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.
March 4th, 2011 | 4:32 pm | #1
“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.”
I personally wish our government was pacifistic, but given that I’m a realist just as much as a pacifist I know that isn’t going to happen. However, while it is true that Wallis’ supposed contradiction he finds in the Republican spending plan isn’t really contradictory, Wallis is right in that we do need to cut our defense spending. We’re spending exorbitant amounts of money on wars that probably shouldn’t have started in the first place. I agree that a government’s goal is to protect its people, but not through money-wasting means. Plus, in the current wars, we’re hardly “protecting the people,” but rather fighting a hearts-and-minds battle.
And while international aid/domestic funds aren’t “inherently” better than defense spending, more often than not what the government should be focusing on is in the former category.
“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?”
While perhaps some Democrats frame it in that way, it really isn’t. This isn’t about “stealing” or “coercion;” it’s about people paying the taxes they should. It’s also about the fact that trickle-down economics, although perhaps cool in concept, clearly hasn’t worked. Thus, we shouldn’t be making life easier for the rich in the hope that they create jobs; if that were true, then the recession wouldn’t have been as big of an issue. But it was, so we can see that letting the rich off with a more lax tax rate isn’t going to solve the issue.
March 4th, 2011 | 5:41 pm | #2
Nikolai, I question the premise of your comment about “letting the rich off with a more lax tax rate.” We do have progressive taxation and the rich do pay a much larger portion of the overall taxes per capita than other citizens. I am happy they are able to pay, but it is not clear to me that they deserve to have us look at them in this way as a kind of piggy bank.
March 4th, 2011 | 5:43 pm | #3
Why is it wrong to cut taxes for the wealthy? Is making money immoral? If we want to continue with “WWJD” sloganeering, we could ask, “Who would Jesus tax?” Would He tax all? Would He tax all by rate? People often forget that people pay multiple taxes: Federal, state, local (property, etc.), and varying sales taxes.
It’s funny that liberals complained a lot during the Bush years that Bush kept imposing his Christian beliefs (including things such as cutting off abortion funding both at home and abroad), yet under Obama liberals suddenly have a “Christian imperative”, one that has to do with money and not abortion, marriage, and euthanasia. Funny how that works.
What is inherently morally superior to cutting taxes for the wealthy? I don’t see it. I see something wrong with undue taxes on any class of persons, and that is what we face today. Before sales tax, I pay about 28% of my income to either the state or federal government. Now that I’m a homeowner I will pay property taxes. In all, I will pay about 30-35% of my money to the government. That’s excessive. I don’t think the CLEARLY Christian and moral position is to tax the rich excessively. Where’s the warrant for that? Business owners suffer greatly from heavy tax burdens and their employees suffer as surely as night follows day. If an owner can’t handle the burden, the finances are tightened up. People get laid off. Furloughs are implemented. Salaries are lowered. Sometimes businesses move overseas.
In the end, my biggest problem with Jim Wallis is his moralizing over tax breaks for the wealthy while calling abortion a “complex issue.” I can do without those clowns.
March 4th, 2011 | 5:44 pm | #4
OK, I don’t know why anyone would even respond to such a flawed and silly premise with anything but the following:
“…They sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, ‘Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?’ But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. ‘Why are you trying to trap me?’ he asked. ‘Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.’ They brought the coin, and he asked them, ‘Whose image is this? And whose inscription?’ ‘Caesar’s’ they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’ And they were amazed at him.” Mark 12:13-17 (NIV)
March 4th, 2011 | 6:24 pm | #5
It’s an inadequate response, Aaron, because we live in a republic instead of under a monarchy and thus we all share a portion of the right of governing. That means we don’t just shrug and pay. We engage in discussion about what the taxes should accomplish.
March 4th, 2011 | 6:36 pm | #6
The point of that passage quoted above often eludes people. The point is not “give taxes.” The point is a hidden jab at the Pharisees: “instead of trying to persecute me by putting me in a no-win situation of either saying ‘yes, pay taxes’ (and thus sounding like a sell-out) or ‘no, don’t pay taxes’ (and thus making me sound like a revolutionary), you should be giving yourselves to God, you hypocritical Pharisees.” The point is that taxes are a trivial matter. Fine, give them. Who cares? It’s only money. Give yourselves to God, you hypocrites.
That is the point.
And to the original poster: You stated:
Is there any biblical evidence that authors believed that was the foundational reason for government? Romans 13:1-7 seems to imply that order/justice, not freedom and certainly not protection of life, is the point of the governing powers.
Of course, if Romans 13:1-7 is to be taken seriously, we can’t take up arms against a government, since God put the governments in place. But what if one government (ours, for instance) drafts us to go to to war against another government, given that attacking/rebelling against either government is tantamount to resisting God, per Romans 13? It looks like a no-win situation. We have to admit that, at some points, at least one government is acting ungodly. Could it be that both are? And if so, how do we respond to this without resisting God’s appointment of the governments?
Should we just take Gamaliel’s advice (Acts 5:38-39?
March 4th, 2011 | 7:07 pm | #7
The protection of the lives of the innocent from the unjust taking thereof is not an aspect of “order/justice?”
March 4th, 2011 | 8:40 pm | #8
Perhaps Jim Wallis should be invited to contribute a piece to First Things. The perspectives represented here seem strangely narrow.
March 4th, 2011 | 9:32 pm | #9
Ehrlich, don’t know whether Wallis has contributed to FT, but I’m nearly certain Ron Sider has.
March 4th, 2011 | 10:30 pm | #10
“Nikolai, I question the premise of your comment about “letting the rich off with a more lax tax rate.” We do have progressive taxation and the rich do pay a much larger portion of the overall taxes per capita than other citizens. I am happy they are able to pay, but it is not clear to me that they deserve to have us look at them in this way as a kind of piggy bank.”
