How Not to Help the Poor

[GaryDeMar]

Alan Colmes, who co-hosted with Sean Hannity on FOX’s “Hannity and Colmes,” claims that Jesus “believed the rich should give to the poor.” Obama and most of Congress seem to agree. Let’s assume that Colmes’ analysis of Jesus is correct on this point. This is a far cry from saying that productive people should be taxed and that the government should redistribute their income to the less fortunate (Prov. 6:6–11; 13:4, 18; 19:15; 20:13; 21:25–26; 24:30–34; 28:19). A person who refuses to work is not to be assisted: “If anyone will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). For any government agency to violate this principle is in violation of the eighth commandment: “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15). Civil government is not exempt from God’s law. To believe otherwise means there can be no objection to socialism, communism, or any other ism.

The Gospel narratives do not call on the Roman Empire or Israel to help the poor except by limiting the State’s power (Luke 3:13–14; Matt. 22:21). Jesus makes it clear that it’s the individual and the collective responsibility of the believing community to help the poor within their circle of influence. The goal should be to get people out of a temporary condition of poverty; the goal is never to subsidize poverty. David Chilton’s comments are helpful on this subject:

The local administration of charity is crucial. It ensures that funds go to those who are truly needy, rather than to professional paupers. The charitable aspects of the tithe did not mean simply a handout to everyone who lined up. Charity is to be dispensed by responsible leaders of the covenant community who are in daily contact with the needs of the people. The general principle still holds: those who won’t work don’t eat. Those who attempt to live by a welfare ethic are quickly exposed in a locally-administered program, and will be unable to get away with “mooching.” Even in charity, God’s law teaches responsibility.[1]

Liberals like Colmes believe that redistributing wealth by taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor will create an equitable society. This is the great liberal myth. Taxing policies designed to create social programs inhibit economic expansion in the business sector. Without an expanding economy, businesses can’t grow. If businesses can’t grow, they cannot hire new workers.

Liberals believe that the remedy for economically displaced workers, a condition their policies often create, is to raise more taxes and subsidize the unemployed. This is state-sponsored slavery under the guise of compassion. It has the effect of squelching the incentive to work and creates a perpetual underclass that is constantly appealed to by liberals so they can stay in power. Those dependent on the State most often vote to increase the power of the State out of self-interest. Murray Rothbard observes:

State poor relief is clearly a subsidization of poverty, for men are now automatically entitled to money from the state because of their poverty. Hence, the marginal disutility of income foregone from leisure diminishes, and idleness and poverty tend to increase further, which in turn increases the amount of subsidy that must be extracted from the taxpayers. Thus, a system of legally subsidized poverty tends to call forth more of the very poverty that is supposedly being alleviated.[2]

Private charity eliminates the political empowering of a poverty class. The incentive of governments is to keep people dependent and grow the base by classifying more people as below the poverty line. There is little motivation for the poor to abandon dependency because the initial rewards from employment are minimal. Why put in an eight-hour work day, travel to and from a job, pay Social Security, federal, and state taxes for only a little more than what can be gotten by sitting at home and receiving a check at government subsidized housing?

Since the implementation of the “Great Society” program in the 1960s, the number of those designated as poor has increased. What have we gotten with the infusion of more than two trillion dollars of tax-payer money to help the poor? Charles Murray’s analysis shows that “Progress [against poverty] stopped coincidentally with the implementation of the Great Society’s social welfare reforms. . . . Huge increases in expenditures coincided with an end to progress.”[3] When something is subsidized, you get more of it. When Aid to Dependent Children was started, we got more dependent children. “If the State is going to pay me for having babies; I guess I’ll have more babies. It’s free money.”

Conservatives, many of whom are Christians, understand that a free economy, private property rights, and substantially reduced tax liability are the best remedy to help the poor. Those who can’t work and take care of themselves can be cared for by the generosity of people through churches and private agencies. With less money taken in taxes, more money can be given for real charity work that can be overseen by local agencies that have no connection to politics.[4] Politicians need dependency to stay in office. Eliminating poverty threatens the political ruling class that grows ever richer.

