Sunday sermon @ Highlands

“Water”

Highlands Presbyterian church

January 19, 2014

¹³Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. ¹⁴John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” ¹⁵But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. ¹⁶And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. ¹⁷And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:13-17

Before there was light, there was water. In the beginning, the first verse of the Bible reads: God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.”

It’s clear from scripture which represents humankind’s earliest understanding of the world around them that water is the source of life for all of God’s creation; the fishes, the plants and humans. In the 6^th chapter of Genesis, water becomes the source of death when God saw that the earth was corrupt and was filled with violence. God said, “I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.”

When the floodwaters receded, and God promises never again to destroy the earth, water is forever after a source of life.

Images of water are integral to all Hebrew and Christian scripture. Water is the means of deliverance of the Israelites from their captors in Exodus. Isaiah 35 and Amos 5:24 depict God’s justice in water imagery, with a hoe that justice will flow like the waters. John 4 provides the story of living water and the Samaritan woman at the well.

Scripture explains God’s grace by teaching that the good rains fall on the wicked as much as on the righteous. And the images go on and on.

Our bodies are sixty percent water. Our health and survival is determined in many ways by water and hydration. Science and experience has shown us that a person can survive without food for about three torturous weeks. But humans can only survive approximately three days without water. We need it for life.

Water is powerful and fragile at the same time. Seventy percent of the earth is covered by water and it is one of the most important natural resources we have. The lack of availability of clean water is one of the causes of poverty and disease in the world today.

All of that explains the centrality of baptism to our faith. Although different Christian denominations practice different forms of baptism, water is one the common element. Some baptize infants, others, like us, dedicate infants and prepare children for baptism when they reach an age where they have a greater understanding of what it means.

Regardless, the ceremony employs the element God so clearly established from the start as central to life…water. One of the most powerful effects of water is the impact it has on hard ground and even rocks when allowed to flow over them for an extended period of time. The continual flow of water will create a creek bed, even a riverbed and over a long enough period of time, a large river valley. Those riverbeds and valleys often establish geographic boundaries, separating states and nations from one another.

Picture in your minds the Amazon and Nile and the Mississippi River, even the great North Platte, the way in which the Wind River carved a beautiful red rock valley through the heart of Wyoming, and the great Grand Canyon and the enormous walls the water has left astride it over the centuries.

Perhaps that’s the best metaphor for our baptism. Though it occurs only once in our lives, remembering your baptism always is the means by which the water of your baptism continuously flows forever. Remembering its meaning always, allows the water of our baptism to flow continuously over the hard spots of our hearts and lives. If we are open to that continuous flow, the water of our baptism will carve out the riverbeds and valleys of our faith, deepening it just as the water deepens the Grand Canyon over time.

Through the waters of baptism we receive the Spirit to do God’s work. In the waters of baptism we are connected to God, to one another, our community, and to all of the history and all of the future of salvation. Just as the ministry of Jesus began on the day of his baptism so it is for us.

And just as when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. ¹⁷And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased” so it is with each of us. AMEN

Food Stamps and Math

Personal political views get in the way of clear thinking, undermining basic reasoning. A recent study found people who are otherwise good at math, flunk tests they’d otherwise pass because the right answers violate their political beliefs.

The debate over food stamps is an example. For low-income workers and the poor, being able to feed your children is nothing more than a simple math problem.

“The Week” magazine reports that a McDonalds website intended for their low-wage employees and called “McResources,” advises hungry employees to “break food into smaller pieces to feel more full.” But it’s not about smaller bites of food. It’s about the math.

The Census Bureau documents the costs for a couple with two children; 176 dollars per week for the “low-cost plan.” Multiplied by 52 weeks, divided by twelve months, that’s 762 dollars each month. Because of recent food stamp cuts this family of four saw a reduction to a monthly benefit of 632 dollars and local grocers lost millions. If members of congress get their way, an additional 40 billion will soon be cut.

Likewise qualifying for food stamps is a math problem. If you make under $2,000 and have a household of four or more, you qualify for benefits. Assuming one parent remains at home to care for the two children and the other works full-time for minimum wages, the family’s gross income falls far below the qualifying level.