I’m not sure where I stand on the progressive tax/flat tax debate, but I’m more inclined towards the latter (although not greatly). My point was more that the justification for the Bush tax cuts was largely tied to Reaganomics and the principle of “trickle down” wealth. But, unfortunately, it’s quite clear that Reaganomics doesn’t work. If it did, we wouldn’t be as in the rough as we are now. It’s not as if the rich are entitled to those tax cuts or that they’re even necessary.
Now, I am against “the war on prosperity.” I am against the government demonzing the rich. However, to me it’s not clear what a “fair” tax rate is; given the implication that comes from lowering the tax rates on the rich, however, it’s not quite clear to me that perhaps that isn’t the best option. I do think ultimately though, in the time of crisis, the middle class should be contributing too if the rich are going to be contributing.
“It’s funny that liberals complained a lot during the Bush years that Bush kept imposing his Christian beliefs (including things such as cutting off abortion funding both at home and abroad), yet under Obama liberals suddenly have a “Christian imperative”, one that has to do with money and not abortion, marriage, and euthanasia. Funny how that works.”
Orthodoxdj, I wholeheartedly agree and I’ve actually written about this contradiction before. Conservative media does contradict itself quite a bit, but the liberals aren’t immune to it either. Bush was a massive violator of church and state, but we have a Christian imperative to give to the poor? Stay on one side of the argument, please. I usually don’t align with Sojourners and Wallis on many things; I wrote a pretty long defense of Christian libertarianism in response to an article by Wallis (which ultimately tried to equivocate the Tea Party with all libertarian philosophy, which is bad).
As for what we should be taxing people, I’m not sure. I’m new to the whole tax game myself, and I’m not quite clear on what is concerned what a “fair” tax is. I wish my taxes wouldn’t go to fund unnecessary wars, the taking of innocent, unborn life, and congressional vacations, but if everyone got to pick and choose taxes, we’d all be screwed. Moreover, in a time of crisis, as much as I hate government intervention, I see a necessity for us to contribute more than we ordinarily would, even if only for awhile.
I read this article from The Atlantic recently, and I think it demonstrates a glaring problem with the rich/poor dichotomy in society:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343/1/
Now, I don’t think the solution is running into gated communities with grenades shouting “WILD CARD!!!,” but something does need to be done.
March 5th, 2011 | 1:14 am | #11
I’m personally opposed to those who refuse to help the poor and oppressed but I don’t want to impose my private sectarian convictions about caring for the poor on the rest of society. I am opposed to any law or policy restricting or interfering with capitalist acts between consenting adults. Instead of supporting taxation (and the force, coercion and violence that go with all taxation), we should work as private citizens to reduce the need for taxes. In short, I’m both pro-poor and anti-tax.
I know, I know, this is infantile nonsense, but it works for Jim (What-would-Jesus-Cut?) Wallis and Tony Campolo on the subject of you-know-what.
March 5th, 2011 | 6:54 am | #12
Gary Simmons gets it. That Bible verse (that seems to be about taxes) has nothing to do with taxes. The point I’m trying to get at is this whole exercise (What would Jesus cut?) is an attempt to point out hypocrisy and nothing to do with the budget or otherwise. It’s just meant as a trap, and nothing more. To respond to it otherwise (as in this article) is give in to the author’s intended trap to show that ‘Christians’ as he defines them, are hypocrites.
March 5th, 2011 | 9:07 am | #13
I’m not so sure about it coming from a “good heart.” Wallis routinely promotes envy, covetousness, and class warfare. Those aren’t things that come from a good heart, nor something that a supposed Christian should ever support.
March 5th, 2011 | 11:30 am | #14
[...] A Response to “What Would Jesus Cut?” [...]
March 7th, 2011 | 9:47 am | #15
How does one arrive at the idea that “probably the most essential purpose of government is to protect the life and freedom of citizens…through military means“? is this something Jesus taught?
March 7th, 2011 | 9:52 am | #16
It would be interesting to Mr. Baker’s theory on how to determine just levels of taxation.
March 7th, 2011 | 9:56 am | #17
That’s a broad claim. Why assume that “this redistributionist attitude” assumes this? (Mr. Baker’s strawman strategy seems to have popped up again.)
March 7th, 2011 | 5:25 pm | #18
“Probably the most essential purpose of government is to protect the life and freedom of citizens.”
There seem to be a lot of you who are looking for a reasoning for this claim. Many of you are looking for Biblical evidence or what Jesus would want a government to do, but I don’t think you’re going to find Biblical answers for the purpose of the government. The purpose of the United States government is not determined by the Bible, nor should it be. It’s clear that the purpose of our government it determined by us, the people. I argue the purpose of the government should be searched for in the Constitution, not the Bible. If our government gained it’s authority and power from the Bible, than it would be a proper place to look. I would look to the preamble, which states the source of the authority of the government, and the purpose.
Both the protection of the citizens, and the pursuance of justice are both mentioned. So although the purpose of the government is to protect the people, I think that there should be a balance between it’s duties. I’ve had no indications, nor have I found any evidence that state that there is an imperative need for an increase in military spending.
On to the question about taxation, I really don’t find much justification for such a heavy taxation on the rich. I think that each citizen has a proportional duty of citizenship.This DOESN’T mean that taxation should “hurt” each person just as much as the next. Although I think that the rich should donate more to the poor of possible, I don’t think that it is the place of the government to make that decision for them.
March 11th, 2011 | 1:00 pm | #19
[...] Link Wrap-up By Doug Hunter Baker, writing at "First Things", responds to Jim Wallis’ question "What Would Jesus Cut", referring to government [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact