From Dr. Reynolds blog:
Just as free market economics stems from a Christian world view, so socialism ia fundamentally at war with Christianity. Recently, socialism has become a fad for some Christian college professors. It is not surprising that this would be so since socialism has always flourished amongst the intellectuals and been rejected by the working man. Great union leaders like Gompers and Meaney had no time for the nonsense of socialism as an ideology. Their practical attempts to elevate the conditions of workers through trade unions were opposed by socialists at almost every turn. Healthy unions are the sign of a free society, but to be healthy they must be composed of workers and not be “intellectuals” pretending to be workers.
“Just as free market economics stems from a Christian world view, so socialism ia fundamentally at war with Christianity.”
Something seems strange about this sentence. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say “just as free market economics stems from a Christian world view, so does socialism stem from a Christian worldview, and yet both are at war with Christianty”? I wouldn’t say that socialism or free market economics are Christian, but rather that it could be shown that both these ideologies spring from distorted Christian worldviews. For example, the ideology of communism is linked to distorted views of New Testament Christianity and monasticism. I believe early proto-Communists, such as Tolstoy, make such actual references. And as for free-market economics, it was the money changers that Christ violently cast out of the temple.
I, too, thought this sentence odd. No one should conflate Christianity with anything that is strictly of this world. I certainly reject the Leftist idea that being a Christian means one must necessarily be a Socialist. And yet, if I am to be honest, then I must also admit that Christ did not come to establish the free market.
This begs an important question. Is it possible to have a truly Christian economy? If so, what does it look like? But if not, what’s the best flawed approach to take? In an earlier post on another thread, Dean suggested some kind of combination of capitalism and socialism. Are there other options?
Free Markets Not Inconsistent with Christianity
We need to separate government policy in a democratic republic from individual choices and actions.
Free markets are simply what people do when they are left alone to buy and sell as they please. Free markets have been shown, both theoretically and practically, to maximize the total wealth of the society. Free markets are also the best stimulant of scientific and technological change. [As a woman I welcome all the medical advances of the last 200 years. Women’s life expectancy used to be much shorter than men’s because of the hazards of childbirth in the 19th Century.] As Christians I think we have to support efforts that increase the wealth of society, as long as the measures taken do not violate Christian ethics. For instance, we should support research to improve the productivity of grains and food crops because it would be a good thing to feed more people. We should not support the legalization of prostitution even if it would increase GNP and tax revenues.
As individuals and as a society, we need be on guard against making material wealth an idol, but, we need to balance that with the realization that “material wealth is as material wealth does.” Increases in material wealth have allowed the United States to fund medical research institutions, higher education, immunization programs and many other very good things.
CREATE THE WEALTH THEN INVEST THE WEALTH WISELY.
I have had many debates with folks on this forum about minimum wages. Many people think that Christians must support minimum wages and “living wages.” This is unfortunate. Minimum wages always suppress employment. A better alternative is to allow everyone an opportunity to work at any wage they wish. Everyone who can work productively should do so. There will be those who need help even if employed. Rather than establishing a minimum wage, government should invest in effective, intensive job training for those people with able bodies and minds. I am willing to be heavily taxed for effective job training and real education. The able bodied and able minded can then command a higher wages and live in dignity. Those who are unable to take advantage of training should be cared for, if and only if, their families fail to care for them. As Christians we should advocate the idea that families have a duty to care for their ill and infirm if at all possible.
Setting up government programs which provide for the truly needy without providing an incentive for people to shirk work or their duty to care for their infirm family members, is difficult. Government grants always generate some induced dependency. We should seek to minimize that.
We need to remember the lesson of the 20th Century. Communism is a failure, it didn’t produce material well-being, it didn’t produce freedom from want and it brought oppression with it. Socialism has depressed the economies of Europe. Look across the Atlantic and you will see HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. It is European economies that are unsustainable. They work for one generation then they collapse. Some writers have observed that the “nanny state” lead to a general neglect of the older generation in France when so many elderly were left alone in vacation season and died from heat related illness. If the government guarantees sustenance than children have an excuse to refrain from caring for their own elderly relatives
Again, I think that we should create as much wealth as we can, without violating Christian ethics, and then invest that wealth wisely in promoting the individual productivity of all people. Only after all efforts have been made to foster productivity have been made, individuals should receive assistance from families and then in the last resort from government. I fully recognize that there are some things that are beyond the capacity of a family to cope with. We should increase our funding for humane institutionalization, treatment and care of the mentally ill, for instance. An ordinary family cannot cope with an uncontrolled schizophrenic and shouldn’t be required to do so.
Thank you Bill! We recognize that capitalism is the strongest engine of economic growth available; however we recognize that capitalism does not distribute its benefits in a manner consistent with our Christian obligation to care for the least of our neighbors. So, how can we have our cake and eat it too?
First we need a government with the power to gently steer, guide and coordinate private enterprise towards the fulfillment of publically beneficial objectives. Second, we need a progressive tax structure that adjusts for economic inequalities of poverty and riches by taxing the poor a little less and the rich a little more. Third we need government investment in education, jobs programs and public works so that we increase the number of our fellow citizens who can participate in the economy and become upwardly mobile.
No one is saying to the businessman or investor that it is a sin to make money or be rich; we want people to be motivated to take risks and initiate new businesses, develop new products, offer new services and create new jobs. But we also recognize that the economically successful have an obligation to contribute to society’s common needs and goals and assist their fellow citizens at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. A culture that glorifies tax avoidance or evasion and demonizes payment into our common treasury, with the words “It’s your money” works against those goals.
We recall the words of Saint Paul on the Body of Christ. We are all parts of the same body and have an obligation to serve the body as a whole. Saint Paul teaches us in (1 Corinthians 12:12-29): “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ… The body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’ On the contrary… There should be no division in the body, but its parts should have equal concern for each other…. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.”
I had a feeling Dean that you would eventually weigh in on this. I’m surprised it took you so long. And, of course, you come down on the side, despite your platitudes that the free market is “the strongest engine of economic growth available” that our Christian duty is to establish big government social welfare programs that will “steer, guide and coordinate private enterprise” and “adjusts for economic inequalities.” Yeah, right.
Well, that about proves you know nothing about building or running a business. If you really want “people to be motivated to take risks and initiate new businesses, develop new products, offer new services and create new jobs” then the only way that happens is when government gets out of the way. When government steers, guides and coordinates private enterprise then you don’t have private enterprise. You have a Socialist welfare state.
Hmmm … it strikes me that one country does fit your description … China. Is that what you want America to emulate, Dean? Communist China? Of course it isn’t exactly very gentle as it steers and coordinates its “free market”.
While you were focused on St. Paul’s teaching about caring for the poor you seemed to have missed his teaching that he who will not work, will not eat. Tough message, I know, but there it is.
Free Markets Not Inconsistent with Christianity
We need to separate government policy in a democratic republic from individual choices and actions.
Free markets are simply what people do when they are left alone to buy and sell as they please. Free markets have been shown, both theoretically and practically, to maximize the total wealth of the society. Free markets are also the best stimulant of scientific and technological change.
I think we should support activities that generate wealth as long as they do not violate Christian ethics. For instance, we should support research to improve the productivity of grains and food crops because it would be a good thing to feed more people. We should not support the legalization of prostitution even if it would increase GNP and tax revenues.
As individuals and as a society, we need be on guard against making material wealth an idol, but, we need to balance that with the realization that “material wealth is as material wealth does.” Increases in material wealth have allowed the United States to fund medical research institutions, higher education, immunization programs and many other very good things.
CREATE THE WEALTH THEN INVEST THE WEALTH WISELY.
I have had many debates with folks on this forum about minimum wages. Many people think that Christians must support minimum wages and “living wages.” This is unfortunate. Minimum wages always suppress employment. A better alternative is to allow everyone an opportunity to work at any wage they wish. Everyone who can work productively should do so. There will be those who need help even if employed. Rather than establishing a minimum wage, government should invest in effective, intensive job training for those people with able bodies and minds. I am willing to be heavily taxed for effective job training and practical education. The able bodied and able minded can then command a higher wages and live in dignity. Those who are unable to take advantage of training should be cared for, if and only if, their families fail to care for them. As Christians we should advocate the idea that families have a duty to care for their ill and infirm if at all possible.
Setting up government programs which provide for the truly needy without providing an incentive for people to shirk work or their duty to care for their infirm family members, is difficult. Government grants always generate some induced dependency. We should seek to minimize that.
We need to remember the lesson of the 20th Century. Communism is a failure, it didn’t produce material well-being, it didn’t produce freedom from want and it brought oppression with it. Socialism has depressed the economies of Europe. Look across the Atlantic and you will see high unemployment. It is European economies that are unsustainable. They work for one generation then they collapse. Some writers have observed that the “nanny state” lead to a general neglect of the older generation in France when so many elderly were left alone in vacation season and died from heat related illness. If the government guarantees sustenance than children have an excuse to refrain from caring for their own elderly relatives
Again, I think that we should create as much wealth as we can, without violating Christian ethics, and then invest that wealth wisely in promoting the individual productivity of all people. Only after all efforts have been made to foster productivity have been made, individuals should receive assistance from families and then in the last resort from government. I fully recognize that there are some things that are beyond the capacity of a family to cope with. We should increase our funding for humane institutionalization, treatment and care of the mentally ill, for instance. An ordinary family cannot cope with an uncontrolled schizophrenic and shouldn’t be required to do so.
by Missourian
Dean, your solution would make the government more socialistic, not more Christian. Government’s power lies ultimatly on its ability to incarcerate or otherwise punish its members.
Oh, by the way, it is my money unless you think that Jesus teching to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s is an absolute literal command. That is to say, that because the governement prints and coins money, the money belongs to the government and our labor mearly entitles us to use it for awhile until something more important comes along.
You’re plan, Dean, might be OK as long as it is ratified by voters and operates only on a local basis or state basis with regular re-submissons to the electorate required. The states could get together and draw up model laws that could be adopted in whole or in part by each state. Such laws could include revenue sharing provisions in which the most affluent states would share resources with the less affluent states, etc. The courts would have to keep hands off, period. The Federal government, too would have to be at arms length.
Oh, I forgot, since such a plan would be based on Judeo/Christian moral teaching, it would be unconstitutional wouldn’t it. Sorry.
Who works to become a CEO so they can live the lifestyle of a cashier at WalMart? No one. Can they be generous to their churches and communities? Of course. They’re going to leave enough so they can buy that 500SL, I can assure you. Is capitalism compatible with Christianity? Yes. To say it “derives” from Christian principles seems quite a stretch, however.
Worldly ambition drives many, if not most, of the great wealth-producers and business successes of this nation. I can relate to a degree: I like nice things so I work honestly (!) to obtain them. I don’t work hard simply so I can give 80% of my income to the homeless or the Church, however. If I did, I’d hardly care a wit if the government decided to tax me at 75% so they could disburse as they see fit, now would I? I’d like to think that I’m not so self-deceptive that I pretend I’m trying to become successful or move up the ladder for some noble cause when I’m not.
If it’s not luxury goods, then it’s “status” or “esteem” or “pride”. Doesn’t make a difference.
Wal-Mart is probably one of the most upwardly mobile companies around. You can start out as a cashier and end up a manager, or better, if you want to work for it.
Don’t be too hard on managers and CEO’s. Good managers keep a lot of people employed and families fed. When the company succeeds, so do the employees who work for it. Companies with bad managment will fail sooner or later.
