The federal government didn’t just arbitrarily enter into the “War on Poverty” in 1964. They didn’t just see a voting block and send money (the poor don’t vote, well they sure didn’t back then). They didn’t just decide to shift wealth around, taking from those that work and distributing it to those who don’t. It evolved from the FDR New Deal days until it lay at the desk of LBJ’s Great Society. One thing overlooked: JBL never would have had the votes for passing the sweeping Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 if it weren’t for overwhelming support from (can you believe it) Republicans. Southern Democrats did not support President Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” Oh, how times have changed and political tides have come and gone out. The “War” began, however, to take shape under JFK. In his inaugural speech, JFK referred several times to poverty, a term no American president since FDR had used. He said, “If the free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” Later, President Johnson said:
“This administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America…and I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in this effort…It will not be a short or easy struggle—no single weapon or strategy will suffice—but we shall not rest until that war is won. The richest nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it.”
[An aside: Now I know where Bush gets his own war rhetoric, it is almost verbatim straight out of the Johnson’s War on Poverty language.]
I do wonder: These words, this war on poverty—is it wrong of the government to do the right thing and harness its capacity and the country’s will to help and assist the less fortunate, to fund the means to ameliorate the causes of poverty? It is wrong for our own secular system to be doing the right thing when (many of) our churches refuse to do the right thing and refuse to harness their own resources and leverage their own capacity to fight against poverty? Even a wayward king of Israel wisely said:
Open your mouth for the mute,
For the rights of all the unfortunate.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy (Proverbs 31:8-9).
Yep… it’s me again. Although I had decided not to continue discussing this topic with you, I couldn’t resist jumping into this debate once more after reading your most recent post. I feel the questions you posed deserve some kind of response, so since no one else has commented, here goes…
You asked, “Is it wrong of the government to do the right thing and harness its capacity and the country’s will to help and assist the less fortunate, to fund the means to ameliorate the causes of poverty? It is wrong for our own secular system to be doing the right thing when (many of) our churches refuse to do the right thing and refuse to harness their own resources and leverage their own capacity to fight against poverty?”
In order to answer these questions, we need to consider a few basic things about how governments are funded. Practically speaking, governments have no wealth or goods of their own to give to the needy. Whatever revenue they get must be obtained through taxation; in other words, they must forcibly take it from someone else. So when you say the government’s “capacity,” you are referring to its power to tax and spend. This is the only “capacity” the government has to assist the less fortunate.
If we are to answer the question, “Is it wrong of government to… help the less fortunate?” we must acknowledge that other people from all walks of life (entrepreneurs, small-business owners, CEOs, working-class families, homeowners, people living on fixed incomes, etc.) are going to be affected by any tax policies enacted for the benefit of the poor. Therefore, perhaps the question we should be asking is this: “Is it wrong for the government to forcibly take money from certain people and give it to the less fortunate?”
The answer, I think, depends on how much money the government takes for this purpose and the impact this loss of income will have on those from whom it is taken. Some fiscal conservatives would argue that it’s never right for the government to take money from one group and give it to another. Others say it’s permissible as long as the tax rate does not become unduly burdensome. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who want government to have open-ended power to tax the “haves” for the benefit of the “have-nots.” As Christians, we need to decide which of the above perspectives is most closely aligned with God’s Word.
In the Law of Moses, God gave very specific instructions to His people about how much of their property was to be given for the care of the poor. He mandated no more than 10 percent of the increase of grain, vegetable produce, fruit from trees, and the increase of domestic animals. In addition, only part of the tithe went toward feeding the poor; the rest was for maintaining the temple. Moreover, while the Old Testament tithe was required by the Law, the New Testament seems to emphasize the completely voluntary character of giving (see 2 Corinthians 9:7). If we look at the biblical system as a model for how secular governments are to alleviate poverty, it would seem that they should ascribe to the same limits set forth therein. The problem with secular governments, however, is that they don’t know when to stop. This is seen in some of the socialist governments of Europe, where the tax burden is at least 70 percent and there are virtually unlimited social programs.
Other questions to consider are these: How will tax policies that help the poor affect people who are living on fixed incomes (e.g., elderly people living off pensions and Social Security)? Should real estate be taxed for the purpose of assisting the poor? If so, what of people who lose their homes because they cannot afford ever-rising property taxes? Will raising taxes on entrepreneurs in order to help the poor make them less likely to expand their businesses, thereby not hiring new workers? What of the small business owner who goes bankrupt because he is unable to pay the myriad of taxes on his business and must fire all his employees? Finally, is it fair for churches and believers to be taxed to help the poor if they are already sacrificing their wealth and resources on behalf of the needy? If so, how much is too much?
A related question to consider is this: Is it right for a nation to look to government, rather than God, as the source of provision and sustenance? Could this be the reason that when Jesus preached about caring for the poor, He commanded His followers to sell their own possession and give to the needy, rather than telling them to delegate this task to Caesar?
Just some food for thought…
Posted by on 10/16 at 05:17 PM
Julie, I can indeed count on you to offer your comments...which, despite my disagreements, are very much welcome, even needed. So is it wrong for the government to forcibly take money to pay for a poor person’s children to obtain a K-12 education?
Although I agree with you that much of our taxation is forced...but then again, that’s what is a tax...but it is a privilege, putting money into the collective whole to benefit the national interests...and I would say not only from God’s perspective, but from a very political and practical one as well, such investment with public $$ is indeed a benefit to the whole--despite the fact that there is some abuse in the system (as there is with corporations and individuals). And there I go...making my comeback comments...but I do like yours, really...peace, chip
Posted by on 10/16 at 08:59 PM