The math demonstrates the food stamp program has more to do with low wages than the claim that “these people should get a job.”

There’s another math problem bearing on Wyoming families and food stamps. Wyoming has one of the highest divorce rates in the US. Therefore, we have one of the highest rates of single mothers raising young children. More than half of those families live below the poverty line. Nearly half of the recipients of food stamps are children.

Some worry about food stamp fraud. Anyone can troll for stories about abuses. But, the plural of “anecdotes” is not “data.” Exceptions aren’t the rule. Despite sensational anecdotes about misuse, the program’s accuracy rate is 95%. Grocers actually commit a large portion of the fraud. In the last decade, more than 8,300 retailers were disqualified to accept food stamps for fraudulently obtaining card numbers from beneficiaries and stealing the funds. 

Here’s some more math. Conservatives often claim social programs create an "entitlement society" by undermining the work ethic. That’s stereotypically untrue. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found 90 percent of benefit dollars assist elderly, the seriously disabled or members of working households – not able-bodied, working-age Americans choosing not to work.

Here’s another significant mathematical tidbit. The food stamp program isn’t only about helping the poor. In Wyoming communities, food stamps help local grocery stores stay profitable and provide jobs. Food stamp dollars are among the most successful expenditures in terms of economic stimulus, supporting jobs in the farming and retail.

Now add to the equation the efforts of Rep. Cynthia Lummis and others to cut billions from the food stamp program, multiplying the numbers of hungry kids in Wyoming.

Some folks say faith communities, not government, should feed the poor. That too presents math problems. The food stamp budget is $75 billion dollars. The 36 million recipients receive an average of $133 per month, about $1,596 per year; $1,596 x 36,000,000 = $57.5 billion per year, not including administrative costs.

America has 400,000 houses of worship. Their median size is 90. Feeding the poor would demand each feed 90 people.  The average faith community would take on as many poor people as it has in attendance! If each allocated $133 per month to feed each of those 90, the yearly cost would be $143,640 per church/mosque/temple, greatly exceeding the average budget of most.

But the responsibility for feeding the hungry is not simply a religious obligation to be put on the back of those attending worship services. It’s a math problem creating a moral obligation for every American.

Cheney withdrawal bad news for Mead

Although Liz Cheney left the senate race long before any meaningful poll could have predicted the outcome of her challenge to Mike Enzi, reactions among Wyoming Republicans to her decision to throw in the towel ranged from glee to relief. The one exception to the celebration may have been the reaction at the Governor’s residence.

Matt Mead did not win the 2010 GOP primary because he was the first choice of Republicans. He wasn’t. He won because several thousand Wyoming Democrats changed their party registration and crossed over to vote for him in order to prevent the nomination of former state representative Ron Micheli who was erroneously perceived as farther right than Mead. Estimates of the number of such crossover-voters range as high as 10,000.

Even so, 71% of those voting in the 2010 Republican primary favored a candidate other than the eventual governor. Though he spent nearly a million of his own dollars, Mead won by a single percentage point over the second place Rita Meyer, the former State Auditor. Mead wouldn’t have won in the absence of so many Democratic votes.

With the prospect of an Enzi-Cheney race for the US Senate, there was a strong likelihood that thousands of Democrats would once again crossover to prevent the spawn of Dick Cheney from being nominated. The opportunity to get some measure of revenge for Dick Cheney’s destructive vice-presidency would have proved too inviting. Undoubtedly Democrats would have relished an opportunity to visit the sins of the father on the daughter and her ill-advised candidacy.

Had Democrats crossed over to vote for Mike Enzi, they could have been expected, as long as they were on that side of the ballot, to also vote against tea party favorite Cindy Hill, thus saving Mead’s hide once again.

Poof! Just like that the motivation is gone. With Cheney off the 2014 ballot and Mead having proved to be no less far-right than the candidate feared by moderates in 2010, Democrats will be significantly more likely to focus on the way in which this governor has cow-towed to the right on Medicaid expansion, his alignment with ALEC, the extent to which he has protected the frackers from the fracked, and his otherwise nonexistent agenda. Democrats will be unlikely to save the GOP from itself this go-around.