Liberals will use the Bible when they believe it can be used to defend a position that supports their agenda. An example is a 2002 Alabama Law Review article that “applies the moral principles of Judeo-Christian ethics as a basis for urging the citizens of Alabama to insist that Alabama’s elected political leaders reform Alabama’s state tax structure.” The author, Susan Pace Hamill, a former Internal Revenue attorney, states that while her approach might seem “unusual,” the “principles of Judeo-Christian ethics offer moral arguments that complement and often strengthen secularly based ethical arguments illustrating the need for social reform.”[5] And all the people said, “Amen.” Actually, only liberals said amen because they saw a way to increase the power of the State through guilt manipulation.

I believe every state’s tax structure should be overhauled based on the Bible, not by increasing the role and size of the State but by decreasing them. In a free economy, the poor have easier access to the job market since there are fewer price obstacles placed on employers. The poor are often not hired because they lack skills. Employers find it difficult to take the chance of hiring the underemployed because of the upfront costs involved, especially when profit margins are low: The minimum wage, insurance, the time it takes to train a new employee, travel, reliability, etc. Many will balk at the minimum wage assertion. There are two reasons why we have a minimum wage: inflation and unions. Inflation is caused by governments since only governments can increase the money supply artificially. Unions are protected by government over against employers. An employer might take a chance on an underemployed worker if the price is right, but the government doesn’t allow price competition below a fixed point.

The best way to stimulate the economy is to lower taxes, radically decrease government spending, eliminate dependency (welfare) programs, and remove obstacles for employees and employers in hiring.

Endnotes:

[1] David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider, 3rd rev. ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996), 55.
[2] Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (New York: New York University Press, [1962] 1975), 818.
[3] Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 (New York: Basic Books, 1984), 63.
[4] See John Jefferson Davis, Your Wealth in God’s World: Does the Bible Support the Free Market? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984); Robert H. Bremer, American Philanthropy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1960] 1982); Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992).
[5] Susan Pace Hamill, “An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics,” Alabama Law Review 54:1 (Fall 2002), 3–4.

[JTownsend]

A great article.

I had a terse discussion with some relatives not long ago because they thought the government should be given MORE power to stop/lower health care costs. Now here I am, an accountant. I went through the process of explaining that I have a few doctor clients who would disagree. And if you saw the regulations they are required to go through and the fees they are required to pay you would soon realize that the government is the real problem. As a rough estimate I would say at least 25% of the doctors bill goes towards fulfilling government regulations and taxes (think: sales tax, employers taxes, licenses, continuing education, malpractice insurance, etc.) ... and that doesn't include their personal income taxes!

You want to see health care costs drop and service increase? Get the government out of healthcare.

[ours4ever]

RE#4:
Tell that to Saxby Chambliss(R GA) he is as helpfull as a tree!!As far as that goes
none of the 545 morons in washington will help you unless you are a millionaire and
donate to there relection!!There should not be a REELCTION for any including the pres-
ident!USA USA!!

[TeriMc]

Amen! However, due to the death of common sense most people either do not grasp these concepts or are being dishonest with themselves for not understanding these things. I also believe that a certain lack of self respect greatly contributes to some people's desire to sit on their butts and draw welfare when they could otherwise work for a living. In the meantime, I will be praying for a revival of these things among the majority of our countrymen and women so that America might again prosper. Great article and thanks for writing it.

[Dave]

A very thought provoking resource in this area of discussion is the book "Welfare Reformed." Now that I've mentioned it, it is probably out of print. It is outdated as to the statistics; however, the principles are encouraging as to what can be done in the area of giving and the poor. What seems to be the growing desire of every reader here is, "Git er done." We want action and not just more talk. Articles like this are great as catalysts to get the reaction started and provide some preliminary direction but, let's face it, who is going to take these thoughts and actually act on them today? Sometimes an article like this, although not its intent, simply confirms our victimhood as we shake our heads, agreeing that we are being taken for a liberal ride down a dead-end alley, then we go on to the next thing on our daily schedule. Yes, I'm guilty too! After years of watching the talking heads on TV, that is about all I've accomplished, "Victimhood!" As you can tell, I've lost a large share of hope in the American voter to do what's best for the country instead of their own agenda. 2010 will be another time of testing to see if the Christian community can make itself heard and understood. We have the answers but I fear we lack the presentation. I know it's not about politics but the results of political decisions are changing our lives and not for the better. They will know us by our love for each other. Can we stop arguing for one minute, trying to see who is right about angels on the pin and actually come together, if for nothing else, at least one election or are you having too hard a time getting over MJ?

