Is fiscal conservatism not Christian?

[Contarini]

Wouldn’t supporting government policies that help the sick and the poor the most – such as universal health care, accident insurance and minimum wage – be the most Christly thing to do? The argument against that is that it means we have less economic freedom, though our primary concern is to help the poor, which charity simply cannot account for by itself.

I don’t think we can say that fiscal conservatism is un-Christian. Many Christians who are fiscal conservatives would argue that government programs do not help the poor in the long run. That may or may not be true–I’m not a good enough economist to evaluate the arguments, frankly–but it’s a legitimate argument for a Christian to make.

I think that there are positions sometimes held by fiscal conservatives that are clearly un-Christian:

1. One is the view that economic liberty is some sort of absolute right, so that any abridgment of it is intrinsically wrong. (You will sometimes find this argument made by Christians, particularly by conservative Protestants.) I think this is clearly false.
2. Another is the moralistic claim that poor people are mostly in trouble because they are lazy, so that programs to help them are really counter-productive. Now obviously human sinfulness and weakness needs to be borne in mind–there is a problem with programs that encourage people not to work, and admittedly St. Paul told the church at Thessalonica not to support people who refused to work (“if anyone does not work, neither shall he eat”). However, there is no justification for assuming that anyone who is poor is so by their own fault, and furthermore Christians are obligated to extend mercy and forgiveness even to those whose troubles are largely their own fault. My priest made the point once in a sermon that poor people are in a situation in which they can’t recover very well from the mistakes they make. They may be to a great extent at fault, but that doesn’t mean we should simply let them wallow in the consequences of their mistakes or sins. (Of course, sins and mistakes are not the same thing, and the conflation of the two is another problem with a certain kind of “conservatism”–but that’s perhaps another issue!)
3. Finally, one finds particularly among secular conservatives a kind of blatant social Darwinism, arguing that the economic system we have produces the most benefits for the greatest number, and that the fact that some people fall through the cracks is just the price we have to pay. This is the most blatantly anti-Christian of all, I think.

However, it is possible to be a “fiscal conservative” without falling into any of these errors, just as it is possible to believe in generous government assistance and social programs without believing in socialism in the totalitarian sense condemned by the Church. There’s a lot more room for disagreement among Christians on these issues that some folks on both sides want to think!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Church and Christianity is individualistic.

How on earth can the Church be individualistic? That’s a contradiction in terms! And because the Church is central to Christianity, it’s a contradiction in terms to say that Christianity is individualistic.

We will be judged as individuals.

True. The damned are damned as individuals (though if C. S. Lewis is right they may not maintain their individuality). But the saved are not saved as individuals. We (I speak in hope, not in presumption) are saved by being incorporated into the Body of Christ. That’s hardly individualistic.

We sin and do good as indiviuals.

Again, we sin as individuals, but we do not do good as individuals. Why do you think your Church has a doctrine of indulgences? The basic principle behind that doctrine is that the good works of Christ and the saints affect all of us.

Edwin

 

[bilop]

How on earth can the Church be individualistic? That’s a contradiction in terms! And because the Church is central to Christianity, it’s a contradiction in terms to say that Christianity is individualistic.

True. The damned are damned as individuals (though if C. S. Lewis is right they may not maintain their individuality). But the saved are not saved as individuals. We (I speak in hope, not in presumption) are saved by being incorporated into the Body of Christ. That’s hardly individualistic.

Again, we sin as individuals, but we do not do good as individuals. Why do you think your Church has a doctrine of indulgences? The basic principle behind that doctrine is that the good works of Christ and the saints affect all of us.

Edwin

I’m not condemning collective action, just stating the theological point that all sins and merits are accrued by individuals, not groups.

Group actions earn no graces, and groups can not sin.

On judgement day, it will avail no one to say “I voted to tax my neighbors to help the poor”. Likewise, no one is damned b/c of actions “done on their behalf”.

I’ll say again, Christianity is inherently individiualistic, even “selfish”, on a certain level, because we act individually out of concern for our own souls. Now, this “selfishness” leads us to behave in ways that look “selfless” on a secular level, so the individualism of Christianity actually leads to a great deal of charity and collective efforts at good works.

It’s a sort of paradox. By acting selflessly a Christian is also benifiting himself in the most important way.

God Bless

 

[Wollie]

Public health care will do the same thing for medicine that public schools have done for education. The poor will get second rate services while the rich will pay for decent ones. If you think that the government can provide good health care… why can’t it provide good education? The government is not meant to take care off everything for everybody, it can’t.

