Two Half Answers to Poverty
Last fall the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the number of our fellow Americans living in poverty had increased for the fourth consecutive year. It found that 15 percent, or 46 million persons, are living in poverty, up some two and half million persons in one year. Forty-six million is not a mere number. It represents great human suffering and destroyed dreams. It means 46 million persons facing a daily struggle merely to survive.
This is no small matter. All men and women are God’s image bearers and are intended by him to live productive, contributing lives free of debilitating circumstances. The Bible contains thousands of references to the poor and our responsibility not to ignore them, but to offer them our help. In Matthew 25 Christ teaches that we will be judged by our response to those who are naked, hungry and sick. An active concern for the poor is not optional for the Christian.
But this leaves unanswered questions. What concrete actions should this active concern lead us to take? What public policy positions ought it lead us to support? And how ought this active concern affect one’s vote this fall?
A start to answering these questions is to recognize that poverty rates and a stable, healthy economy are closely related. The four years of increasing poverty I just noted coincides with the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis and resulting recession. During the years of a relatively strong economy from 1993 to 2006 the poverty rate fell from 30 percent to 21 percent. Thus the many issues being debated this year concerning deficits, taxes, spending, and economic stimulus and what will help and what will damage the economy carry with them large implications for poverty in the United States. This is not the time or place to comment on what economic policies are likely to lead a healthier overall economy. What is clear is that we ought not to judge these debates simply in terms of our own economic situation, but in terms of the poor and the impact that a stronger economy will have in reducing poverty and a weaker economy will have in increasing poverty.
Even with a strong economy, however, many are still left stuck in poverty. What public policies will help—or hurt—them? Often it seems that most Republican leaders and conservatives more generally look largely to private actions and such civil society institutions as churches, faith-based anti-poverty programs, and other community-based programs. They seem rarely to meet a government-initiated and government-run anti-poverty program they like. And often it seems that most Democratic leaders and liberals more generally believe that government-initiated and government-run programs aimed at directly helping the poor are all that are needed. If Republicans never meet a government-run anti-poverty program they like, Democrats never meet a government-run anti-poverty program they do not like!
I would suggest that both are wrong. Or better, both are right, in the sense that both government initiatives and actions arising from individuals and civil society institutions are needed. It’s not a matter or either-or, but of both-and. Each side in this debate has half the answer. The Democrats are right when they say government is needed to stimulate the creation of needed programs, to target areas of greatest need, and—with its taxation and funding powers that far exceed that of civil society organizations, whether faith-based or not—to help fund anti-poverty efforts.
But Republicans are right when they say individual effort and efforts by civil society organizations are needed. To understand why, we need to understand why poverty persists as economic cycles come and go. One basic fact is that much of this persistent poverty can be traced to the breakdown of the family. A simple, but telling statistic is in 2010 of families composed of a married couple only 6 percent were poor; of families headed by a single woman 32 percent were poor. High divorce rates and high rates of out-of-wedlock births are a leading cause of poverty in the United States. If one completes high school, does not have a child out-of-wedlock, and marries and stays married, one is very unlikely to be poor.
This does not mean that we can blame the poor themselves for their situation and walk away with a clear conscience. Easy divorce laws, entertainment and advertising industries that glorify sex, racism and sexism, and a church that has often failed to live up to its responsibilities have all contributed to the problem. In addition, the Bible calls us to offer help to the poor, whatever the cause of their poverty. But this does mean that the challenge we as a society face in light of persistent poverty needs to involve training in basic life skills and changes in attitudes and behavior. This is where churches and faith-based and other community-based organizations have advantages the government does not have. Yet government, with its financial resources, has an advantage churches and community organizations do not have.
If we can pair the financial resources of government (on the local, state, and federal levels) with the human touch and transformative values of churches and other local organizations we would have a powerful means to reduce poverty.
In this election year, Republicans seem to fear any program that involves government spending for the poor and the taxes needed to support that spending. I was unable to find on Mitt Romney’s campaign website any reference to civil society organizations as a means to overcome poverty—or any mention of poverty at all outside of touting Romney’s ideas for economic recovery. President Obama to his credit has a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnerships and his campaign website touts it and other efforts to work with civil society institutions. And the Democrats’ traditional willingness to support programs of help for the poor means that there is likely to be anti-poverty funds available under their leadership. But one must wonder if under them faith-based and other community organizations will receive only token amounts with the vast majority of funds going to traditional government-run programs. One must also ask whether the freedom of faith-based organizations to be what God has called them to be will be protected under a second Obama administration.
Neither the website of President Obama nor the website of Mitt Romney specifically discusses poverty and the steps they believe need to be taken to address it. This does not bode well for the 46 million Americans living in poverty. They are not likely to loom large in this year’s presidential election. This is a case where the voice of Christians may need to become the voice of the poor.
When Rep. Paul Ryan spoke at Georgetown a few weeks ago, he argued that his budget proposal was consistent with Catholic social teaching, paying particular attention to the concept of subsidiarity. He also claimed that many of the so-called cuts to government programs aimed at serving the poor in the House budget alleged by Democrats are not cuts in an absolute sense. They are either instances of maintaining current spending levels (meaning that they are "cuts" only in reference to planned spending increases) or are mere reductions in the planned increase in spending in the upcoming fiscal year (but increases nonetheless). And have not even House Republicans voted over the past few years to extend the duration of unemployment insurance? For Paul Ryan type conservatives, is it fair to say "Republicans seem to fear any program that involves government spending for the poor …."? Don't some Republicans just challenge the effectiveness of many federal anti-poverty programs and, for some at least, it is not a matter of not caring about the poor but of favoring government initiatives that have good results?
Second, I fully agree that Christian individuals, families, and congregations should continually seek to enlarge their generosity toward the poor. I fully agree that the Church should create, and partner with, institutions that serve the poor (e.g., justice organizations, charities, homeless shelters, foster care and adoption agencies, crisis pregnancy centers, hospitals, and so on). I fully agree that government should seek innovative ways to achieve certain social goals like alleviating poverty by partnering with the institutions just mentioned rather than exclusively providing services directly to the poor (and that it is critical that government does this while fully respecting the internal norms, convictions, and character of the non-governmental institutions with which it partners). Would you elaborate on how you allocate responsibility for serving the poor among various institutions (governmental and non-governmental) and maybe a little on how your Christian social philosophy informs this allocation? I am currently reading Jonathan Chaplin’s book, “Herman Dooyeweerd” so I am trying to think through the implications of a genuine Christian social philosophy for issues like this one.
Third, it seems to me there are some very practical considerations involved in evaluating government action in this area, and I was wondering how you view them. For instance, government can coercively obtain resources as needed, which can be very positive, but once an unsustainable or otherwise problematic government program is initiated it is often very difficult to reform or eliminate it, which can be very negative (e.g., the tremendous controversy over increasing the eligibility age for receiving Social Security benefits by even a few years).
Fourth, appealing back to the Catholic idea of subsidiarity, how do you understand the Federal Government's responsibility versus that of state and local governments for providing assistance to the poor? I recognize this is not an either/or question but how do you view the scope of the Federal Government’s current role in this area? Should it be increased or decreased? And states?
When Rep. Paul Ryan spoke at Georgetown a few weeks ago, he argued that his budget proposal was consistent with Catholic social teaching, paying particular attention to the concept of subsidiarity. He also claimed that many of the so-called cuts to government programs aimed at serving the poor in the House budget alleged by Democrats are not cuts in an absolute sense. They are either instances of maintaining current spending levels (meaning that they are "cuts" only in reference to planned spending increases) or are mere reductions in the planned increase in spending in the upcoming fiscal year (but increases nonetheless). And have not even House Republicans voted over the past few years to extend the duration of unemployment insurance? For Paul Ryan type conservatives, is it fair to say "Republicans seem to fear any program that involves government spending for the poor …."? Don't some Republicans just challenge the effectiveness of many federal anti-poverty programs and, for some at least, it is not a matter of not caring about the poor but of favoring government initiatives that have good results?
Second, I fully agree that Christian individuals, families, and congregations should continually seek to enlarge their generosity toward the poor. I fully agree that the Church should create, and partner with, institutions that serve the poor (e.g., justice organizations, charities, homeless shelters, foster care and adoption agencies, crisis pregnancy centers, hospitals, and so on). I fully agree that government should seek innovative ways to achieve certain social goals like alleviating poverty by partnering with the institutions just mentioned rather than exclusively providing services directly to the poor (and that it is critical that government does this while fully respecting the internal norms, convictions, and character of the non-governmental institutions with which it partners). Would you elaborate on how you allocate responsibility for serving the poor among various institutions (governmental and non-governmental) and maybe a little on how your Christian social philosophy informs this allocation? I am currently reading Jonathan Chaplin’s book, “Herman Dooyeweerd” so I am trying to think through the implications of a genuine Christian social philosophy for issues like this one.