The irony was not lost on anyone that Cheney pulled out of the race on the very same day the legislature opened hearings it hopes will persuade the public that all the money they have spent trying to discredit Mead’s opponent was actually worth it. As thin as the evidence appears, it’s easy to argue that this investigation was necessitated not so much by Hill’s wrongdoing as by the fact that she announced so early her intent to run against Mead.

The legislature’s leadership has been uncharacteristically ham-handed with the entire Cindy Hill controversy. They sought a partisan victory over the public interest, happily working for her election over Mike Massie, a far more qualified Democratic candidate. When she proved she wasn’t one of the GOBs (good old boys), the GOP quickly turned on her, accepting no responsibility for her election as they proved incapable of reasoning with her.

To compound the problem, they greatly underestimated Cindy Hill. Say what you will, she is one tough cookie. She has made mistakes. Talk of impeachment was designed to intimidate her. Have no doubt, the threat would have caused most politicians to question themselves and back off. She won’t be intimidated.

Cindy Hill is tougher than those with whom the good old boys are generally accustomed to dealing. She is tougher than those who are now going after her. She will survive to make their life very difficult during this primary campaign.

So in the end, the Wyoming Republican party will go into this campaign badly divided, with the establishment of the party giving good reason to the insurrectionists to work even harder, and with no hope that Democrats will again ride to the rescue.

Governor Mead's three healthcare ideas

Governor Mead is constitutionally required to balance the budget. He meets that requirement only because he trusts the federal government’s promise to give Wyoming 1.56 billion dollars. Yet Mead says Wyoming shouldn’t expand Medicaid to provide health insurance for the working poor because he doesn’t trust them to pay their share.

On January 9^th members of Wyoming’s faith community will gather to ask the governor and legislators how they can take 1.56 billion federal dollars to balance their budget but claim not to trust the feds on this one. If they don’t trust the feds, why accept any of their promises to pay?

Anyone concerned about the uninsured should gather in the Herschler Building at 11:30 AM January 9^th to demonstrate public support for Medicaid expansion and to listen to any better ideas the Republicans may offer.

It’s not fair to say the governor-of-some-of-the-people has no ideas. By my count, he’s actually had three. As a candidate, his lonesome idea was to join a lawsuit seeking to have the Affordable Care Act overturned. He did so immediately upon becoming the supreme leader. The Supreme Court ruled against him but its decision gave him a second idea.

The Court said states could decide whether to expand Medicaid. Mead then unveiled his second idea. “Wyoming won’t!”

Recently Mead testified before the Joint Appropriations Committee, offering his third idea. Senator John Hastert asked what ideas Mead has for uninsured Wyoming citizens if not to expand Medicaid coverage.

The governor’s new idea? “Healthy Frontiers.” The governor who sought to have healthcare reform ruled unconstitutional and then stood in the doorway like a modern-day George Wallace blocking Medicaid expansion comes up with nothing better than an idea the legislature junked two years ago?

Even the Liberty Group concluded Healthy Frontiers was a terrible idea.

“Healthy Frontiers never lived up to the lofty expectations of its sponsor,” said the Liberty Group. “Sen. Scott sold the program to legislators in 2010 as a cost saving, Wyoming alternative to Medicaid. The more legislators learned about Healthy Frontiers, the greater their concern grew. The program was plagued by low enrollment and a lack of health care providers willing to work within its rules. Estimates proved ‘Healthy Frontiers’ was likely to cost Wyoming more per enrollee than Medicaid recipients.”

Three years after Mead’s election, two years after the legislature killed “Healthy Frontiers,” and in the second year Medicaid expansion languishes on his desk, our governor’s best idea is “Healthy Frontiers”?

His own Health Department demonstrated Medicaid expansion saves the state millions while delivering effective care at an administrative overhead of 4%. But the governor continues to obstruct real solutions while offering nothing.

While defending the indefensible with arguments that make sense nowhere else but at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, he is absolutely barren of ideas, bereft of logic, and unembarrassedly ignores the plight of families suffering with inadequate medical care. Mead plays merrily at politics but not seriously at governing.

Mead says Obamacare won’t be successful. He’s been peddling that nonsense from the beginning. Obamacare has already been successful in those states where governors want solutions.

