There's news that Gavin Newsom -- facing recall -- and the state legislature are proposing to use some $7 billion of the $26 billion in federal stimulus cash it received under President Joe Biden to pay back rent owed by thousands of "low-income" California families. (I use quotes because you can earn almost $150,000 per year in San Francisco and still qualify.)
No doubt people are glad to have the relief -- and landlords will be glad to get the money -- but there are also many questions here.
One is about fairness. Theoretically, taxpayers in other states are subsidizing rent in California. Is that what Congress knew it would be doing when it passed the "COVID relief"?
Of course, the money is just being borrowed, or printed, so perhaps taxpayers elsewhere won't feel the pinch. And other states also have a surplus (because it turns out they didn't need "relief" as badly as Biden and the Democrats said they did.) But California itself has almost $400 billion in debt -- the highest of any state. Shouldn't there be some plan to use part of the money to pay that down?
There are also other questions. The state has crumbling infrastructure and a glaring homeless problem. Are these going to be addressed, too? Maybe there is so much cash that the state can spend whatever is needed on these other problems as well?
If money grows on trees, why didn't we try this before? What about inflation? Or incentives?
Gavin Newsom faces a recall, which explains some of the sudden generosity. Do we want to allow politicians to buy votes in this way? Maybe so, if it is for the public benefit?
All interesting questions, which are -- of course -- not really being asked. Curiously, San Diego reports that it has hundreds millions of dollars in unclaimed money that was supposed to help people with rent relief -- even before the new proposed spending.
Maybe people like doing things for themselves, if they can?
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