Third, it seems to me there are some very practical considerations involved in evaluating government action in this area, and I was wondering how you view them. For instance, government can coercively obtain resources as needed, which can be very positive, but once an unsustainable or otherwise problematic government program is initiated it is often very difficult to reform or eliminate it, which can be very negative (e.g., the tremendous controversy over increasing the eligibility age for receiving Social Security benefits by even a few years).
Fourth, appealing back to the Catholic idea of subsidiarity, how do you understand the Federal Government's responsibility versus that of state and local governments for providing assistance to the poor? I recognize this is not an either/or question but how do you view the scope of the Federal Government’s current role in this area? Should it be increased or decreased? And states?
When Rep. Paul Ryan spoke at Georgetown a few weeks ago, he argued that his budget proposal was consistent with Catholic social teaching, paying particular attention to the concept of subsidiarity. He also claimed that many of the so-called cuts to government programs aimed at serving the poor in the House budget alleged by Democrats are not cuts in an absolute sense. They are either instances of maintaining current spending levels (meaning that they are "cuts" only in reference to planned spending increases) or are mere reductions in the planned increase in spending in the upcoming fiscal year (but increases nonetheless). And have not even House Republicans voted over the past few years to extend the duration of unemployment insurance? For Paul Ryan type conservatives, is it fair to say "Republicans seem to fear any program that involves government spending for the poor …."? Don't some Republicans just challenge the effectiveness of many federal anti-poverty programs and, for some at least, it is not a matter of not caring about the poor but of favoring government initiatives that have good results?
Second, I fully agree that Christian individuals, families, and congregations should continually seek to enlarge their generosity toward the poor. I fully agree that the Church should create, and partner with, institutions that serve the poor (e.g., justice organizations, charities, homeless shelters, foster care and adoption agencies, crisis pregnancy centers, hospitals, and so on). I fully agree that government should seek innovative ways to achieve certain social goals like alleviating poverty by partnering with the institutions just mentioned rather than exclusively providing services directly to the poor (and that it is critical that government does this while fully respecting the internal norms, convictions, and character of the non-governmental institutions with which it partners). Would you elaborate on how you allocate responsibility for serving the poor among various institutions (governmental and non-governmental) and maybe a little on how your Christian social philosophy informs this allocation? I am currently reading Jonathan Chaplin’s book, “Herman Dooyeweerd” so I am trying to think through the implications of a genuine Christian social philosophy for issues like this one.
Third, it seems to me there are some very practical considerations involved in evaluating government action in this area, and I was wondering how you view them. For instance, government can coercively obtain resources as needed, which can be very positive, but once an unsustainable or otherwise problematic government program is initiated it is often very difficult to reform or eliminate it, which can be very negative (e.g., the tremendous controversy over increasing the eligibility age for receiving Social Security benefits by even a few years).
Fourth, appealing back to the Catholic idea of subsidiarity, how do you understand the Federal Government's responsibility versus that of state and local governments for providing assistance to the poor? I recognize this is not an either/or question but how do you view the scope of the Federal Government’s current role in this area? Should it be increased or decreased? And states?
I begin by thanking Mr. Berkeley for his comments. He raises four thoughtful questions that are difficult to answer briefly, but I will try. I am sorry for the long delay in posting this response, but I was away from my office for a while and thought I had posted this response, but apparently it failed to post.
First, on Republicans perhaps not fearing government-sponsored programs to aid the poor, but are merely challenging current programs that are not working well or seeking to reduce projected increases in existing funding. There is some truth here. Someone like Republican Jack Kemp in his day truly seemed to care about the problem of poverty. He visited poverty stricken areas, talked to those seeking to meet the challenges faced by the poor, and developed new ideas on how to deal with poverty. This is what I see lacking in most Republicans, including Representative Ryan. I have read his Georgetown speech and he largely interprets subsidiarity to mean no more than returning responsibility to help the poor to states and localities. In my experience as a state legislator (admittedly years ago) and in my observations most Republicans largely seek to cut back the funding of programs to help to poor (from current or projected spending levels) and, on the federal level, to pass off responsibilities to help the poor to the states. I frankly believe Representative Ryan fits this mold. (I should note that on the same basis I would charge most Democrats with merely seeking to put more money into existing anti-poverty programs, whether they are working well or not.)