Recently three Democratic governors discussed their experiences. Governors Jay Inslee, Washington, Steve Beshear, Kentucky, and Dannel Malloy, Connecticut, defined the difference between them and governors like Mead. They said the ACA, “has been successful in our states because our political leaders grasped the importance of expanding health-care coverage and have avoided the temptation to use healthcare reform as a political football.” 

Washington State authorized Medicaid expansion knowing not only the uninsured benefit, but because expansion could create 10,000 jobs while saving the state $300 million in the first 18 months. Kentucky expanded Medicaid after independent studies proved Medicaid expansion offered huge savings in the state budget while creating 17,000 jobs.

Wyoming’s problems require a more thoughtful governor. Mead has no ideas other than saying no to Obamacare. While that may address his political problems with the right it doesn’t solve the problems left in the lives of real people.

Why not expand Medicaid?

The primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is to make health insurance available to everyone. That’s a goal the GOP, the Heritage Foundation, and Democrats once shared. The law proposed doing that through several interlocking provisions.

There’s an individual mandate requiring everyone to purchase insurance and an employer mandate requiring certain larger employers to provide insurance for their employees. For those who can’t afford premiums, there are a series of tax credits and subsidies accompanied by mandatory and optional expansions of Medicaid coverage.

The law encourages states to expand Medicaid to low-income citizens unable to afford health insurance by having the feds pay nearly the entire cost.

Last year the Supreme Court created a playground for partisan politicians when it held that states couldn’t be forced to adopt the “optional” expansion. Anti-Obamacare pols took that as an opportunity to play politics rather than provide healthcare to low income workers.

Among them are Wyoming’s governor and Republican legislators. Why would they do that? That’s a good question voters should ask. Next week the Legislature’s committee on Labor, Health, and Social Services meets to consider Medicaid expansion. The Wyoming Association of Churches and others will greet them in the Herschler Building Plaza seeking an answer to that question.

With Medicaid expansion, payments will inject more than 860 million dollars into Wyoming’s healthcare infrastructure, creating hundreds of jobs. The costs of expansion will be borne fully by the federal government for the first years, gradually declining to 90%.

Programs Wyoming funds to meet the needs of the uninsured could be reduced or eliminated at a savings of tens of millions of tax dollars even as 17,000 uninsured Wyoming people could then afford healthcare.

So, why does the governor oppose this solution?

Mead says, “I don’t trust that the federal government will actually pay their share of the cost.” Really? Governor Mead submitted a “balanced” budget, as have all governors before him. His so-called “balanced” budget relies on the federal government to subsidize the state budget with more than 1.5 billion dollars.

Mead never suggests any concern about whether the feds will pay their share of all the other federal dollars on which Wyoming relies for everything from education to highways and healthcare rendering his claim they might not come through with their promise to pay for Medicaid expansion disingenuous at best.

Mead’s only example of any time the feds haven’t paid-up on a commitment was the reduction in Abandoned Mines Reclamation (AML) funds. Mead knows that argument is bogus.

AML funds were intended for only one purpose, to cleanup messes created by irresponsible mine operators. The list of awaiting Wyoming AML projects have a 482 million tab but Wyoming diverted those funds, spending the money instead on highways and university construction projects, including a $50 million appropriation for building the Michael B. Enzi STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) facility.

As Wyoming writer Sam Western said in a wyofile.com essay, “It takes a few drinks, but adherents of even modest fiscal responsibility will admit that AML funding has strayed far from its intended purpose.” If not “a few drinks” how about a little intellectual honesty?

Congress’ decision to divert some of that money to deficit reduction might well have been different if states had used the money as intended. Congress has never reneged on any of its commitments to pay its share of Medicaid.

Then Mead says he thinks the Obamacare website will never work. The experiences of millions of Americans with an improved website belies that claim. Even so, the website has nothing to do with Medicaid expansion. The uninsured who would receive Medicaid under the expansion will not be using the website.

Please join us on January 9^th in the plaza between the Capitol Building and the Herschler Building as we greet legislators and the governor with a demand that they answer for why care more about politics than they care about the 17,000 Wyoming families they will leave uninsured if they don’t expand Medicaid.