Church-Sponsored Socialism

Our president has recently been criticized for proposing legislation that would ease the tax burdens on millions of Americans. The source, surprisingly, of many of these criticisms is to be found within the church and church associations. They say that the tax breaks target the 'rich' and the most wealthy of Americans. They say the policies do nothing to help the poor and disadvantaged. They say we, as Christians, should advocate policies and legislation that will do more for the most unfortunate among us, and I agree. So I ask myself, "Why all the uproar over tax breaks?

"What is a tax break, really? Is it not just allowing a person to keep their own money? What we are really saying when we say that we are not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy is that we are in favor of governments taking money from the wealthy and redistributing it to those who we think need it more. This is the basis of all socialism.

This would be wrong even if the person in question was a multi-billionaire. However, this is not the case. Many people who are classified as rich by the advocates of social programs and supporters of redistribution are really middle-class working people and small businessmen. Statistics tell us that in the United States, an income of $52,000 per year puts a person in the top 30% of wage earners in the country. This may constitute the 'wealthiest of Americans', but I hardly think it constitutes what any would consider great wealth. So then, the most basic assumption about these tax cuts (that they give extremely wealthy individuals money that they are not entitled to) is flawed to begin with.

These church groups often refer to passages in the Bible like the one in Matthew Chapter 25 where Jesus says that "as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it also unto me." I think we would all agree that helping the poor and the 'least of these' among us is noble, moral and definitely a duty of the church, but one has to consider what the best means to accomplish that end would be. Jesus made it clear that it is the job of Christians to help their fellow man. After all, how will they know that we are his disciples, if not that we show love one to another? This does not just refer to us as Christians showing love to other Christians, but that Christians should be known for showing love to mankind in general. So then how should we best accomplish this? Let's get down to the practical matter of executing this mission.

When we think of giving to the poor, of what should we give? Should this giving not be in every part of our lives? Should we only give of time? Should we only give of resources (our homes, our church facilities, our cars, etc.). Should we ever use money to help our fellow man?

If we are committed to giving in all areas of our life, then, all other things being equal, the only way we could maximize our ability to give, is to maximize our monetary means as well. This would mean not only tax cuts, but, taking the argument to it's logical conclusion, a total elimination of all taxes, if that were at all possible. So, in the absence of a total elimination of all taxes, Christians should agitate for tax cuts, not against them. The more the better.

Imagine the totality of one's ability to give were to be like a pie consisting of three parts. Let those parts be labeled Time, Resources, and Money. (Many would argue that, from an economic standpoint, all these three things devolve into the same thing-money-but let us leave that argument for another time.) Think of two people that were to maximize giving of their Time and Resources. However, the one had very little Money because he somehow saw it as manifestation of greed or somehow aligned against Christian morality; meanwhile the other was a very successful businessman who happened to be very wealthy. Which of these two gentlemen would seemed poised to do the greatest good in the endeavors of helping his fellow man? Few could argue that it would not be the man with the additional monetary resources at his disposal.

So we come back to Bush's tax cuts. The president is being accused of allowing people to maximize their monetary resources by keeping more of their own money! Should he institute tax hikes that would take money out of the hands of people that would do good unto the 'least of these'? Would this somehow do more to help the poor?

I can already hear the response. It's all too typical. "Well, not every wealthy person will give to the poor. At least when the government confiscates the taxes, they will put them to a good use that will help those who need it the most. If we leave that money in the hands of the people that earned it, we have no guarantee that they will, indeed, use it to help their fellow man. They may just turn around and spend it or reinvest it in their business to make even more money." This argument is a fallacy on so many levels.

Let us consider the first point of this argument. When the government takes from the wealthy, it may be said, we are then able to be sure that the money will be used to help the poor and others in need. The sheer amount of waste and ineptitude in our government makes it doubtful that money allocated for any particular use would actually wind up being used in that capacity, but let us leave that argument for another time as well. Let us suppose (and what a supposition it is) that every dollar taken from the private sector in order to fund public assistance and social programs actually makes it into the coffers of the particular agency that will administer the project. What will happen then?

A particular mission or objective will be given. In this case, let's say it's helping the poor. A cash transfer will be given to anyone below the poverty line. However, the government can't discriminate. It must work in generalities. If a person is poor, they are entitled to the money. They cannot consider the cause of the person being poor. Is the person poor because they are disabled and cannot work? Has the person just been laid off from a job? Or is the person poor because they are lazy and refuse to hold a job? The government can't consider these factors and give the money based on a combination of need and merit as a private charity organization would do. Even if they could, the government is poorly equipped to make these types of judgements. How can a department head in Washington, D.C. or a state capital possibly know the needs and merits of people in a community miles away? The people in that community are infinitely more qualified to make the decisions for allocation of charitable resources based on need and merit than a bureaucrat in a posh office somewhere in a government office building.