Body of Christ not a Political Entity
Your Note 5 quotes St. Paul on the Body of Christ. My limited understanding of this passage is that St. Paul was referring to the Church and the relationships among Christians inside the Christian community. Seems to me that this quote cannot be directly applied to a constitutional democracy which is based on part of a rejection of an established Church and which includes citizens from many different religious backgrounds.
Inequality in not Immoral
It seems to me that Dean’s unspoken premise is that any inequality in income or inequality in wealth is always “immoral” and always requires some kind of corrective action. Dean doesn’t seem to acknowledge that some people are relatively poor (remember many in the Third World would love to live as well as many in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in the United States lives) because they: a) are not motivated to earn a great deal and chose low income occupations such as artist or musician b) choose not to work hard c) choose not to save d) waste resources on bad habits such as gambling, drugs or drink e) fail to complete a education and drop out of school f) choose a less rigorous major in low demand over a rigorous major in high demand.
Of course, I recognize that many people run into misfortune through no fault of their own, however, those living in Christian communities can rely on loving families and Church communities for help, to some extent. Government does need to help those who truly lack help, but, the help must come in the form of promoting self-sufficiency whenever possible.
Based on some rather lengthy arguments with Dean in the past, I think that he is a communist primarily because I think he really believes that no one every MORALLY acquires a financial or wealth advantage. While a Christian might chose to donate a very large share of any wealth they possess, this is proper as a voluntary measure, not a coerced measure.
I really don’t think that Dean gives a fig about the obvious disincentives created by various government programs. It is not moral to treat the lazy and the industrious the same. Transferring wealth from the industrious to the lazy, rewards the lazy. Not everybody is trying their hardest to earn an income and to spend the income responsibly. Sloth is a recognized sin in the Christian moral worldview, is it not? Sloth hasn’t disappeared from the earth. Crafting a policy to be voted on by the public and instituted by government MUST take into account humankind’s bottomless pit of laziness and sloth. ( I offer myself as Exhibit A there, as my list of things to do is now approaching three digits in length and I am typing this instead.)
Someone on this blog had discussed transferring wealth from wealthy states to less wealthy states. We already do that a great deal through federal taxation. We need again to be careful, some states attract wealth through good policies and promote economic growth. We should not penalize the economically successful and reward the economically unsuccessful states. State governments can do a great deal to promote wealth creation and higher incomes inside their borders, they should be encouraged to continue to do so.
By the way, if Dean’s programs get enacted, I am quitting my profession and pushing a broom. I will donate to a charitable organization but not the government.
I think we need to draw a distinction between the ‘free market’ and the style of capitalism that we currently enjoy in the United States. The free market has always existed, at the heart of every town was always the market where traders, artisans, and farmers sold their wares. Aside from some basic rules about location and taxes, everyone did their own thing. Production, as it existed at the time, was largely small shops employing individuals known to the master craftsman, often since the employees were children.
This is economics on a human scale. Employers knew their employees. Shopkeepers and artisans usually knew their customers. Most things were local, and governed by the codes of behavior of a common religion. A lie, a cheat, or a thief would be known for what he was and shunned.
The problem begins with large-scale industrialization. Here we find large separation between employers and employees. There is little concern on the part of owners for the plight of their workers, as there was little or no direct interaction. The same is true of large-scale capitalists and their customers. The development of capitalism was enabled by legal developments such as the Corporation. Funded by money from a pool of investors, the corporation was invested with rights as if it were a person, but had perpetual life. The owners of the corporation hired a management team to run things for them.
Here comes the agency-principal problem. The management team is supposed to run the company for the benefit of the shareholders, rather than for itself. But, we have seen that this doesn’t happen in most cases. CEOs and top executives have gotten filthy rich as the companies they run went bankrupt, or were sold off to competitors.
At the same time, companies became geographically disbursed. Union Carbide had U.S.-based execs making decisions about what happened at a plant in India. They neither understood nor cared much for the immediate surroundings. This is the case in large corporate entities, strategic decisions are made at the apex of the pyramid and often with little regard for the effects on communities that are remote from the management team.
Finally, the growth of large capitalistic enterprises has caused most of them to resemble massive government bureaucracies. As these companies ossify, many of them adopt rent-seeking behavior. They lobby the government in order to cause the government to grant them contracts, monopolies, or other benefits which cause market distortions. An example is Boeing, which has lost its edge in commercial aircraft thanks to its over reliance on military aircraft production. Another example is Disney, which lobbied Congress to extend trademark protections on its portfolio of characters.
The free market is natural to humans. Jesus was a carpenter, Paul made tents. Most monastics are artisans who sell their wares in the marketplace. This is all natural, and is all to the good. The question is not about the free market at all, which is an unquestionable good.
The question turns on the creation, in the past 200 years, of large, impersonal, remote corporations, whose very existance and treatment as ‘natural persons’ stems not from legislation at all, but from a SUPREME COURT decision in 1886 concerning a railroad. This style of impersonal, massive, bureaucratic and destructive corporations locked in symbiotic relationships with massive, impersonal, bureaucratic states is probably a blind alley of history. (Remember the difference between the peaceful Hobbits and the rapacious Sauron in the Lord of the Rings? The Hobbits barely had a government, and were mostly peaceful craftsmen and farmers concerned with local things. Sauron had a vision, on the other hand.)
As Vox Day, a Christian writer, noted:
“Not everything to which the idiot Left is hostile is necessarily good. It is impossible to assert that the age of untrammeled corporatism has been friendly to individual liberty or prosperity, especially when real wages have been falling for three decades – they are 14 percent lower than they were in 1972.
The genius of human invention and the undeniable blessings of capitalism do not stem from artificial structures at law, they come only from the mind of the individual. Conservatives would do well to remember that the next time that the corporations go to their comrades in Congress, demanding more violations of human freedom and more restrictions on individual liberty in order to sustain their vampirish unlives.”
A corporation is just a legal form, no need to demonize it
A corporation is just a form of doing business. It isn’t any more inherently evil that a general partnership, limited parthership or a sole proprietorship. Corporations serve the purpose of raising very large sums of many from many different people. Corporations were necessary to build the railroads that allowed America to grow into a single country and to grow in to an industrial giant. Any major technological endeavor will require the creation of a corporation to fund it.
Human beings will always be motivated by greed whether they do business as a corporation or not. Greed will drive some people to do evil, doesn’t matter what business form they choose.
Corporations can be effectively regulated in a number of different ways. First, monopolies can be broken up through effective anti-trust laws. Health and safety concerns of employees can be protected through legislation. Reasonable laws can be enacted to conserve natural resources when necessary and appropriate. Publicly traded companies can be regulated through GAAP requirements. GAAP is “generally accepted accounting principles.” GAAP requires certain types of disclosure and auditing of company books which serves to maintain honesty in the corporation. Enron happened because Arthur Anderson let it happen, by abandoning the integrity that Arthur Anderson once stood for. Arthur Anderson knew about the corruption at Enron but refused to blow the whistle because it wanted to keep its consulting contracts. The accounting profession and the government should make it illegal for an accounting firm to audit a company to which it also provides consulting services
One of the weak spots of any elective system is that money is the mother’s milk of politics. It takes money to get one’s message out to the people. Corporations can potentially amass larges sums of money which can have an undue influence on politices. But, then, so can individuals like George Soros or Theresa Heinz-Kerry. Similarly so can labor unions.
Nothing is to be gained by demonizing a particular form of business. Demonizing the corporation is just a form of Ludditism. Human conduct has to be regulated ( human greed has to be restrained) whether humans are operating as a corporation or a partnership or a trust and so on down the list of non-natural legal persons.
Full disclosure, my family business is run as a corporation. We have three employees.
It is an indication of the ideological lurch to the extreme right that simply advocating the sort of government programs that were widely favored by both Republicans and Democrats throughout the sixties and seventies, now gets a person branded as a socialist.
They were programs designed to expand the number of Americans who could participate in the economy, and contribute in our capitalist system. The programs were not hostile to capitalism but simply sought to support capitalism by expanding the number of stakeholders, increasing the number of middle-class consumers, and removing structural barriers that inhibited upward mobility and locked people into self-perpetuating patterns of poverty.
They were programs infused by with the moral belief that selfishness is ultimately self-defeating and that we do well personally, when our neighbors do well collectively. In that sense they reflected a Christian “leap of faith”, that if we care for our neighbors, God will care for us.
The Republicans of the sixties and seventies (like the late Senators Charles Percy and Everett Dirksen of Illinois whom my parents campaigned for) were not hostile to government, but committed to the idea of “good government” whose services were provided in a rational, efficient and businesslike manner. Those moderate Republicans represented the sane middle ground between today’s Republican right-wing extremists who mock the idea of government and the liberal Democrats who let government become a mockery by allowing it to become wasteful, irrational and corrupt.
Capitalism is not an end in itself but a tool. As Christians we must use the tool to help our fellow human beings as Christ commanded. Christ is in the face of every poor person we encounter. We ignore the begger Lazarus sitting on the curb, and pile up riches on earth instead of inheaven at the peril of our own souls. Acts of personal charity are very important; but collective action undertaken on our behalf by our government to address the causes of poverty in a proportional and systematic manner are also important and in no way at variance with our Christian beliefs.
What an interesting and useful discussion in the last day or so. I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, so thanks to all (including Dean, with whom I disagree but whose sincerity I don’t doubt) for contributing to my understanding.
Dean, your approach seems proper on the surface, but I think you are still unwilling to see that government action cannot replace private morality without damaging or destroying the moral underpinnings of the community. Look at the Soviet Union; look at the welfare states here and in Europe. Cannot private organizations do the same work as the government? Should we even expect government to work on a moral level if they are not religiously based?
Missourian’s approach gives more shape to my feeble intuition of a “Christian” economy, which I call “enlightened capitalism.” Such an economy, if it ever existed, wouldn’t have to be based on Christian doctrine per se, but on the community-wide recognition of certain human values which would at least parallel religious moral teaching.
On the other hand, what could inculcate such values among the people except religious teaching? Can a government be just and merciful without the influence of religion? Big conundrum alert for those who believe in an absolute separation of church and state!
Dean’s straw man, Dean, hasn’t been free market for a long time
Dean, you need to separate what the Church teaches about how a) Christian individuals should live b) private Christian churches or communities should function spiritually and practically and c) what policies today’s Christians should promote in America.
We all agree that the Bible commands us to care for the needy. The discussion is how to best do that in the United States today, being mindful of the lessons that history teaches us about Communism and Socialism.
After WWII there was an overwhelming growth in the welfare state and a huge increase in the acceptance of the idea that people have a right to rely on government (not themselves, not family, not communities of families) for their
well-being. The United States is very, very far from an unfettered free market economy. As you well know we have extensive regulatory legislation such as:
A) anti-trust laws
B) close and detailed regulations of publicly traded securities
C) health and safety laws protecting workers
D) legally recognized right to unionize and bargain collectively
E) conservation and environmental laws designed to protect our natural world and
resources
F) a system of progressive taxation (with many twists and turns and exceptions)
G) many subsidies for domestic industries such as agriculture
H) extensive retirement programs such as Social Security
I) extensive public health assistance such as Medicare and Medicaid
J) a public education system
K) health and safety laws protecting consumers such as those enforced by the FDA
and other regulatory agencies
The United States is not and has not been a true “free market” economy for decades. We do not operate a laissez faire economy, and haven’t for one long time. No one seriously thinks that there is any chance that our economy will return to the 1890’s. You are wrestling with a straw man.
As I noted, I said that we should seek to maximize wealth without compromising our morals or destroying our natural inheritance. I don’t advocate the legalization of gambling, drugs, or prostitution. I don’t think we should permit child labor. I think workers’ and consumers’ health and safety should be protected. We should do all of these things even if they depress GNP.
I do think we should honor the dignity of the human being and seek to promote productive work by anyone with the capacity to perform productive work. There will be those who cannot earn enough to live independently and we will have to help them.
We need to emphasize and strengthen the family so that people can rely on their families in the first resort, then their faith communities, then and only then the government.
It was our libertarian friends who have made the committment of the mentally ill so difficult that families do not have the legal power to constrain a schizophrenic who will not stay on his medication. Ask police officers about the number of times they have to encounter mentally ill people who are hallucinating and out of control. We all agree that the Bible commands us to care for the needy. The discussion is how to best do that in the United States today, being mindful of the lessons that history teaches us about Communism and Socialism.
Missourian and Bill: As I have said, acts of private charity and personal kindness are neccesary and integral components of our duty to assist the poor as we are instructed by our faith. I NEVER suggested that government programs could be a replacement or substitute for those. My Priest recently remarked, for example, that we fulfill our duty to help the least of our brothers simply by sharing a kind word with a sad acquaintance or lonely stranger.
What I tried to say was that acts of private charity and personal kindness alone are not adequete to eradicate the causes of structural, systemic poverty and socio-economic disenfranchisement that bring about the suffering and misery we are instructed to alleviate. Think of acts of private charity and personal kindness as our micro-economic solutions and government programs as our macro-economic solutions to poverty. Neither one should be in conflict with the other, but rather they should complement each other. President Bush has argued that we should increase public funding of successful private orgnaizations that assist the poor, even those that are “faith-based.” This is an excellent example of how public and private sectors can work together in partnership.
Sometimes the scale of problems require solutions that are proportional. Let’s say I encounter you Bill, or you Missourian, reduced by some calamity to begging on the street for money for food and shelter. It would be awfully nice if I gave you five dollars, but wouldn’t it be better yet if I gave that money to the homeless shelter in your neighbrohood, since they could combine my money with money from other charitable donors to purchase healthy food to feed you, and purchase or rent bedding and facilities to shelter you, and hire professional social workers to counsel you. By combining my money with that of other donors I am able to provide you with more effective assistance than if I just gave you money.
As we see combining resources for charitable endeavors allows us to provide more effective assistance. Suppose, however ,the cause of your problem was something beyond the capabilities of a small non-for-profit to address. Wouldn’t it be nice for the government to provide you with Medicaid assistance to pay for your health care so you can get healthy, and some Section 8 housing so you could move out of the shelter and into a small apartment, and some tuition assistance or job training so you could begin earning an income. This way we are addressing the causes of your situation and providing long-term solutions, rather than just treating the symptoms of your distress on a day-to-day basis.
Now tell me how paying taxes to help fund government programs that assist people more effectively than I could assist them alone or even through a charitable organization is in any way in conflict with my faith. As long as the programs are intelligently designed, directed at large-scale problems difficult for the private charity to address, effectively implemented and efficient with the resources provided (and I accept that this doesn’t always happen) why can’t I be content that my money is being well spent towards a goal consistent with my religious beliefs.
But you are correct to say thay even at best these programs do not eliminate the need for acts of private charity or personal kindness, but may only augment them in certain situations.
By the way I appreciate your answers, and agree with Bill that this has been a very beneficial discussion. Missourian, I’m always so busy fashioning retorts to your comments that I forget to thank you for the substance and depth you provide in them.
House Republicans are at War with Christianity: The Republicans in the House of Representatives just passed the “Paris Hilton Trust Fund Protection Act”.
