Feeding the Hungry
As I was doing my research on issues and candidates for this year's election, a thought occurred to me that really started to bug me. Why is it that abortion and gay marriage are the primary issues where conservative Christians expect their legislators to create legislation based on moral issues? There are other Christian issues of significance with societal implications outside the Church, such as widespread divorce (Matthew 19) or adultery (Matthew 5:27). But the eight-hundred pound gorilla in the room really is Matthew 35:35: "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." Social justice issues get very little attention from the Christian Right today, and yet these are the issues that Christ emphasizes.
Johnson's Great Society was a failure. The Democrats typically try to throw government and money at the problem, and the vast majority of the money goes to people who don't need it. So why haven't the Republicans come up with potential solutions to the problem? And why don't Christian conservatives demand action from their elected representatives, in the same way that they demand action on abortion or gay marriage?
An interesting solution came to mind about how this problem could be solved. Perhaps the government could institute a non-refundable tax credit for up to 3% of a person's income. In other words, one might as well contribute 3% to a church or charity, as otherwise the money will be going to the government as taxes. This solution avoids funneling money through government beauracracy. And since it would cost the taxpayer the same to give to charities as it would to give that 3% to the government, a much larger percentage of people would give money to charities. Imagine what soup kitchens, Habitat for Humanity, and churches could do with resources more adequate for this task.
Johnson's Great Society was a failure. The Democrats typically try to throw government and money at the problem, and the vast majority of the money goes to people who don't need it. So why haven't the Republicans come up with potential solutions to the problem? And why don't Christian conservatives demand action from their elected representatives, in the same way that they demand action on abortion or gay marriage?
An interesting solution came to mind about how this problem could be solved. Perhaps the government could institute a non-refundable tax credit for up to 3% of a person's income. In other words, one might as well contribute 3% to a church or charity, as otherwise the money will be going to the government as taxes. This solution avoids funneling money through government beauracracy. And since it would cost the taxpayer the same to give to charities as it would to give that 3% to the government, a much larger percentage of people would give money to charities. Imagine what soup kitchens, Habitat for Humanity, and churches could do with resources more adequate for this task.
posted by David at 10/31/2006 01:29:00 AM
2 Comments:
There is one key difference -- feeding the poor, etc, is charity. If the government compels you to give money to feed others, under force of law and threat of imprisonment, then you haven't given anything and it is not counted as charity on your part.
When one speaks of Big Government, one is usually referring to:
1. large amounts of spending in non-federal-jurisdction arenas
or
2. regulations that are costly and/or excessive in their implementation
Regulations on homosexual marriage do not fit that category. Large programs to take money from one group of people to give to another, do.
Further, there is the issue of due process. Taking my money, without my permission and with no trial, to give to another -- not even based on alleged wrong-doing on my part -- is not only a violation of due process, it is theft.
(And you know me -- I'm not against charity or feeding the poor)
If the government takes the role of feeding the poor from the churches and individuals, the result is that the individuals will cease to view that work as being their personal responsibility . It will reduce their level of compassion (through lack of sacrifice) and growth (through lack of exercise).
Further, when one looks at the efficiency of government programs compared with large charities, it is a bad joke. All large programs have some amount of overhead (administrative, financial, legal, etc), but the good ones spend 75+% on the primary task. Welfare is usually estimated at 28% efficiency.
There is work ongoing to improve divorse stats, largely by reversing the hideous injustice of "no fault" divorse. However, since all divorse is at the state level, it probably won't fall to the feds to implement any changes there. [It basically is a type of contract law]
I'm not advocating that the government force anyone to give money to charity. But if the government were to provide a nonrefundable tax credit (as opposed to a deduction) for those who wanted to give money to charity, it would make it more affordable for those who do. And perhaps more people would voluntarily give money to charity, since it effectively wouldn't cost them anything for the first 3%.
I don't think people should give money to the government, who would then give it to the poor. That would be a recipie for disaster. As you say, welfare is notoriously inefficient.
Post a Comment
<< Home