One such example that has been very prominently displayed in the media of late is FEMA's response to hurricane Katrina. FEMA is a governmental charity organization. When emergency or disaster strikes an area, FEMA directs money and resources procured by our tax dollars to the area to give to the victims. Stories have been forthcoming for some time now about the abuse and waste that has accompanied the aid. Contractors have overcharged for work. Some jobs have been sub-contracted out as many as five different times, each contractor adding on an extra fee. Many resources have ended up in the hands of those who were not affected by the hurricane. A prominent example of this can be found in the story about renters who have moved out of apartments not damaged by the flood waters (in other words housing that had to be paid for) and moved into the free trailers provided by the government. A recent report estimated the total waste of money through abuse and fraud at two billion dollars.

All of this serves only to frustrate and anger those of us who have provided the charity. These aren't feelings that should be associated with helping your fellow man. Charity should make us feel good because we are doing something for humanity. However, these feelings are all but unavoidable when we see our money being put to such inefficient use.

Let us then take the second point of the argument in the same order that it has come to us. Advocates of government charity warn that because a certain amount of self-interest, or greed, as they call it, is involved in becoming wealthy in the first place, it is unlikely that a person who does accrue great pecuniary resources would turn and give that money to charitable purposes. He would, they argue, probably attempt to reinvest the money himself, or put it to purposes of business in order to gain even more wealth.

Although this is by no means true, and setting aside, for the moment, the fact that this would be his right in a free society, let us, for the purposes of the argument, suppose it were. In a capitalistic society, it is impossible to make money or amass wealth without providing something useful to society, usually a good or service. If a person wants to make more money, they have to expand their offerings to society or think of new products and services that will be useful to it. This of itself could be considered a charitable end, for it increases the standard of living of all society by providing more products and services and making life more comfortable for the population in general. But to be more specific, these products and services cannot be brought to the market without labor. This creates jobs. Let us elucidate the point a bit.

Economics is only a specific sector of what we call the social sciences. This group includes psychology, sociology, and political science along with the aforementioned economics and others and concentrates on the phenomena of human actions and interactions. Economics is the study of human action in the realm of exchange. Extensive study has been conducted in almost every conceivable area of exchange, including exchanges between two parties that only materially benefit one of the parties involved. We refer to this type of exchange as charity.

Capitalism is the system of economy that bases exchange on the profit motive and private property. Therefore economic activity within such a system will be based on the most efficient allocation of resources. In other words, what will be the most efficient way to accomplish a certain goal? Remember, the more efficient a person is under the system of capitalism, the more he stands to gain in the form of profit. However, this concept of efficiency also applies to charity.

Many great thinkers in economics have concluded that jobs, not charity, are the most effecient and effective way to help the poor and disadvantaged. Many have concluded that the wealthy should not 'waste' their money on charity, but rather put the money to a use that will create more jobs, and, therefore, more opportunity for the less fortunate. However, a good consideration of common sense would serve just as well to acknowledge this fact. As the axiom states, 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.' So if, indeed, a wealthy individual does not give one penny to 'charity' as we typically think of it, and only attempts to increase his wealth, he will still do a great deal for 'the least of these' among us, and may actually do more for the poor than if he were to give his whole fortune to altruistic purposes.

So how should we go about showing love one to another? How should we 'do unto the least of these'? What policies should we hope that President Bush and other lawmakers will draft and approve that will do the most to "provide the poor, families, and communities with the tools to meet basic needs such as access to nutritious food and quality child-care, accessible and affordable housing, comprehensive and affordable health care, high quality education at every stage of life, a fair and just tax system, job creation and a livable income to sustain their future" as the National Council of Churches USA recently called for? The answer seems pretty clear to me.

Capitalism. Pure, unadulterated capitalism, has and always will be the system of political economy that provides the best way to achieve the common good, namely allowing mankind to help one another. Those who would have the government assist us in the accomplishment of our duty as Christians-that of helping our fellow man-are badly misguided. If our current system in America is flawed, it is so in the fact that we have allowed socialist interventionism to creep too far into our system of economy. In other words, what America needs is a purer form of capitalism that as Thomas Jefferson said "shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." If we truly want to achieve the goals that we say we do, we need policies that will shape a society that is more like this. Not less.

Bush may not care one iota about the poor in America. I, personally, have a hard time believing that. I have a harder time even still believing that Americans can somehow help their fellow man better with less money in their hands.