Posts

When will we weep?

/6 Comments/in /by

In the course of history, moments come and go when leaders rise up and they lead. Such moments happen every day in families, churches, and communities across the country. Most times most of us never learn their names, but the world is a better place because they spoke, they set the course for action, and they counted and paid the costs of leadership. On the national stage of history such leaders have not only shaped the course of American life. Their passion, their words, and their actions have shaped America.

Consider this: In January 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson declared unconditional “War on Poverty” in the United States. Nine years later, after a steady stream of “Great Society” anti-poverty legislation the poverty rate for African-Americans had dropped from 55.1 percent in 1959 (the only figures available from before Johnson’s declaration) to 30.3 percent in 1974. With the necessary resources deployed Black poverty dropped by 25 percentage points in ten years. Ten years—that’s all it took.

Then the recession of the late 1970s hit and the forefingers of middle class Americans turned and wagged in the direction of the poor—particularly the black poor. “They are the reason for our woes,” they reasoned. Dems and Republicans both repented of the just policies and turned their backs on the poor. “We must support the middle class,” became the mantra of mindless political theater and it’s been the mantra ever since.

The poverty rates for both blacks and whites rose sharply and peaked in 1983 when President Ronald Reagan drained funds from Johnson’s Great Society programs. At their pre-2009 zenith black and white poverty rates reached 35 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively in ‘83. On the flip side, both rates fell the sharpest since Johnson’s declaration under President Bill Clinton when he poured funding back into Great Society programs like food stamps, Medicaid, Head Start, and children’s health. Whites basked in the sunshine of a 7.4 percent poverty rate, while Blacks felt the faint glimmer of the light of day with 22.4 percent of its population managing to live below the poverty line. The numbers ticked up again under George W. and have begun to fall again under Obama. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 25.4 percent of blacks and 11.1 percent of whites are living below poverty today.

Now, here is my question for both parties; especially my own. The question of race and state enforced racism has been solved in America. It took more than 300 years, but leaders led Americans to look full in the face of the horrors of its own practices and face itself. When will the horrors of poverty be seen for what they are in America? When will anyone in either party stand up and say 25.4 percent or one quarter of any community having to decide whether they will eat or pay the rent—having to go without running water or heat in the winter—having to suck the marrow from chicken bones for a week between the last food stamp and the next measly round—when will anyone stand and declare “No more! Poverty is unacceptable!”?

When Democrats and Republicans entered the mid-summer 2011 deficit reduction battle our legislators’ priorities surfaced. Over the past year Republicans have issued budget plans that call for deep cuts in programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—formerly known as the Food Stamp Program). All of these programs were instrumental in keeping the U.S. poverty rate down during the nation’s greatest recession since the Great Depression, yet Democrats were willing to barter. According to a report issued by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The Democratic plan contains $73 billion more in Medicare and Medicaid cuts ($475 billion) than Bowles-Simpson ($402 billion), and the same or a greater amount of cuts in this area than the Gang of Six plan.” Despite the long-standing impression that Democrats always protect the poor, the report goes on to explain the Democratic plan to cut the deficit actually had a higher ratio of discretionary cuts to revenue increases—6:1—than  the bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson or Gang of Six plans, both of which had cuts to revenue ratios of about 2:1.

Now let’s talk taxes. If we’re really serious about cutting America’s deficit, there’s no way to do it without increasing revenues. In 2001 and 2003 President George W. Bush instituted temporary tax cuts to benefit the richest Americans. Those cuts were set to expire on January 1, 2012. They have been extended. By the year 2021 the Bush era tax cuts will account for nearly half of America’s deficit. If America wants to balance the budget, we the people have a choice to make about our moral priorities. Will we cut SNAP benefits and take food out of the hands of vulnerable mothers and children? Or will we let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire? This is not hyperbole. This is our choice.

Nehemiah heard that Jerusalem’s wall had been decimated. He heard of the great poverty of his people and he wept. He prayed. He fasted and he owned his culpability in the suffering of his people. His fault was that he had done nothing. He had lived in prosperity serving the king’s court while the king’s subjects—his own people—were in shambles.

I want to know when American politicians of this age will weep over poverty in America. When will they face God’s truth about the degrading effects of poverty on human souls? When will they own their culpability and when will a Democrat or a Republican count the cost of leadership as Lincoln and Humphrey and Johnson did and, this time, lead America out of poverty’s perverting clutch. It’s not like we don’t know how. We do. We’ve done it before. We’ve just lost the will and I fear we may have lost the metal—the stuff leaders are made of.

