Jim Wallis and a number of other Christians involved in politics are trying to gain attention for the question, “What would Jesus cut?” The answer to this question is supposed to be as obvious as it is in other moral contexts. For example, would Jesus lie about the useful life of a refrigerator he was selling for Best Buy? No way. Would he bully a kid into giving away his lunch money? Not a chance. Would you find him taking in the show at a strip club on interstate 40 in Arkansas? Unlikely to the extreme.
Would he agree to a 2% cut in the marginal tax rate for income made above $250,000? Would he EVER accept a cut in welfare spending? Those take a little more thought. Jim Wallis and others think it’s a no-brainer. Let us reason together.
As I look over what Wallis wrote, I see several things worth noting. For example, he complains that some Republicans want to cut domestic spending and international aid, while they support an increase in military spending. The implication is that this is obviously a sub-Christian position. But is it? Probably the most essential purpose of government is to protect the life and freedom of citizens. The government achieves this goal through military means. Unless one takes the position that Christianity implies corporate pacificism, then it is unclear the Republicans have blundered according to Christian ethics. Now, match the question of military spending versus international aid and/or domestic spending. Are the latter obviously superior to the former? No. It depends on not only what the stated objective is for the different types of spending, but whether they actually achieve their purposes. To simply state that the Republicans want to bolster military spending while cutting international aid and domestic spending is to achieve nothing at all by way of an indictment.
Here’s another example. Wallis complains bitterly that tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans add billions to the deficit. He is referring to the extension of George W. Bush’s cuts in the marginal tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton. The first question I have is how does Jim Wallis know that the level of taxation was just to begin with? And why take Bill Clinton’s tax levels as the Platonic form of taxation? Maybe they were too high or too low. The highest marginal tax rates have fluctuated drastically in the United States during the last century. John F. Kennedy made a big cut, with impressive economic effects, as did Ronald Reagan. Is Wallis sure that by cutting taxes those men robbed the poor and gave to the rich? Maybe a lot of poor people got jobs because of them. And we aren’t even getting into the question of whether rich people actually have an enhanced duty to pay taxes. If there is a community need, is it righteous to grab a rich person and employ the power of legal coercion to extract the needed funds?
Still another problem with this redistributionist attitude about taxes and spending is that it assumes a zero sum state of affairs. For example, one could assume that the most people would be better off under a system like the old Soviet Union that spread resources out to citizens in a way that prized equality of rations. The United States system didn’t do that nearly as much, not nearly at all. But which of the two systems provided a better life for people? The answer is easy. The United States and its emphasis on liberty did. Why? A more free economic system produces far more wealth than an unfree one. If your equality system produces a little, bitty pie, it may give you a lot of philosophical satisfaction, but it doesn’t do as much actual good for people as the system that prizes free productivity and success over equality.
What Jim Wallis is saying comes from a good heart. He is worried about things like fairness and, of course, about helping people. But the reasoning he employs in doing so assumes that federal programs actually achieve what they set out to do, which is far from obvious, and that they don’t create incentives for behavior that results in greater problems, which often happens. He also assumes a zero sum society. It is entirely possible that economic thinking that concerns itself more with productivity than with equality will actually leave the great majority of people better off.
“It is entirely possible that economic thinking that concerns itself more with productivity than with equality will actually leave the great majority of people better off.”
What you are saying comes from a good heart. You are worried about things like prosperity and, of course, about helping people. But the reasoning you employ in doing so assumes that Liberal economic ideology actually achieves what it promises, which is far from obvious, and that it doesn’t create incentives for behavior that result in greater problems, which often happens.
Spouting truisms and empty moralizing is kind of fun! I see your and Wallis’ attraction to it!
You’d have a fantastic point if there were no evidence. But there is and thus the rapier lacks a point.
And, I should add that the rhetorical turnabout trick would be more effective if I hadn’t written everything above the paragraph you mention.
I haven’t bothered to read what Jim Wallis wrote on this, but I did post the following on a similar thread over at First Things:
The source for my numbers is the federal budget submitted by the Obama Administration for last fiscal year. See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf
By the way, when it is suggested by many that defense spending be a source for cuts, I agree, much to the consternation of many of my fellow conservatives. However, I must also point out that the percentage of GDP devoted to defense has been cut by more than half in the last 50 years and even if all defense spending were eliminated (something even the most liberal advocate has not proposed), our deficit next year would still be more than $750 billion. Human Resource (largely entitlements) must be reined in if we are ever to get our fiscal house in order. And taxes must be raised to pay for the new entitlements we have added or the old entitlements we have enhanced over the past 50 years.
It’s our debt, not our children’s. We need to begin, even at this late date, to begin acting like adults and take responsibility for the debt we’ve already piled up and stop piling up any more. I’m pretty sure our Lord would approve of that.
Meme. Within your ideological assumptions I’m sure you think you’ve said something. Wallis’ welfare state, though, is the symptom of your Liberal order. Complaining of the palliative while praising the disease is something worse than silly.
GL,
You speak sense, sir.
The simple asnwer is that Jesus would cut all of it, 100%. He would do away entirely with the government built upon taxation. After all, his kingdom is run on entirely different principles.
That’s what he would do because that is what he will do.
Speculations about how Jesus would behave if he were merely a worldly ruler or citizen is beyond idiotic. We should accept that he is the Son of God and then look to what he actually did.
“It is entirely possible that economic thinking that concerns itself more with productivity than with equality will actually leave the great majority of people better off.”
True enough. But it is also true that a rising tide doesn’t raise all boats — it can sink some. Wallis’s critique of finance capitalism has some validity; numerous scholars, many of them from the Right, have noted the moral dilemma inherent in capitalism. Where Wallis errs is in looking to the Left for his answers. He has fallen into the “tired binary” of capitalism vs. socialism.
It’s hard to believe that Wallis works from the notion that economics is a zero-sum game. I realized that was fallacious when I was still in high school. Still, there is a fair amount of “social justice” teaching in the Church Fathers, and the capitalists among us would do well to pay heed. One may certainly take issue with Christian Levellers (I do), but Robb Report Christianity is not any more desirable.
There are certainly those who are poor among us. There are those who are hurting, who are needy, desperate for a helping hand. This will always be – until His glorious return.
Until that time the question continues to be “who do we turn to?” Do we turn to God and His church or do we make of government another god. Government wields power. It takes tax money at point of sword to use for its purposes. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a bad way to start trying to help people. Taking my possessions by force and then giving them to someone else is inherently wrong. It steals not only my money but also the opportunity to give willingly. And it gives indiscriminately, without regard to the different needs of individuals and without considering spiritual and emotional needs at all.
To the extent that our government takes money for the purpose of giving it to other individuals – Jesus would say “cut”.
How much did Jesus address the Romans and the way they ran things?
Not much.
That’s about how much he’d be interested in our politics.
He had much bigger fish to fry than that.
Thanks.