Writing last Thursday in the Washington Post, Michael Gerson took on the dispute between the Christian Left’s “Circle of Protection” and Christians for a Sustainable Economy’s more conservative response. (Full disclosure: I signed the CASE letter and wrote about it last week.) His conclusion? That the Left has the better of the argument:
The arguments of the Circle and CASE both have merit. But the Circle’s approach is more urgent. Public spending on poverty and global health programs is a sliver of discretionary spending and essentially irrelevant to America’s long-term debt. A political argument giving equal weight to cuts in poverty programs and reductions in entitlement spending is uninformed about the nature of the budget crisis, which is largely a health-entitlement crisis. A simplistic philosophy of “shared sacrifice,” focused mainly on cuts in discretionary spending, requires disproportionate sacrifices of the most vulnerable. If religious people do not make this case, it is difficult to determine what distinctive message they offer.
This is not an argument endorsed by God, but it corresponds to budgetary reality. And this has a virtue of its own.
I must respectfully disagree. First, it’s hardly the case that “public spending on poverty and global health programs is a sliver of discretionary spending.” As this Heritage report demonstrates, even in 2008 means-tested welfare aid amounted to $714 billion, with $522 billion coming from the federal government. In his first two years in office, Obama increased the federal number to $697 billion. Over the next decade, the federal government will spend $7.5 trillion on means-tested welfare. Since the War on Poverty began, we’ve spent roughly $16 trillion. That’s not a “sliver” of anything.
Second, it’s simply not true that CASE has put “equal weight to cuts in poverty programs and reductions in entitlement spending.” The letter calls for Congress and the president to put on the table “every cent of government spending.” Nowhere does it indicate that cuts in poverty programs or entitlements must be given “equal weight.” (In fact, that’s a false distinction — our entitlements include many poverty programs.) It does, however, argue strongly that anti-poverty programs should not be spared close scrutiny and cuts. There is nothing sacred about welfare spending.
Finally, Gerson simply doesn’t grapple with a core conservative critique of the modern welfare state: It simply doesn’t work. After spending $16 trillion, our poverty rate is roughly where it was when the “War on Poverty” began. Individual programs, like Head Start, cost billions per year with no discernible effect. Unemployment benefits can prolong joblessness even as they ease its ill effects. Many of these programs create a sense of entitlement and a very real dependence that prolong and deepen poverty. A welfare state that throws trillions into a destructive, bureaucratic abyss does not serve anyone — least of all the poor.
Gerson argues that if religious people don’t make the case against “disproportionate sacrifices” (an undefined term) “of the most vulnerable,” then it’s “difficult to determine” our “distinctive message.” But this is a straw man. CASE is not arguing for “disproportionate sacrifices” but instead against sacred cows. As for our distinctive message, I’m quite comfortable arguing that good stewardship, economic liberty, and accountability for actual effects (as opposed to good intentions) are far more helpful to the “least of these” than our bloated welfare bureaucracy.
Always darkly amusing and lets be honest- ever so slightly satanic, when Christians go to such great lengths and spend such large amounts of time to argue against helping the poor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs always, liberals are forced to support the lie that only through govt action, can the poor be helped.
Nor does it matter to them that govt action has proven time and time again to be disasterous to the poor. It only matters that other people's money be spent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy question really is how much do we as a nation owe the poor? I'm not rich or even well to do myself, but my question really is if no one is starving or homeless, how much more does the government need to provide? Medical care is really iffy, in many cases even if the cost was free, the only thing it can do is extend life for a short period. And while I think things like Cancer should be a national research priority, I don't see how paying for car accident treatment or colds is anything owed by the government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere in the Bible does it say that the government should take on the role of caring for the country's poor? Did not Satan offer to give the world's governments to Jesus if he committed suicide? Did not God warn against creating false idols? Nah, that was some other book. :P
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusechrisboltssr, Definitely good points and a lot more can be said. "Thou shalt not steal" is a good start. Taking other's money at gunpoint (and after all, that's what taxation is about) and then calling yourself morally superior is the height of hypocrisy and Christlessness. It is man-made virtue. The NT discusses how the church should take care of its own widows, children, and imprisoned ones (most logically under persecution). These self-described "Christians" need to repent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavid, thanks for the arguments, but I doubt it will change any minds. The left is absolutely, firmly convinced that the only thing that can possibly be of assistance to the poor is writing a blank check without asking where it will be spent.
Vocational training, public service, community standards, stewardship, accountability . . . all are alien concepts to the left, and they will meet with utterly predictable complaints about the right wanting the poor to suffer. Anything other than blank checks for the poor they will consider to be cruelty, and I do not know what it would take to make them see things any differently.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe bible also says "No one whose t-sticles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
So i dont know what to believe!