 

Lisa Sharon Harper is the director of mobilizing at Sojourners and co-author of Left, Right and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics. She is also author of Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican…or Democat.

A version of this article originally appeared as part of a feature in RELEVANT magazine. Visit RELEVANTMagazine.com to subscribe.

Economic Justice as Moral Duty

/0 Comments/in /by

Let me begin with my main claim: the fact that poverty continues to be found within America is an offence against the Gospel.  The existence of pervasive poverty—46 million people, according to the Census Bureau—in a country as wealthy as the United States is not something that is merely sad or unfortunate or unpleasant, but more than all these, it is something immoral: it violates norms, founded in Scripture, concerning how human beings living in stable societies should care for each other.

This is also an indictment of the Christian church.  Despite what the worriers among us might suggest, the role that the church plays in American society is still a significant one.  But with a few important exceptions, the church speaks far less prophetically on behalf of the poor than it should, preferring instead to concentrate its efforts on poverty relief.  While relief efforts are certainly vital to the church’s mission, far too often the church is silent when it should be speaking, or even worse, actively taking sides against the very people whose well-being should be its primary concern.  To put it plainly, those who are not poor have a duty not only to care for those who are poor, but also to speak for their cause, to advocate for change wherever they have influence, and in other ways to advocate—and vote—for economic justice for all.  This is a duty placed upon all persons, but for Christians it is especially clear. 

What responsibilities are contained in this duty?  Must the wealthy give and give until we reach a situation of equality?  To what extent should we consider the notion of desert (what each person deserves)? Does this duty fall on all people in the same way?  To what extent does office matter: are our duties different in our roles as church member, as family member, and as citizen?

These are important questions, and we need to consider them—but they are secondary.  Indeed, we would be making important progress in this conversation if we could agree that this duty even exists.  But let me consider one of these secondary, controversial questions: what is the role of government with regard to this moral duty to care for the poor?

I am wary of the view that suggests that government is the institution most responsible for carrying out this duty.  One reason is that it becomes too easy for other offices and persons to downplay their own responsibilities.  But another reason is simply that often governments aren’t very good at carrying it out.  Government programs are blunt instruments, and evidence suggests that other actors in civil society can be much more effective at providing material and non-material assistance to those in need.  Of course, even if we conclude that government as government may not be the most important agents for the delivery of services, that does not relieve the moral duty of other institutions or individuals.  And it may be up to government to remind these other actors of their responsibilities in this regard.

What about other dimensions to the government’s task with regard to poverty?  I see three sets of responsibilities stemming from the state’s basic justice task: establishing parameters, coordinating responsibilities, and providing resources.

First, I suggest that a central task of government, founded in justice, is to ensure that the prevailing social arrangements are not exploitative of those who are worst off.  Some of the causes of poverty are structural, and often it will take government action to deal with structural injustice.  Legal protections for workers, a minimum wage, and tax policies such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, or the progressive tax system more generally, are examples of ways that governments can establish justice in the basic legal parameters of the political community.

Second, I see distributive justice, like other forms of justice, to be properly restorative in nature—that is, it seeks to restore people to community.  This requires more than what we as a society are currently doing, particularly through our welfare system.  Here, the state’s role as coordinator of responsibilities comes to the fore.  The duty to care for the poor falls on all parts of civil society, but on the state falls the special challenge of finding ways to persuade schools, churches, charities, banks and other actors to take up their own responsibilities, particularly in the areas where governments acting alone cannot succeed.

Third, only governments have the power to tax, and so governments must often take the lead in providing financial resources for the fight against poverty.  Some of these are straightforward policy matters: increasing deductions for charitable donations or ending discrimination against faith-based service providers.  But the state may also need to use its taxing power to raise the funds that can be brought against poverty—or it may need to reallocate resources from other programs and initiatives so that our duty to the poor can be carried out. 

On all these points, there is more to be said.  Let me respond here to only one objection: namely, that a good way for governments to exercise their responsibility for the poor is to ensure and establish continuing economic growth.  Economic growth, it seems to me, can indeed be considered part of the governmental responsibility to keep order, and as such, is supported by a general norm of justice.  However, I would insist that the immediate task of government to provide justice for the poor must take priority over the pursuit of economic growth.  If the price of continued economic growth is the impoverishment of millions of our neighbors, then our duty seems clear.  Ultimately, I would seek to challenge the opposition itself.  It may be that it is precisely by seeing justice done for the poor that we find our way to sustained economic growth.   Similarly, we may discover that economic growth, even if necessary, will not solve the problem of poverty on its own.  Genuine economic progress requires economic justice along with economic success.