Second, Mr. Berkeley asks how I would allocate responsibility towards the poor among government and nongovernment actors. And in his fourth point he asks how in light of subsidiarity I would allocate responsibility between the federal and the state governments. Since subsidiarity informs my thinking on both issues I will attempt to respond to his second and fourth points together. Subsidiarity, simply put, says in this context that provision for the poor should be handled by the social institution that is smallest and closest to the poor that is capable of handling it. And some poverty situations can be handled by families (a family member helping out another family member), by churches in the immediate neighborhood or the poor (food pantries and rides to job appointments), and by neighborhood associations and local governments (help in painting a house or tax relief for a job-provider locating in a poverty area). But such efforts are often inadequate. Poverty is a complex, multi-faceted problem with multiple causes. To deal with root causes and not merely symptoms, often longer-term, more persistent efforts and greater financial resources are needed than a family, church, neighborhood, or locality is likely to possess. Remember that poverty tends to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods, cities, and states, making it difficult for them to deal with it alone. Also the political will to deal creatively with poverty varies from on locality or state to another. Just because a poor family lives in a state or city that does not have the resources or political will to help does not alleviate the responsibility of the rest of us.
So what does subsidiarity say about all this? It seeks to keep the solution to the problem on the lowest, closest-to-home level possible. But it also recognizes that often it is not possible to deal with poverty and its huge human costs on the level we might wish it could. Often higher levels need to be called upon. Judging which level and what type of institution can best deal with a poverty problem requires thought, prudence, and creativity. These considerations often lead me to conclude that much of the financing must come from higher levels of government, federal and state, with their broader taxing powers. But that much of the hands-on provision of services should be pushed down to local and nongovernmental levels.
The third issue Mr. Berkeley raises is the problem of government programs, once established, can be difficult to end, whether successful or not. This can be a problem. But it does not need to be the case. What are needed are office-holders and a public that truly cares for the poor and are truly seeking their welfare. Then they will ask questions of effectiveness and of achieving the most good for each dollar spent. This is where we Christians need to step up to our responsibility. We are back to the problem of too many Republicans simply wanting to cut programs for the poor, whether they are working or not, and Democrats wanting to increase spending on programs for the poor, whether they are working or not.
I close with a plea for office holders and a public that truly care about the welfare of the poor, are seeking creative solutions to the changes they face. We do not need “liberal” or “conservative” solutions. We need effective solutions.
I begin by thanking Mr. Berkeley for his comments. He raises four thoughtful questions that are difficult to answer briefly, but I will try. I am sorry for the long delay in posting this response, but I was away from my office for a while and thought I had posted this response, but apparently it failed to post.
First, on Republicans perhaps not fearing government-sponsored programs to aid the poor, but are merely challenging current programs that are not working well or seeking to reduce projected increases in existing funding. There is some truth here. Someone like Republican Jack Kemp in his day truly seemed to care about the problem of poverty. He visited poverty stricken areas, talked to those seeking to meet the challenges faced by the poor, and developed new ideas on how to deal with poverty. This is what I see lacking in most Republicans, including Representative Ryan. I have read his Georgetown speech and he largely interprets subsidiarity to mean no more than returning responsibility to help the poor to states and localities. In my experience as a state legislator (admittedly years ago) and in my observations most Republicans largely seek to cut back the funding of programs to help to poor (from current or projected spending levels) and, on the federal level, to pass off responsibilities to help the poor to the states. I frankly believe Representative Ryan fits this mold. (I should note that on the same basis I would charge most Democrats with merely seeking to put more money into existing anti-poverty programs, whether they are working well or not.)
Second, Mr. Berkeley asks how I would allocate responsibility towards the poor among government and nongovernment actors. And in his fourth point he asks how in light of subsidiarity I would allocate responsibility between the federal and the state governments. Since subsidiarity informs my thinking on both issues I will attempt to respond to his second and fourth points together. Subsidiarity, simply put, says in this context that provision for the poor should be handled by the social institution that is smallest and closest to the poor that is capable of handling it. And some poverty situations can be handled by families (a family member helping out another family member), by churches in the immediate neighborhood or the poor (food pantries and rides to job appointments), and by neighborhood associations and local governments (help in painting a house or tax relief for a job-provider locating in a poverty area). But such efforts are often inadequate. Poverty is a complex, multi-faceted problem with multiple causes. To deal with root causes and not merely symptoms, often longer-term, more persistent efforts and greater financial resources are needed than a family, church, neighborhood, or locality is likely to possess. Remember that poverty tends to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods, cities, and states, making it difficult for them to deal with it alone. Also the political will to deal creatively with poverty varies from on locality or state to another. Just because a poor family lives in a state or city that does not have the resources or political will to help does not alleviate the responsibility of the rest of us.
