The Chronicle of Philanthropy recently (August 19, 2012) released a study of giving patterns in the United States. Here's an excerpt:
"The nation’s most-generous ZIP codes aren’t its richest. And when
large numbers of rich people live in one neighborhood, their giving is
even more likely to drop to well below average rates.
A new Chronicle study of tax records shows that of the top
1,000 ZIP codes that give the biggest share of income, only nine are
among the nation’s 1,000 richest ZIP codes. In city after city, it’s the
low-income residents who lift giving levels."
So it would seem as if the Democrats are right - a valid way to get the wealthy to contribute to the people that need it is to force them to by collecting taxes and then distributing it to those that need it.
But wait! The study also looked at states that voted for McCain (red states) and ones that voted for Obama (blue states) and found that the top 8 states giving to charity were red states and the lowest 7 states giving to charity were blue states. In fact, only 6 of the top 20 states were blue states and only 6 of the bottom 20 states were red.
What does this say? Republicans voluntarily give more but are not as wealthy as Democrats? Now I'm really confused...
It's time for me to go to my SOURCE... the one that helps my understand the larger picture than what's happening in the US of A here and now... the Bible!
I read in Deuteronomy 15:
The Year for Canceling Debts
At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This
is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have
made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone
among their own people, because the Lord’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. 4 However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6 For the Lord
your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many
nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but
none will rule over you.
7 If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. 8 Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.
What I get out of this that pertains to the Entitlement discussion is:
- I NEED to give to those in need - it is a reflection of the blessings of God - the more I'm blessed, the more I should (and can) give.
- The amount that I'm to give is not defined by what I want to give - it is defined by what the person in need NEEDS. Wow! What if that's more than what I feel comfortable in giving!
- I should not be hardhearted or tightfisted about it.
- If I don't give to them what they need - it is SIN!
- If I do this...God promises that He will bless me in ALL my work and EVERYTHING I put my hand to... WOW!
The Greatest Commandment
28 One of the teachers of the law
came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a
good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most
important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
- Deuteronomy 4:29
- Deuteronomy 6:5
- Deuteronomy 10:12
- Deuteronomy 11:13
- Deuteronomy 13:3
- Deuteronomy 26:16
- Deuteronomy 30:2
- Deuteronomy 30:6
- Deuteronomy 30:10
- Joshua 22:5
- Joshua 23:14
- 1 Samuel 7:3
- 1 Samuel 12:20
- 1 Samuel 12:24
- Proverbs 3:5
- Proverbs 4:4
- Jeremiah 29:13
- Joel 2:12
- Zephaniah 3:14
- Matthew 22:37
- Mark 12:30
- Mark 12:33
- Luke 10:27
- Colossians 3:23
Brad,
ReplyDeleteBrad, I am thinking you might be making an implicit assumption that is hindering your determination of who’s right. You said “So it would seem as if the Democrats are right - a valid way to get the wealthy to contribute to the people that need it is to force them to by collecting taxes and then distributing it to those that need it.”
By only focusing on the transfer of MONEY from taxpayer to entitlement recipient as the primary way needy folks get help, I think you’re oversimplifying the difference between Democrat and Republican views on how best to help the needy. As someone coming from a firm conservative viewpoint, I believe the best long-term way to help people in need is to instill or restore their sense of self-sufficiency and self-responsibility as a life philosophy. This individual-accomplishment oriented attitude about the road of life promises a higher self esteem and lifts the human spirit through achievement instead of the subtle humiliation of subsidies. Early political philosophers from the Enlightenment period that led to our Declaration of Independence and the creation of our Constitution believed that liberty and freedom to achieve rewards that are directly proportional to one’s invested sweat, toil, and ingenuity is the most moral vision of human advancement possible. Communal or collective philosophies always hinder individual opportunity, and so they result in lower aggregate achievement – in other words, those systems have few incentives for individuals to strive for, leading to a less meaningful and fulfilling existence.
You and I probably agree wholeheartedly that family responsibility and private/religious charity can and should be a significant way to help people who are truly “down and out” or truly disadvantaged by a physical or mental difficulty. In addition to raising an autistic child without asking for government assistance, I also give around 5% of my income to charity regularly (cash and donated goods). I feel that everyone should make charitable giving a standard part of our lives. However I would not enforce this through laws or government compulsion, but instead through moral persuasion.
As a taxpayer, I’m not against a government-managed BASIC safety net, and I would guess that probably 75% of conservatives and independents feel the same. I think the biggest problem is that the entitlement system has grown enormous, and now goes well beyond a basic, temporary safety net. The massive size of government entitlement programs means they are faceless institutions rather than human-to-human personal contacts. The difference between a local charity and a government welfare agency is like the difference between a hand-painted ceramic vase and a mass-produced plastic bucket. Entitlement programs are policy-driven and bureaucratically run, with the bureaucrats earning their career-long livelihood as welfare workers. Welfare workers aren’t necessarily truly motivated to get recipients off welfare quickly. Private charity organizations and religious organizations have volunteers who are far more inclined to lend a TEMPORARY helping hand that’s focused on getting the recipient back on his/her feet, not getting the recipient “addicted” to a permanent welfare way of life.
I believe the main focus should be on how to help “needy” people in ways that will not permanently suppress their natural human aspiration for self achievement and self sufficiency. And we should NOT be trying to find new ways to force the rich to pay for a permanent safety net that, for many recipients, becomes a comfortable hammock.
In my opinion, this conservative philosophy is where the biggest difference lies between constrained realists (Republicans) and unconstrained idealists (Democrats).
- Jeff
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteI love the passion God has placed in you for the best way for our government to run. I certainly agree that there are many non-profit and religious organizations that are tremendous helps to people. As a recipient of government programs that allowed my kids to eat at school and "feel normal" by being able to participate in extra curricular activities, I also appreciate those programs as well.
I agree with you that one feels mentally and emotionally better when one is "earning" their way and contributing to the community around them. In my own case, I learned that there are MANY very good people that are in positions that they need help. I also know the feeling of shame one feels for being in this position. But I also learned that as "in control" as we may feel, ultimately God is in full control of our lives. There are many "lazy" people that have much and many "hard workers" that have nothing.
My post was really not about any of that, however. It was a simple clear moment for me that - while I cannot control the government, non-profits or religious institution's actions.... I can look for people that need help and I should. I believe as you said that the most meaningful help comes from the hand of another directly... I also saw for myself that God expects me to help others in proportion to my blessing - i.e. I should be helping someone else regardless of how much or how little I have in comparison with others. The other large thing I found in the verses above is that God will judge me on what is in my heart. People will not be able to accurately judge me because they do not know the real motivations, while God does.
Thanks so much for commenting!