wishes to set up a strong
world organisation for the Centrist Democratic movement. The Centrist Democrat
International, with its President and Permanent Secretariat, must steer this organisation,
support the Member Parties and promote mutual consultation and agreement between
them.

WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Issues.View&Issue_id=fffe61d4-fc59-4970-a349-5edb944ce3f9

The words of the Second Amendment are really pretty simple: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yet, this has been one of the most hotly debated Amendments in our history. The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and
self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property. Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Gun control should never be based on geography.

Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government.

THE CONTROVERSY

Frequently politicians who favor gun control say that it doesn't affect hunting. But the truth is, the Second Amendment isn't really about hunting. It's about tyranny and self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer, they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms. Criminals will always find a way to get guns. By disarming our law-abiding citizens, we take away the strongest deterrent to violent criminals - the uncertainty that they don't know who is helpless and who is armed. Our law enforcement officials can't be everywhere, all the time. Lawfully-armed citizens back them up and prevent robberies, rapes, and the murder of innocents. Right after Katrina, with law enforcement non-existent, many victims were able to protect their lives, their homes, and their precious supplies of food and water only because they were armed.

Some politicians believe gun control should be determined geographically, but Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Your Second Amendment rights don't change when you change your address. Gun manufacturers must be protected from frivolous law suits. Rights must be given to law enforcement officials, such as permitting them to carry concealed handguns.

A major controversy about the right to bear arms is whether that should include assault weapons. Should Americans be allowed to have them? The answer is a resounding Yes!! Americans ought to be allowed to have anything they want to have, as long as they're law abiding, legal citizens. The Second Amendment was not put in our constitution for hunting.

Sanctity of Life

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com

WHEN LIFE BEGINS

Life does begin at the point of conception. We should protect human life, the foundation of our civilization. It defines us as much as anything does, as to how we treat and how we even view another human life, as to whether it has intrinsic value or worth or whether it does not. Those of us who are pro life believe that we must do everything possible to protect that life, because protection of life is the centerpiece of what makes us unique as Americans. We value the life of one as if it's the life of all. That's why we search non-stop for that missing Boy Scout, or that missing young mother. That's why we search for the 13 miners in Sago, West Virginia after a mine explosion, or the hikers on Mount Hood. We value life and it is part of what separates us from the Islamic jihadists who celebrate death. They have a culture of death. We have a culture of life.

The clear science of when life begins is "When the male sperm and female egg join, a new and unique life form is created." Not at birth or viability, or when a lawyer says so. This happens at conception. This life is either human or something else. Science irrefutably would declare that the life which is starting from that moment is human. It's not a parrot, squirrel, or dolphin. It will never become a tree-it can only become a human. It has the entire DNA sequence that it will have for the rest of its life right then. In days it will begin to take on increasingly observable human characteristics and form, but at conception, it is biologically human.

A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EXIST

If this life is human, then the only issue left is whether this human life falls under the notion that it has a fundamental right of existence or not. If not, it is because we as a culture have decided that some human lives are simply not worth living. If we can decide that about an innocent and unborn baby, we can also decide it on the basis of less absolute criteria than that. If we make that choice (and this is all about "CHOICE," isn't it?) then someone may decide that a terminally ill person is not a life worth living. Maybe a severely disabled child is a life not worth living; what about a person with a limited IQ?

Some might say that's absurd--that an educated and enlightened society would never be so audacious as to begin to terminate life based on such arbitrary excuses? Well, Germany fell into just such a moral chasm in the 1930s. The murder of six million Jews, and millions of others, was justified because of their religion and millions of others were murdered because of their politics. Germany was not a primitive, superstitious culture. It was filled with those deemed to be intelligent and enlightened. But in the end, the truly good people were overwhelmed by the truly evil people.

THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE - FROM CONCEPTION TO DEATH

At the core of our society is the sanctity of human life. It is rooted in who we are as a culture and as a civilization. And should we turn our back on this fundamental truth, we have turned our back on the very essence and foundation of who we are as a people. We should always err on the side of life. We as a society believe life is precious. As Christians we believe that God is the creator and instigator of life.

At the heart of our belief in life is the understanding that if we are indeed equal all of us have intrinsic worth, and no one has more than another. But those of us who are pro life must recognize some fundamental facts. Life begins at conception but it doesn't end at birth. If we're really pro-life we have to be concerned about more than just the gestation period. Real pro-life people need to be concerned about affordable housing, safe neighborhoods, access to a college education. Every child deserves a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water. Every child deserves the opportunity to discover and use his God-given gifts and talents. That is what pro-life has to mean.

The issue of right to life is an issue of principle and conviction. If we value each other as human beings and believe that everybody has equal worth, and that that intrinsic value is not affected by net worth, or ancestry, or last name, or job description, or ability, or disability, then the issue of the sanctity of human life is far bigger than just being anti-abortion. Those of us who believe so strongly in the sanctity of life recognize that we became involved in politics because of our strong pro-life convictions. It's about being pro-life and exercising that deep conviction held by our founding fathers that all of us are equal and no one is more equal than another, recognizing that once we ever decide that some people are more equal or less equal than others, then we start moving that line, and it may include us some day. Every human being has value. Every decision we make should always be on the side of life without equivocation.

Declaration of Principles agreed by IDU founders, London 1983.

taken from http://www.idu.org/principle.aspx

HAVING REGARD to their common convictions that democratic societies provide individuals throughout the world with the best conditions for political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity and economic development under the rule of law; and therefore

BEING COMMITTED to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular, the right of free speech, organisation, assembly and non-violent dissent; the right to free elections and the freedom to organise effective parliamentary opposition to government; the right to a free and independent media; the right to religious belief; equality before the law; and individual opportunity and prosperity;

HAVING REGARD to their common beliefs in an open society, where power is dispersed widely amongst free institutions, dedicated to creating conditions that will enable each individual to reach his full potential and to carry out his responsibilities to his fellow man; and where the central task of government is to serve the individual and to safeguard and promote individual freedom; and equally

STRESSING the moral commitments of a free and open society, supporting the institution of the family as its fundamental social and cohesive force, as well as social responsibility towards the weak and less fortunate, particularly by encouraging self-help and individual enterprise and choice in the provision of services;

BEING DEDICATED to a society of individuals working together in partnership for the common good;

HAVING REGARD to their common views that political democracy and private property are inseparable components of individual liberty and that the socially-oriented market economy provides the best means of creating the wealth and material prosperity to meet the legitimate aspirations of individuals, and of tackling social evils such as unemployment and inflation;

BELIEVING that this is the most effective and beneficial way of providing individual initiative and enterprise, responsible economic development, employment opportunities, low taxation and consumer choice;

HAVING REGARD to the threats posed by the extreme Left and the extreme Right;

REJECTING any form of totalitarianism, which brings so much suffering and restricts so many freedoms today;

HAVING REGARD to the important global tasks which render necessary and desirable a closer and efficient collaboration of their parties, inspired by their common conviction;

PLEDGING THEMSELVES to work towards ever-closer co-operation among all the peoples of democratic nations, while recognising the right of each individual nation to preserve its identity and to safeguard its vital interests, to use their influence and above all their political values for the greater good of the world, especially by promoting the mutual responsibilities of all nations for global economic development;

DECLARE their dedication to a just and lasting peace and freedom throughout the world; and

FURTHER DECLARE that the cause of peace will be advanced by adherence to the principles expressed in this Declaration; and in

ACTIVELY INVITING other parties to subscribe to them;

AGREE to create a working association in pursuance of their common beliefs, hereinafter referred to as the INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRAT UNION.

Criminal Justice

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/crime.html

Thinking about criminal justice has undergone a major transformation over the past decade. At the core of the shift has been a rediscovery of the importance of community. "Community policing" has become the byword of police departments in numerous cities big and small. Many observers argue that these new police methods--which, among other things, emphasize the importance of order in public spaces and rely on stronger cooperation between police and neighborhood communities--bear at least part of the responsibility for the recent significant declines in crime.

Communitarians have long stressed the importance of the community as a powerful "third force" operating in the middle terrain between the individual and the government. Community norms can often be more effective than laws in regulating conduct. Indeed, without the support of the community’s "moral voice," laws and law enforcement can often be unavailing. Transforming a high-crime neighborhood into a livable community usually requires more than police action. The community itself must will a change.

The concept of community policing grew out of an important article by political scientists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling called "Broken Windows" (see below). In recent years communitarian-oriented sociologists and political scientists have contributed to the development of a broader concept of "community justice," which integrates insights from criminology with communitarian themes. An important collection of essays on the emerging concept of community justice was edited by David R. Karp, formerly of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies and now an assistant professor of sociology at Skidmore College.

Thumbnail Sketch of the FairTax

taken from http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail

The FairTax proposal is a comprehensive plan to replace federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The FairTax proposal integrates such features as a progressive national retail sales tax, dollar-for-dollar revenue replacement, and a rebate to ensure that no American pays such federal taxes up to the poverty level. Included in the FairTax Plan is the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The FairTax allows Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), ends corporate taxes and compliance costs hidden in the retail cost of goods and services, and fully funds the federal government while fulfilling the promise of Social Security and Medicare.

Americans take home their whole paychecks.
Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

The prebate makes the FairTax progressive.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible.
With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service. If you choose to buy used goods − used car, used home, used appliances − you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. The FairTax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or compliance costs, which together drive up costs for those who can least afford to pay.
Did you know that income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more of all retail prices? It’s true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance.

The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home.
Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports the way the current income tax system does. The FairTax removes the cost of corporate taxes and compliance costs from the cost of U.S. exports, putting U.S. exports on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S. manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries’ value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match.

The FairTax strategy is revenue neutral: Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable.
The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income.

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 7.65 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 25.65 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

Tax criminals don’t make criminals out of honest taxpayers.
Today, the IRS will admit to 16 percent noncompliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax does tax this -- criminals love to flash that cash at retail -- while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice. The substantial decrease in points of compliance -- from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers -- also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the current code.

What is the FairTax Plan?
The FairTax Plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

What is Americans For Fair Taxation (FairTax.org)?
FairTax.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots organization solely dedicated to replacing the current tax system. The organization has hundreds of thousands of members and volunteers nationwide. Its plan supports sound economic research, education of citizens and community leaders, and grassroots mobilization efforts. For more information visit the Web page: www.FairTax.org or call 1-800-FAIRTAX.

For more information, check out the Research Papers

Free Trade Is Anything but Fair, and Lousy Economics Besides

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/B448.html

"Free trade" is God's gift to modern economies, and for a politician to support "fair trade" is tantamount to worshiping graven images.

Dick Gephardt, who dared to touch the free-trade icon, was burned at the stake. John Edwards, who questioned free trade, failed as a candidate, while John F. Kerry, who dances around this issue as if it were gay marriage, now has beaten the Democratic pack. Moreover, when President Bush protected U.S. steel from ruinous competition, he was dumped on as if he were a labor Neanderthal.

But politics aside, is free trade really good economics? Free trade would be all that it was promised to be if we lived in a world in which not just jobs but also goods, people and capital freely flowed from one country to another. In such a never-never land, indeed, everyone would do what he was best at, and we all would be richer for it. Unfortunately, when one country lowers its trade barriers and other countries don't lower theirs as much — making for freer, but not free, trade — who gets what becomes extremely murky. And that is the world in which we find ourselves today.

U.S. corporations love to move their plants and our jobs to other countries — countries that sometimes block our products and services from entering. As we lowered our trade barriers, a good part of our car and television manufacturing was done in Japan. But for decades Japan prevented our financial institutions from serving its citizens, and its corporate culture of keiretsu (close business relationships) still hampers the work of these institutions. American construction companies can bid all they want for public works in the huge Japanese market, but a cabal of Japanese firms decides whose turn it is to submit the lowest bid this time, and somehow it very rarely turns out to be a foreign company. Scores of countries block the import of what we are best at producing: low-cost food.

Many free-market champions believe we should export lowbrow jobs but do the "creative" stuff ourselves, thus keeping our hands clean and our wages high. This notion assumes that God has anointed the United States to be the creator while the rest of the world has been chosen to do the menial work. Perhaps no one told the rest of the world. Israelis and Finns, for instance, are not exactly laggards. Indian engineers and Chinese computer programmers are rapidly bridging the creativity gap. Moreover, the U.S. has a range of talent distribution. What will our less-talented workers do if they are not gifted enough to make "Finding Nemo" or if there are not enough "creative" jobs to go around? Will they move — or be moved — to the nations where their jobs were outsourced, as free-trade theory calls for?

If Americans are not to follow their jobs to Third World countries, they will need to be retrained and relocated within our borders, a transition that, even when it works, generates high adjustment costs.

Every time we pare down an industry because its labor can be performed more cheaply overseas — say, most recently reading X-rays — those who used to work in it here either need to be retrained to do something else or live off unemployment or welfare. Such transitions also entail, as studies have shown, a significant increase in mental illness, suicides and family breakdowns, all hefty human and social costs. Economists tend to ignore all these public costs, which end up in the laps of taxpayers, when they tell people how wonderful it is that they can buy T-shirts at Wal-Mart at a discount.

Organized labor's claim that free trade involves a race to the bottom is valid. As flight attendants and grocery workers recently discovered, the pressure is on to reduce benefits, job security and the wages given to new employees and possibly to old ones.

Remaining competitive in a world in which billions of workers are paid about a dollar a day and have no benefits, and in which corporations need not worry about environmental costs, requires us to drastically lower our own standard of living.

Economists argue that eventually other countries will raise their living standards (as South Korea and Taiwan already are doing) and then we will all compete on equal footing. But there are two ways to get there: lower our standards until the rest of the world catches up or insist that we compete freely only with those countries where companies give their workers a basic basket of benefits and elementary environmental protection. This is what is referred to as "fair trade."

Americans should have the opportunity to vote in November on which form of trade they prefer: the mismanaged variety (masquerading as free trade) or fair trade. They will have this opportunity only if one of the political parties has the civic courage to lift the fog in which economists, big business and naive liberals have shrouded this whole sordid business. Then fair trade will not only be sound economics for America but also good politics.

Amitai Etzioni, a professor of sociology at the George Washington University, is the author most recently of "My Brother's Keeper: A Memoir and a Message" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

Civil Society

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/civil.html

A communitarian perspective recognizes that the preservation of individual liberty depends on the active maintenance of the institutions of civil society where citizens learn respect for others as well as self-respect; where we acquire a lively sense of our personal and civic responsibilities, along with an appreciation of our own rights and the rights of others; where we develop the skills of self-government as well as the habit of governing ourselves, and learn to serve others-- not just self. . . .

Generally, no social task should be assigned to an institution that is larger than necessary to do the job. What can be done by families, should not be assigned to an intermediate group--school etc. What can be done at the local level should not be passed on to the state or federal level, and so on. There are, of course, plenty of urgent tasks--environmental ones--that do require national and even international action. But to remove tasks to higher levels than is necessary weakens the constituent communities. This principle holds for duties of attending to the sick, troubled, delinquent, homeless and new immigrants; and for public safety, public health and protection of the environment--from a neighborhood crime-watch to CPR to sorting the garbage. The government should step in only to the extent that other social subsystems fail, rather than seek to replace them. . . .

Many social goals . . . require partnership between public and private groups. Though government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by strategies of support, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned.
--The Responsive Communitarian Platform

Communitarians have sought to refocus attention on the vast and richly textured social space between the individual, on the one hand, and the state, on the other. The quality of our society depends not only on the nature of our Constitution and laws, or on the health of our economy, but also on the vitality of civil society, of the scores mediating institutions--neighborhoods, schools, churches, and voluntary associations--that define our immediate social environment. Political debate over the past fifty years has centered on the tug of war between government and the individual. Liberals have sought to nationalize and bureaucratize the care-taking functions of society, while libertarians in turn have sought to strip the government of power and resources. In the process, the crucial role of civil society in shaping the quality of life has often been neglected.

Recent years have seen a rediscovery across the political spectrum of the importance of civil society. The increasing interest in the delivery of social services by nonprofit and faith-based organizations, the growing recognition of the special capacities of churches and faith-based groups in addressing such problems as juvenile crime, the increasing exploration of partnership arrangements between government agencies and nongovernmental groups--all point toward a new and promising communitarian approach to solving our deepest social problems. One of the key developments of the 1990s has been the reactivation of the community as a powerful "third force" in shaping the destiny of our citizens.

The Communitarian Vision

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/vision.html

mericans have been struggling during the 1990s to restore the integrity of our basic institutions and turn back disturbing trends toward crime, social disorder, and family breakdown. The past decade has been an era of important social reforms: in the public schools, in the criminal justice system, in family policy. In states and localities across the nation, citizens have fought for greater emphasis on character, individual responsibility, and virtues and values in the public square. Partly as a result, on a host of "leading social indicators"—rates of violent crime, rates of youth crime, levels of teenage pregnancy, even student test scores—the nation is showing incremental but significant improvements.

Communitarian ideas and policy approaches have been playing a major role in this growing movement of cultural and institutional regeneration. Communitarian thinkers are in the forefront of the Character Education movement, which is fostering a return to the teaching of good personal conduct and individual responsibility in thousands of public schools around the country. Likewise, communitarians have been played a role in the new community-based approaches to criminal justice, which are showing solid success in restoring neighborhood order and achieving real reductions in violent crime. In the area of family policy, communitarians have worked for policies to strengthen families and discourage divorce. They have led in devising fresh, incentive-based policies designed to discourage a casual approach to marriage and to promote "children-first" thinking and family stability--while at the same time preserving the rights of women and men.

In contrast to conventional "right" or "left" approaches to social policy, communitarians emphasize the need for a balance between rights and responsibilities. Communitarians believe that strong rights presume strong responsibilities and that the pendulum of contemporary society has swung too far in the direction of individual autonomy at the expense of individual and social responsibility. One key to solving contemporary America’s social problems is replacing our pervasive "rights talk" with "responsibility talk."

In finding solutions to our social problems, communitarians seek to rely neither on costly government programs nor on the market alone, but on the powerful "third force" of the community. By reawakening communities and empowering communities to assert their moral standards, communitarians seek to hold individuals accountable for their conduct.

Communitarianism is essentially an optimistic approach to issues of public policy. While mindful of human tendencies to act in self-interested ways, Communitarians believe that it is possible to build a good society based on the desire of human beings to cooperate to achieve community goals that are based on positive values. This has been the essential optimistic view that has animated Americans throughout our history. New times raise new issues, but the communitarian focus on the values of the good society provides a vital guide to maintaining the good society.

Innovative, deadlock-breaking policy ideas that promote a fresh consensus around positive social action--such has been the hallmark of the communitarian movement over the past decade.

Learn more about communitarianism and become a part of one of the most innovative movements working to renew and revitalize American society.

Schools- The Second Line of Defense

taken from The Responsive Communitarian Platform

Unfortunately, millions of American families have weakened to the point where their capacity to provide moral education is gravely impaired. And the fact is that communities have only a limited say over what families do. At best, it will take years before a change in the moral climate restores parenting to its proper status and function for many Americans.

Thus, by default, schools now play a major role, for better or worse, in character formation and moral education. Personal and communal responsibility come together here, for education requires the commitment of all citizens, not merely those who have children in school.

We strongly urge that all educational institutions, from kindergartens to universities, recognize and take seriously the grave responsibility to provide moral education. Suggestions that schools participate actively in moral education are often opposed. The specter of religious indoctrination is quickly evoked, and the question is posed: "Whose morals are you going to teach?"

Our response is straightforward: we ought to teach those values Americans share, for example, that the dignity of all persons ought to be respected, that tolerance is a virtue and discrimination abhorrent, that peaceful resolution of conflicts is superior to violence, that generally truth-telling is morally superior to lying, that democratic government is morally superior to totalitarianism and authoritarianism, that one ought to give a day's work for a day's pay, that saving for one's own and one's country's future is better than squandering one's income and relying on others to attend to one's future needs.

The fear that our children will be "brainwashed" by a few educators is farfetched. On the contrary, to silence the schools in moral matters simply means that the youngsters are left exposed to all other voices and values but those of their educators. For, one way or another, moral education does take place in schools. The only question is whether schools and teachers will passively stand by, or take an active and responsible role. . . .

Start With the Family

taken from The Responsive Communitarian Platform

The best place to start is where each new generation acquires its moral anchoring: at home, in the family. We must insist once again that bringing children into the world entails a moral responsibility to provide, not only material necessities, but also moral education and character formation.

Moral education is not a task that can be delegated to baby sitters, or even professional child-care centers. It requires close bonding of the kind that typically is formed only with parents, if it is formed at all.

Fathers and mothers, consumed by "making it" and consumerism, or preoccupied with personal advancement, who come home too late and too tired to attend to the needs of their children, cannot discharge their most elementary duty to their children and their fellow citizens.