I am a christian myself, but i dont think its practical to apply the bible 100% to modern living- i see no reason to discriminate against people with crushed t-sticles for a start, surely their lives are hard enough. :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou claim to be a Christian, yet you don't know the difference between the old testament and the new.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarkW, Exactly. "ExpatAsia" couldn't be bothered to think about what "the assembly" means or other OT hygienic laws, nor how the NT makes it clear what holds for Christians (and not a governmental entity such as OT Israel). But he/she knows just enough to be smug and then close the Book. And then claim to be a "Christian."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you don't know what to believe about the Bible, why are you aiming your criticisms (such as they are) at Christians qua Christians? Perhaps it would be advisable to become informed before deeming yourself knowledgeable enough to be “darkly amused.” Frankly, it comes across as ignorant yuk-yukking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find it disgusting that people try to defend profligate government spending by invoking Jesus Christ.
Jesus would tell you to be charitable using your -own- money, not other people's. It is morally empty to use the authority of a government to force someone else to fund your pet cause and then claim to be compassionate toward the less fortunate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf welfare spending were restricted to those who are truely poor and who can do nothing to help themselves, it would cost only a few billion a year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ExPat,
Your first assumption is that public welfare as administered is "Christian". Your second assumption is that it "helps the poor".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce again, Mr. French neglects the obvious point, made by other commenters, that there's nothing in Christ's words or example that would justify, let alone require, the jump from private good works to using the government to take from others by force so that you can use their resources for good works.
Whom would Jesus mug?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis past week, in the DFW area, the "Mayor's Back to School Program" had some 50,000 come in to get free school supplies, free medical checks, free immunizations, and various other goodies, all on the taxpayer's dime and some local contributors. The media coverage was interesting. All the folk there were well dressed. A majority of the folk looked as if they should go on the Michelle Obama diet regimen! I fear the Scrooge in me emerges at times like this when it appears the "poor" are doing pretty darned well on the taxpayers dime. Now when school opens, these same kids will get "free" breakfast and lunch, all on the taxpayers dime. However, only 50% of them will ever graduate from the Dallas Independent School District as seniors. (How’s that for return on investment?) At some point, it should be pointed out that if you have children--you individually are supposed to take care of them and not pass the bill on to those in society who work hard and are responsible for themselves and their families. We have a society in which far too much is "free" and as proven time and time again; when it is "free, they will come!" Bah, humbug! I resent folk using the bible to tell me it is my job to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves and have the government pick my pocket to fund programs that do so. Again, Bah Humbug. Let’s get back down to helping the truly poor, not a pack of parasitic loafers whose only function in life is to vote in liberals who will keep them on the public teat! Phooey. Other than that I don’t have any strong feelings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe question isn't whether God wants us to care for the poor. The question is one of methodology. No one who advocates state-sponsored giveaway programs can point to a single passage of Scripture where God gives the ministry of grace to the state. Not ... a ... single ... one.
God gives the power of the sword to the state (justice), and grace to families and church (mercy). It's just the way it is. Liberals should argue with God, not us. At the root of things, they don't agree with God's governance of the universe or the economy he has set in place, and they want to change it as if they are themselves God.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother problem is the fed's definition of poverty. By using a relative, rather than an absolute definition, gov't ends up taking the fruit of one person's labor in order to give to people not in need.
I'm all for helping the starving, naked, homeless, and those who for some bonafide reason or other are simply not able to work to sustain themselves. I fail to see how Christian principles require that I be taxed to pay for somebody's cable TV.
There simply are not that many truly poor people in this country - certainly not $700 billion worth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom an interview with Senator Mark Hatfield (RIP) in 1982:
"For instance, education and welfare both average a 40 percent overhead in administrative costs. With a block grant program the overhead is reduced to 20 percent. Therefore, when we reduce a program by 25 percent, we are only reducing it by about 5 percent in terms of the recipient, because 20 percent of the 25 percent would be absorbed by the change in administrative structure. In cutting some of these programs we are putting additional pressure on removing waste and abuse. I cannot tolerate that in the name of the poor or anyone else.
"I also have sought to change eligibility criteria. Last year the federal government paid out over a billion dollars in Medicare payments to people who earned more than $30,000 a year. Spreading that entitlement to such a broad base of people is really weakening the whole program. By tightening the criteria we'll have sufficient resources to help those who have desperate needs and no alternative. The appearance is that I'm trying to take away from the poor, but in effect, what I'm really doing is building strength into the programs so they reach the poor and are not wasted."
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse