Jesusnomics

Today’s tweet comes from @TheKansan

“Funny I asked how someone could be a Christian AND a conservative, nobody could give me an answer.”

she then follows up with this insight

“Liberals are the ones who care about the people. Conservatives want their neighbors who can’t afford health ins to die.”

Well, Lindsay, here you go…

At first glance the issue of health care seems like a great big “gotcha” for Christian conservatives. After all, aren’t we commanded in Scripture to help the poor, the needy, and visit the sick? So how could we possibly be against something as wonderful as universal health care where the rich help the poor and everything is managed by an all-encompassing government?

The answer is really quite simple: while Christians have a personal mandate to give of their time and treasure to help their fellow man there is absolutely no command to use the government as the vehicle to accomplish those goals.  In reality, conservative Christians do, in fact, spend a lot of time and money helping the sick. There are private charities, hospitals with religious foundations, medical missions…the list goes on and on.

What conservatives are opposed to is entrusting a powerful central government with the kind of power necessary to control a health care system (and make the determinations of who gets treatment and who does not) while paying for it all through ever-increasing taxation. While it’s nice to dream of a  government-managed health care plan where there is cheap and available care for everyone, our health care resources are limited. Under a federal health are system the government — not private individuals, charities, and organizations — will be stepping in to make the determination on who is “worth” treating.

Conservatives don’t want their neighbors without health insurance to die but neither do they want them to die because a government bureaucracy decided they were too old, too sick, or of too little value to society to bother treating. Ideals are great but they have to be based in a reality that works. Government managed health care paid for with taxpayer money would be a disaster  with diminished access to care, longer waits, lower quality of service, and more overall deaths from treatable conditions.

How can you be a Christian and a Conservative when it comes to health care? Once you understand the correct place of government in the conservative worldview it really is quite easy.

Today’s tweet comes from @katachora who writes:

“Snow plows are socialism; big government spending your money for the sake of another. Where is the outcry?”

This question represents a common line of argument when leftists try to claim that the right is being hypocritical by condoning public works projects and services such as police and firefighters. But is using tax money to keep the roads clear really a good example of socialism?

First of all, we have to figure out who exactly is the “big government” who is providing the snow plows who is paying the taxes that provide them. Generally speaking, things like snowplows and police departments are paid for by local taxes (usually on property)  paid to a city, county, or state. So in reality the money is going from land owners who live in Orange County to pay for work being done in Orange County.

There’s a lot of accountability involved there because as a taxpayer in that  county, you or I could peer out our window at the roadways and see whether or not our taxes are actually being put to good use. If not, the next election may find whatever commissioner is in charge of such things out of a job.

It makes sense to create a public trust that handles public issues. Everybody who lives in any kind of developed area uses public roads. Everybody uses the services of the police and firefighters (whether they know it or not) to keep order and safety in their communities. There is simply no way to make these things optional for most people. The reality of the government’s role in public works is demonstrated by Article I, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution which specifically authorizes Congress the enumerated power “to establish post offices and post roads.” One may as well call the Founding Fathers Socialists as well.

But before you start drawing parallels to federal government programs consider that those kinds of local public services and facilities which benefit everyone stand in contrast to something like federal welfare programs which are targeted at taking money from a specific group of people (the rich) and giving it to another group (the poor). Since the federal government is determining the allocation of resources, not everyone gets the benefits of welfare even though everyone pays for it. And these decisions happen very far away from where we the people can check out how good a job is being done merely be staring out our collective windows.

If it makes a person feel better about their leftist ideals to compare a few million dollars spent on local firetrucks and public parks to billions in federal welfare and government-managed health care,they can feel free. But in doing so they’ll have to ignore the reality of the wildly differing scale and oversight of those programs.

Anybody spot the flaw in this comedic rationale? Anybody? Yup, that’s right. He’s implying that the way to help the poor must necessarily involve government programs — and by extension must involve taxes.

In reality, the discussion about helping the poor is never about whether or not people should help the poor since both sides of the political aisle agree that they do need help. The disagreement comes over whether or not we should expect the government to be the driving force behind every effort to help the poor using Other People’s Money.

The conservative stance is that the best possible way to help the unemployed is to enact policies that will create jobs not continue a policy of endless handouts. A job for an unemployed person that gives them an income with dignity and independence is the best Christmas present of all.

There’s a reason why people shouldn’t try to form serious opinions based on comedic parody.

Today’s topic comes  from @thesmallman via Twitter:

“Talked in class about how tax/tithe in the Old Testament was 23.3%. Wonder if I can get any of the Republicans to call God a Socialist.”

In short, the answer is no.  The idea that only Socialists believe taxes are necessary is a straw man. In fact, the Fair Tax which is supported by many Republicans would levy a flat 23% sales tax on all goods and services.

But lets say for the sake of argument that God is indeed a Socialist and that the Israelites are model of good Socialist policies. Are you equally ready to embrace the practice of  people selling themselves and their children into servitude instead of declaring bankruptcy? Because in Israel’s economy not only  is  that on the table, but a good number of other uncomfortable laws regarding property and money are in play as well.  Levirate marriage, anyone?

In reality, most of us  (Democrats and Republicans alike) would be thrilled to pay only 23.3% in taxes. That would be especially true  if we were using the Old Testament model that included in that 23.3% the 10% that went to our local church.  Ten percent  to the church and a mere thirteen to state,local, and federal? That’s a bargain!

Being against Socialism is not about not paying taxes, it’s about not using the tax system to redistribute wealth based on some ideal of “fairness.”

This tweet is glib but it ultimately turns out to be less than clever.