So what does subsidiarity say about all this? It seeks to keep the solution to the problem on the lowest, closest-to-home level possible. But it also recognizes that often it is not possible to deal with poverty and its huge human costs on the level we might wish it could. Often higher levels need to be called upon. Judging which level and what type of institution can best deal with a poverty problem requires thought, prudence, and creativity. These considerations often lead me to conclude that much of the financing must come from higher levels of government, federal and state, with their broader taxing powers. But that much of the hands-on provision of services should be pushed down to local and nongovernmental levels.
The third issue Mr. Berkeley raises is the problem of government programs, once established, can be difficult to end, whether successful or not. This can be a problem. But it does not need to be the case. What are needed are office-holders and a public that truly cares for the poor and are truly seeking their welfare. Then they will ask questions of effectiveness and of achieving the most good for each dollar spent. This is where we Christians need to step up to our responsibility. We are back to the problem of too many Republicans simply wanting to cut programs for the poor, whether they are working or not, and Democrats wanting to increase spending on programs for the poor, whether they are working or not.
I close with a plea for office holders and a public that truly care about the welfare of the poor, are seeking creative solutions to the changes they face. We do not need “liberal” or “conservative” solutions. We need effective solutions.
I begin by thanking Mr. Berkeley for his comments. He raises four thoughtful questions that are difficult to answer briefly, but I will try. I am sorry for the long delay in posting this response, but I was away from my office for a while and thought I had posted this response, but apparently it failed to post.
First, on Republicans perhaps not fearing government-sponsored programs to aid the poor, but are merely challenging current programs that are not working well or seeking to reduce projected increases in existing funding. There is some truth here. Someone like Republican Jack Kemp in his day truly seemed to care about the problem of poverty. He visited poverty stricken areas, talked to those seeking to meet the challenges faced by the poor, and developed new ideas on how to deal with poverty. This is what I see lacking in most Republicans, including Representative Ryan. I have read his Georgetown speech and he largely interprets subsidiarity to mean no more than returning responsibility to help the poor to states and localities. In my experience as a state legislator (admittedly years ago) and in my observations most Republicans largely seek to cut back the funding of programs to help to poor (from current or projected spending levels) and, on the federal level, to pass off responsibilities to help the poor to the states. I frankly believe Representative Ryan fits this mold. (I should note that on the same basis I would charge most Democrats with merely seeking to put more money into existing anti-poverty programs, whether they are working well or not.)
Second, Mr. Berkeley asks how I would allocate responsibility towards the poor among government and nongovernment actors. And in his fourth point he asks how in light of subsidiarity I would allocate responsibility between the federal and the state governments. Since subsidiarity informs my thinking on both issues I will attempt to respond to his second and fourth points together. Subsidiarity, simply put, says in this context that provision for the poor should be handled by the social institution that is smallest and closest to the poor that is capable of handling it. And some poverty situations can be handled by families (a family member helping out another family member), by churches in the immediate neighborhood or the poor (food pantries and rides to job appointments), and by neighborhood associations and local governments (help in painting a house or tax relief for a job-provider locating in a poverty area). But such efforts are often inadequate. Poverty is a complex, multi-faceted problem with multiple causes. To deal with root causes and not merely symptoms, often longer-term, more persistent efforts and greater financial resources are needed than a family, church, neighborhood, or locality is likely to possess. Remember that poverty tends to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods, cities, and states, making it difficult for them to deal with it alone. Also the political will to deal creatively with poverty varies from on locality or state to another. Just because a poor family lives in a state or city that does not have the resources or political will to help does not alleviate the responsibility of the rest of us.
So what does subsidiarity say about all this? It seeks to keep the solution to the problem on the lowest, closest-to-home level possible. But it also recognizes that often it is not possible to deal with poverty and its huge human costs on the level we might wish it could. Often higher levels need to be called upon. Judging which level and what type of institution can best deal with a poverty problem requires thought, prudence, and creativity. These considerations often lead me to conclude that much of the financing must come from higher levels of government, federal and state, with their broader taxing powers. But that much of the hands-on provision of services should be pushed down to local and nongovernmental levels.
The third issue Mr. Berkeley raises is the problem of government programs, once established, can be difficult to end, whether successful or not. This can be a problem. But it does not need to be the case. What are needed are office-holders and a public that truly cares for the poor and are truly seeking their welfare. Then they will ask questions of effectiveness and of achieving the most good for each dollar spent. This is where we Christians need to step up to our responsibility. We are back to the problem of too many Republicans simply wanting to cut programs for the poor, whether they are working or not, and Democrats wanting to increase spending on programs for the poor, whether they are working or not.
I close with a plea for office holders and a public that truly care about the welfare of the poor, are seeking creative solutions to the changes they face. We do not need “liberal” or “conservative” solutions. We need effective solutions.