I have a friend who lives in Canada and he says the medical care sucks. Long lines and such. Anyone who has anything serious comes to the US for care.

 

[mercygate]

Subsidiarity, anyone?

From the CCC:

1881 Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but "the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions."4

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.
1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wouldn’t supporting government policies that help the sick and the poor the most – such as universal health care, accident insurance and minimum wage – be the most Christly thing to do? The argument against that is that it means we have less economic freedom, though our primary concern is to help the poor, which charity simply cannot account for by itself.

First of all, Christ commands us to give to the poor. He doesn’t tell us to force our neighbors to give.

Secondly, many of these programs are counter-productive. For example, poverty was dropping like a stone in the '40s and '50s, and only stopped dropping about '69 when the Great Society programs kicked in. For the last near 40 years, it has remained steady at around 13%, give or take two points. Crime, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and single parent homes all increased dramatically from then on.

Third, the taxes sucked out of the economy by the government for counter-productive programs dry up the funds available for charity – in essense, the government transfers funds from functional, effective programs to wasteful, counter-productive programs.

Fourth, the true anti-poverty program is education. But the Public School System has failed. In our 50 largest cities, the high school dropout rate averages 50% (and it’s about 30%, nation-wide.) And the best alternative to the Public Schools, the Catholic School system is nearly dead, and no one cares.

 

[bogeydogg]

No group of people can ever hope to right wrongs by taking from one group and giving to another, the reason why os that the taking is done by de facto force (and if yo don’t believe it try not paying your taxes) and that is stealing. We are of course to pay our taxes so that society will function (roads, postal service, etc.) but forced wealth redistribution is theft and its wrong and will never fix anything.

The other reason is that government programs are almost always running in debt and the way the government pays for these things is by devaluing the currency of our nation by printing more money than they have in value tradable commodities, and that is against the Mosaic Law. No government which violates God’s Law can ever hope to help its people because it is only God who blesses a nation and makes it prosperous. It is for this reason that the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry.

Finally, to say that we should do thus and so because it helps the most people even if we know its fundamentally wrong is dealing with the devil and must be avoided. The problem in our country is not that government doesn’t do enough, it is that we fail to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

 

[Sheeniac]

If it helped millions each year, we would not have 45 millions of Americans either under insured or not insured at all. That is only ONE social problem. The fact that Catholic charities help is not in dispute. They have not solved the problem to date, and there is no reasonable expectation that they will or can.

First, I believe that the problem is ‘unsolvable’. Christ told us that the poor would always be with us. So rather than think of the problem in terms of insurance, why not think about the problem solely in terms of health care?

Personally, I do not believe that government based “free health care” works, is free, or is moral. Nor do I think it can ‘solve the problem’ as you say that Catholic Charities cannot.

There are many free or scaled-fee clinics. Why not give tax incentives to doctors and other health care workers who do a lot of pro bono work? Currently, they cannot deduct the cost of their labor in terms of charitable giving. That makes no sense.

I would think that changing that tax issue alone would cause a New Spring in health care.

Low cost clinics are getting more common in places like Walgreens and Rite Aid (I think R.A. is the other big chain). This helps to keep people out of the emergency room, decreasing costs over all.

Also - many of the people can afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it. Is it wise? No, but why give something to someone who can afford it but chooses not to buy it?

In addition, I believe that bad money chases out the good. Once the ‘charitable aspects’ of providing for out fellow man becomes the province of the government, why bother spending my own money to help? What good does it do? None to very little. Thus, my money is better used elsewhere.

 

[steveandersen]

“Is fiscal conservatism not Christian?”
Proper stewardship, husbanding of resources, and care for our fellow man are all Christian.

But I disagree with the assumption you seem to be making that social programs are per se fiscally irresponsible or that conservatism is always the way to go.

Sometimes you need to spend and sometimes you need to save.

Wouldn’t supporting government policies that help the sick and the poor the most – such as universal health care, accident insurance and minimum wage – be the most Christly thing to do?

it is interesting to note that those nations with a history of Christian Democrat Parties (which have their genesis in Christian social doctrines) also seem to have much better social networks and safety systems

Strangely enough while these ideas found a home in political parties, formal religions affiliation itself has tended to drop.

The argument against that is that it means we have less economic freedom,

Maybe, maybe not
Some social programs result in lower overall costs to society.