[freedomispopular]

I agree with all of the above, but it will only work if the nation as a whole accepts the one and true living God. John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Right now, the people of America, collectively speaking, are not "moral and religious," so, in reality, a free economy, lower taxes, our Constitution, etc. are "wholly inadequate" to us, and will, therefore, not work.

[James]

Video: How not to help the poor. (submitted by guest wolverhawk)

[orthodox]

Is 61:8 "For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering;"

[Jeff Swanson]

This was a good Article and a good Video attachment, and fits what Thomas Sowell has been writing about for years. The Welfare State for the poor is half the problem facing our Country. I’m not sure what the difference is between warfare and a bailout. Welfare is a tool of a bigger and ever expanding government, at the same time it is destroying us all.

While there are sincere individuals who care about the poor, it is also another emotional issue that is easily used by the Left to advance their agenda.

If we keep going down this road of big government, we will be like the poor in the time of Jesus, because the State will own everything.

I can testify first hand that this safety net has set up a population that does not want to work because it is easier for them to stay at home and collect some kind of hand out than to show up for work and shun responsibility. This seems to get worse with each generation that is entering the workforce and the reason why people cross the Boarder to do the jobs the native veal calves refuse to do, all while thinking that they care and superior to the capitalist. California thinks it can get back to the garden♪, as the song goes, but we are finding out that gravity is real. As has been said; as California goes so goes the Nation.

I went to a Tea Party this 4th and read Common Sense this weekend the new one and the original that is the back of the book. While there I met some fellow travelers there but was disappointed by the turn out, even after trying to encourage some Christian men to come, I guess were all above it all. It seems that the Common Sense and the warnings that were spoken to us by Thomas Paine are going to be ignored, unless something changes. Apparently we think we can dabble with a government of more and more man made laws and not suffer the dire consequences, just the other guy. Why do we want to be more like the other nations ruled by imperfect men and their laws? Maybe it’s because were just like Israel who wanted a king and not Gods laws to rule them.

[Justice41]

Having grown up among the so called poor, I have some insight. Some poor are willing to work but make an ecomonic decision that taking a job on the books makes no sense at minimum wages. Better to take welfare and work from time to time off the books or to engage in a small business off the books. Others, have no desire to work whatsoever, their efforts are to identify programs for which they qualify for money without working. They will fake disability for themselves or their children to qualify for government money.

Imagine how a hard working couple, both with jobs, feel about having to pay a large portion of both their combined paychecks for a small apartment while others receiving a much larger apartment and the benefits of the facilities at a fraction of the price because they are on welfare. I am against all government welfare programs for the able bodied. All claims of disability should be verified by competent medical authorities. Paying social security to drunkards and drug abusers makes no sense whatsoever, the money goes for more alcohol and drugs, not shelder and food. Food they beg on the street and sleep in parks, under bridges and storefronts.

[JTownsend]

Justice41 - The plain fact of the matter is that most people (in Amerika) are not willing to sacrifice their comfort. They have given up their freedom for security.

I am the bread winner in my family - and my wife and I have never made a lot. Although always qualifying for government handouts we have never taken part in them. It use to really tick me off when I heard people complaining about finances when my family makes less than $40k a year, and yet we have been able to live debt free. (The other day I had a client complaining because they only made about $150,000 last year.) Faith, hard work, and sacrifice will go a long way.

I disagree with every government hand out - including social security. Too bad I can't opt out... unless you know of an Amish group that allows the use of firearms?