The Tories are harming Britain's youth.
Youth unemployment provides an indication of how disastrous and tragic have been the effects of the euro crisis. Underlying the two charts below is a tale of countries in which the productive potential of the future is undergoing inexorable deterioration. Without work, educated young people lose their skills. Unable to enter training programs because of public expenditure cuts, they cannot obtain the skills which would underpin recovery should it occur. Out of work and out of school, they face lives of idle desperation in which criminality beckons as a false exit from destitution.
... For all but the true disciples of the austerity doctrine, it defies belief that in the twenty-first century those leading the euro zone could sleep at night with well over half the youth in a member country left idle with no prospects.
... In response to the appalling conditions indicated by the charts above, the European Union in April of this year created the Youth Guarantee Scheme (details here). The program commits the European Union to the ensuring
"that all young people under 25 – whether registered with employment services or not – get a good-quality, concrete offer within 4 months of them leaving formal education or becoming unemployed (emphasis in the original)."
"should be for a job, apprenticeship, traineeship, or continued education and be adapted to each individual need and situation (emphasis in original)."
The EU budget allocates funds for the scheme, and implementation requires member governments to create national schemes. The cost-benefit numbers are staggering, a total cost of 21 billion euro annually, compared to the loss of personal earnings, benefits and taxes of 153 billion. The ultra-prudent government of Finland has already implemented first of the schemes.
Surely, no government would fail to take advantage of such a financially sound and potentially effective program to bring work, training and hope to its youth. But, one has, the coalition government in the United Kingdom. So strong is the anti-EU ideology in the Conservative Party that the last thing these Little England troglodytes want is concrete evidence that the European Union can serve the general welfare. And young people in Britain are the losers.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)