As long as economic freedom doesn’t mean “I have mine the heck with everyone else!” there is nothing wrong with it

though our primary concern is to help the poor, which charity simply cannot account for by itself.

We are not supposed to rely solely on government for charitable spending. However as you say private charities can’t reach everywhere.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s remember that Joseph was an entrepreneur and a capitalist. He owned his tools, and sold his products in the open market for a profit. And Jesus, until He began His mission, did the same.

 

[seekerz]

The government has a duty to the poor just as it has a duty to maintain law and order, national security etc. How else is it to do that without taxation?

I’d personally would rather my taxes go to educate a poor child (providing a way out of poverty) than to pork barrel projects that enrich people who already have more than enough (a different kind of wealth redistribution).

There is a choice, whether in charity or in taxes. If we fail to obey God’s command to give, we will answer for it on judgment day. If we fail to pay taxes, we might well answer for it in prison. With either philosophy of giving there is the element of: if you don’t give, there’ll be a negative consequence.

The idea of leaving it up to people whether, what and how much they give is became substantially less appealing to me after I had an opportunity to observe how stingy and disrespectful some charitable giving can be.

Some posters here seem to fear government imposing it’s “theology” (or lack thereof) on us if we adopted universal healthcare. I fear just as much a bunch of judgmental fellow-Christians vetting recepients of their “bounty”. Somehow, we frequently have difficulty fitting into shoes other than our own.

Fraud and waste happen with charities too; I’ve see it firsthand. I’ve just learned to bless what I give and trust God to do the best with it because after all, every human endeavor is imperfect. So for me the comparison between government programs and charities falls flat in this regard as well.

I truly cannot understand how any Christian would have trouble with government taxes going to help the poor.

 

[Sheeniac]

The idea of leaving it up to people whether, what and how much they give is became substantially less appealing to me after I had an opportunity to observe how stingy and disrespectful some charitable giving can be.

Fraud and waste happen with charities too; I’ve see it firsthand. I’ve just learned to bless what I give and trust God to do the best with it because after all, every human endeavor is imperfect. So for me the comparison between government programs and charities falls flat in this regard as well.

I truly cannot understand how any Christian would have trouble with government taxes going to help the poor.

Well, we’ve given you reasons. Obviously these arguments haven’t won you over. Be that as it may, I think it’s time to stop and remember that while we disagree, we are all people of good will. Therefore, let’s not deride each other. Don’t call me unChristian because I disagree with you. As Christians, we agree on the problem. As citizens, we disagree on the solutions.

I could have commented on several of your comments, but I have no wish to get into such nitpicking. I will ask that you further expand on your statement : “less appealing to me after I had an opportunity to observe how stingy and disrespectful some charitable giving can be.”

(I agree in some parts with that - wasn’t it Al Gore who claimed less than $500 in charitable giving in one year?)

 

[seekerz]

Well, we’ve given you reasons. Obviously these arguments haven’t won you over. Be that as it may, I think it’s time to stop and remember that while we disagree, we are all people of good will. Therefore, let’s not deride each other. Don’t call me unChristian because I disagree with you. As Christians, we agree on the problem. As citizens, we disagree on the solutions.

I could have commented on several of your comments, but I have no wish to get into such nitpicking. I will ask that you further expand on your statement : “less appealing to me after I had an opportunity to observe how stingy and disrespectful some charitable giving can be.”

(I agree in some parts with that - wasn’t it Al Gore who claimed less than $500 in charitable giving in one year?)

I will try to avoid being more specific than this: have you ever had to sort out ‘charitable’ donations of used clothing?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I truly cannot understand how any Christian would have trouble with government taxes going to help the poor.

It doesn’t help the poor to be lumped into “housing projects” so they lose what jobs they have – and there are so many poor concentrated in a small area that the economy cannot provide jobs.

It doesn’t help the poor to be burglarized, mugged, and terrorized by the gangs – which are financed by welfare – that spring up in these projects.

It doesn’t help the poor to have their children sent to schools that are so bad they have a 50% high school dropout rate.

It doesn’t help the poor to drive men out of the house, making out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households the rule.

But it does provide good wages for a host of bureaucrats.

 

[po18guy]

Wouldn’t supporting government policies that help the sick and the poor the most – such as universal health care, accident insurance and minimum wage – be the most Christly thing to do? The argument against that is that it means we have less economic freedom, though our primary concern is to help the poor, which charity simply cannot account for by itself.