It follows, that work places should provide maximum flexible opportunities to parents to preserve an important part of their time and energy, of their life, to attend to their educational-moral duties, for the sake of the next generation, its civic and moral character, and its capacity to contribute economically and socially to the commonweal. Experiments such as those with unpaid and paid parental leave, flextime, shared jobs, opportunities to work at home, and for parents to participate as volunteers and managers in child-care centers, should be extended and encouraged.

Above all, what we need is a change in orientation by both parents and work places. Child-raising is important, valuable work, work that must be honored rather than denigrated by both parents and the community.

Families headed by single parents experience particular difficulties. Some single parents struggle bravely and succeed in attending to the moral education of their children; while some married couples shamefully neglect their moral duties toward their offspring. However, the weight of the historical, sociological, and psychological evidence suggests that on average two-parent families are better able to discharge their child-raising duties if only because there are more hands--and voices--available for the task. Indeed, couples often do better when they are further backed up by a wider circle of relatives. The issue has been wrongly framed when one asks what portion of parental duties grandparents or other helpers can assume. Their assistance is needed in addition to, not as a substitute for, parental care. Child-raising is by nature labor-intensive. There are no labor-saving technologies, and shortcuts in this area produce woefully deficient human beings, to their detriment and ours.

It follows that widespread divorce, when there are children involved, especially when they are in their formative years, is indicative of a serious social problem. Though divorces are necessary in some situations, many are avoidable and are not in the interest of the children, the community, and probably not of most adults either. Divorce laws should be modified, not to prevent divorce, but to signal society's concern. . . .

Protecting Rights

taken from "Virtues in a Democracy," Oliver F. Williams, C.S.C and John W. Houck (Eds.)

American institutions already reflect an ingenious answer to the need to combine consensus making and the moral power of virtues with a democratic polity. Instead of allowing unrestrained sway to policies that reflect majorities, we have the well known "balancing" institutions, whose task is not only to curb one another to limit the general power of each, but specifically in order to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. The same protection is, of course, accorded by the courts, above all the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself not only as a force that directs law enforcement, regulatory, administrative and other agencies but also as a moral/social, normative factor. (William Galston, in an important paper presented at the l991 American Political Science Meeting, provides an excellent discussion of that point, especially by pointing out the role which "supermajoritarian" requirements built into American democracy play in this country. That is, for a number of significant political measures, simple majorities cannot define what is of merit or virtue while, say, overriding a presidential veto. [Galston, 1991])

In short, the American political system is far from a simple democratic government if one means by that, as it is all too often put, the rule of the majority, or of the people by the people for the people. Constitutional democracy is, of course, characterized in part by defining areas over which "the people" or the majority may not set policies, whatever its size.

Blame Both The Left and The Right

taken from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Communitarianism)

Political communitarians blame both the left and the right for our current malaise (Bell 1997).

The political left is chastised not just for supporting welfare rights economically unsustainable in an era of slow growth and aging populations, but also for shifting power away from local communities and democratic institutions and towards centralized bureaucratic structures better equipped to administer the fair and equal distribution of benefits, thus leading to a growing sense of powerlessness and alienation from the political process. Moreover, the modern welfare state with its universalizing logic of rights and entitlements has undermined family and social ties in civil society by rendering superfluous obligations to communities, by actively discouraging private efforts to help others (e.g., union rules and strict regulations in Sweden prevent parents from participating voluntarily in the governance of some day care centers to which they send their children), and even by providing incentives that discourage the formation of families (e.g., welfare payments are cut off in many American states if a recipient marries a working person) and encourage the break-up of families (e.g., no-fault divorce in the US is often financially rewarding for the non custodial parent, usually the father).

Libertarian solutions favored by the political right have contributed even more directly to the erosion of social responsibilities and valued forms of communal life, particularly in the UK and the US. Far from producing beneficial communal consequences, the invisible hand of unregulated free-market capitalism undermines the family (e.g., few corporations provide enough leave to parents of newborn children), disrupts local communities (e.g., following plant closings or the shifting of corporate headquarters), and corrupts the political process (e.g., US politicians are often dependent on economic interest groups for their political survival, with the consequence that they no longer represent the community at large). Moreover, the valorization of greed in the Thatcher/Reagan era justified the extension of instrumental considerations governing relationships in the marketplace into spheres previously informed by a sense of uncalculated reciprocity and civil obligation. This trend has been reinforced by increasing globalization, which pressures states into conforming to the dictates of the international marketplace.