“Estate Tax Repeal Heads to Senate Battle’; By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Estate-Tax.html?hp&ex=1113451200&en=1ba9492e1cbcc863&ei=5094&partner=homepage
“.. Many Democrats challenged the bill’s $290 billion, 10-year cost as too dear for a country burdened by deficits and fighting terrorism at home and abroad. They said the bill benefits a few wealthy families to the detriment of almost everyone else.
”This is the reverse Robin Hood,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. ”We are taking money from the middle class and giving it to the super rich, and not only the super rich but the super, super, super rich.”
Most estates already are exempt from federal taxes. The Internal Revenue Service said just over 2 percent of people who died in 2001 left estates subject to taxation.”
We’re cutting the Medicaid budget that provides health care to poor children, cutting section 8 housing that reduces homelessness, cutting spending on Food Stamps that alleviate hunger, cutting income assistance for the disabled, cutting the budget for the Veteran’s hospitals, we can’t afford body armor for our soldiers in Iraq, we are short-changing domestic homeland security measures … and yet we have $290 billion to make sure that super-rich kids like Paris Hilton can inherit more of their parents wealth.
This shameful piece of legislation sheparded through the Hose by the corrupt Tom DeLay, puts the Republican House in total opposition to the teachings of Christ, and demonstrates who really “is at war with Christianity.”
Dean,
While I am certainly no big fan of taxation in general, I have to agree that this is a rather silly choice for a first priority. At least, from the point of view of most citizens that is. The Internal Revenue Code concerning the AMT, for example, affects a lot more citizens and is grossly unfair to many working couples. If I had to pick a place to begin tax reform – that would be it. Curiously, neither the Dems or the Repubs are seriously looking at reform of the AMT.
Glen –
I’m not sure but I thought I read that the authors of the Alternative Minimum Tax neglected to make adjustments for the impact of inflation when setting the income levels at which it kicks in. As result the AMT has become a “stealth” tax increasingly working to “clawback” (to the to use current policy wonk phraseology) the savings upper and middle-class families may have realized from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and then some. It’s especially hard on taxpayers in high tax states like New York and California who will no longer able to deduct state and local taxes on their returns.
I agree, any rational approach to tax fairness would have addressed the AMT before considering any other tax changes. But when you have leaders driven by ideology rather than pragmatism, rationalism tends to get tossed to the wayside. No doubt, many of the extreme right-wing ideologues believe that the pain caused by the AMT is a delightful way to incite more anger and resentment towards government. Grover Norquist has stated many times that the massive deficits endangering our economy are to be welcomed as the price we pay to eventually “starve the beast”.
That’s why I think people like Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, Bush and Cheney, the whole lot, are to capitalism what Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were to socialism.
Dean, do you ever tire of wallowing in anger and hatred of Republicans? Don’t you have any hobbies?
“This … legislation … puts the Republican House in total opposition to the teachings of Christ.”
I typed out a series of responses to the stupidity in that sentence, but then deleated them knowing that I’d just wasted my time.
If you put half as much energy into actually helping the poor, Dean, that you do in finding articles that make you hate Republicans and typing up bile filled responses here, a great many poor might be helped. Instead all you do is sow anger, discord and hatred. How, exactly does that help anyone?
The love of Capitalism or “mammon” is nothing more than the justification of materialism. That’s it. There isn’t one shred of Biblical justification for a system that robs from the poor to give to those who ride the camel.
God will judge the rich who leave the poor hungry. In fact in Matthew he will seperate the sheep from the goats by how they treated the poor.
You have to be in some serious denial to ignore 2000 scriptures about the poor.
Remember the rich man and Lazerus? What system of govt. do you suppose he supported? How about the apostles. Were they free market wheeling and dealing brokers? No. They shared everything. The only time Jesus got violent was when thieves took over his house and did buisness.
Render unto Ceaser,
Michael