Charity formerly assisted those in need, before government grew out of proportion. What has changed since those days? Allowing government to take over charity means we needn’t get our hands dirty, or be around undesirable persons or situations, as long as some public agency is helping. That’s not Christian.

I have been a government worker for 29 years. I can assure you that individual government employees can be the most caring individuals in the world. However, government as an entity could not care less about individuals. There is court precedent that it does not have to care about individuals, only about society in general, due to the “promote the general welfare” clause. Remember that government represents human power over other humans, and thus tends to attract power-seekers who may not have others’ best interests at heart.

Again, to assume that any particular government program is helpful, without further examination, is naive. These programs were formulated as a response to perhaps a particular problem, but we have all seen what “best intentions” can do to a response. Again and again, private charities have been shown to be far better at most assistance, outside of perhaps a need for government/military intervention in large-scale disasters.

Look at it this way, reliance on big government to solve all of our problems is a relatively recent innovation. Throughout human history, governmental power has been feared, and with good reason. Nothing I have seen in my career has changed that one bit.

The following quote is attributed to George Washington, a pretty good source: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Far better to leave tax dollars in the hands of a compassionate public, for the public (“We the people”), who are the government for goodness’ sake, to do with as they think best. American public has shown, time and again, that they are amongst the most caring in the world. Why place that power in the hands of uncaring bureaucrats?

Christ did not say, “The poor you will always have with you, and government can do good to them whenever it wants”, did he? As Christians, we have an individual responsibility to do the Lord’s work. Sloughing it off on Caesar is to shirk our duty before God, in my opinion.

Christ’s peace.

 

[bogeydogg]

The government has a duty to the poor just as it has a duty to maintain law and order, national security etc. How else is it to do that without taxation?

I truly cannot understand how any Christian would have trouble with government taxes going to help the poor.

I agree that readjusting wealth upward is immoral as well. HOwever, I have worked extensively in housing projects and section eight apartments and houses and I have observed that the govt. dole does not alleviate poverty but enfranchises it. I do think the govt. has a responsibility to the poor as well as to all of its citizens but I don’t think that free housing and heath care are two of them.

I think the govt. should punish companies that send jobs overseas just to find cheaper labor. I am opposed to full on well fare but I certainly have no problem with subsidizing low income families to help them if they work. I think the govt. should give tax breaks to companies that provide child care for working mothers.

Do you see?

There are all sorts of programs like head start (which should be brought back) and wic which really do help people and I don’t have a problem with that, however these programs do not checks to people for nothing. I think the govt. could easily incentivize corporations through tax breaks to make them better citizens but to say that we should automatically tax the wealthy simply because they are wealthy and other people are poor is theft. It’s classism, socialism and theft and I think it’s immoral.

 

[Angainor]

Minimum wage is a gimmick, and not a very good one. Setting a wage floor is trying to create prosperity out of thin air. It is trying to get something (prosperity for the little people) for nothing. Why not have a minimum wage of $100 an hour?

Minimum wage also wipes out many get-your-foot-in-the-door, experience-gaining starter jobs.

 

[Angainor]

Let me ask the group this. What if the government did lift a finger to directly help anyone, but through sound economic policies got the economy humming along such that the everyday products people need became super affordable? Bread at 10¢ a loaf. A filled cavity at the dentist for $20, a full medical exam for $30.

Would a government that helped bring about those affordable prices not be caring for the poor? There would be very few people who would even need charity with prices like that, and the few that did would be able to be helped by charitable causes. How much farther would charitable causes be able to help with prices so reasonable?

That is what I think the free market can do. If only the government would get out of the way.

 

[steveandersen]

Let me ask the group this. What if the government didn’t lift a finger to directly help anyone, but through sound economic policies got the economy humming along such that the everyday products people need became super affordable? Bread at 10¢ a loaf. A filled cavity at the dentist for $20, a full medical exam for $30.

Would a government that helped bring about those affordable prices not be caring for the poor? There would be very few people who would even need charity with prices like that, and the few that did would be able to be helped by charitable causes. How much farther would charitable causes be able to help with prices so reasonable?

That is what I think the free market can do. If only the government would get out of the way.

We sort of tried that in the 19th century
While the economic growth part worked well, the “rising tide lifts all boats” approach to helping the poor didn’t

The vast differences in incomes that resulted were unsustainable in a democracy

 

[BlaineTog]

Minimum wage also wipes out many get-your-foot-in-the-door, experience-gaining starter jobs.

You mean internships?