Conservative AND Christian

Harry Reid is my senator. He's my representative in Washington. Not because I asked him to be; in fact, I asked him not to be. Hilariously, his 2006 campaign billboard said "Harry Reid - Independent Like Nevada". Since when is the guy who stands to become the Democratic Leader in the US Senate independent? But I digress. In 2001, Senator Reid gave the following quote: "I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican." Senator Reid is a Mormon, and, despite all propaganda to the contrary, that's not the same as being a Christian. Still, his quote is timely, since I've heard the same sentiment from liberal Christians - that the liberal ideology is more in line with the Bible. Is it true?

In order to answer that question honestly, we have to define "liberal ideology". One could easily dismiss a claim like Senator Reid's by saying the greatest example of liberalism in the world is communism, which traditionally eschews all religious exercise. But I will concede that's not what Senator Reid or my liberal friends meant. By the same token, I'll avoid the obvious arguments that involve school prayer, the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, publicly funded Christmas displays - these are not the argument either. The discussion, in order to have any value, has to relate to the secular.

Probably the greatest secular issue dividing the Left and the Right is taxation. Democrats tend to favor higher taxes to support more government programs. According to Senator Reid's sentiments, these programs are the biggest reason a man of faith would vote Democrat, as they benefit the "least of these" as described by Jesus in Matthew 25. And, after all, Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 22 that they should pay taxes - "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." On the surface, it's hard to argue against this chain of thinking. Still, a little scrutiny (as we've seen time and time again) might tell a different story.

Confiscatory tax laws may seem like a violation of the Commandment against stealing, but Jesus' words clearly uphold a government's right to tax. But what of those receiving government money? The government pays subsidies to able-bodied men and women not to work. And many of these subsidies are not limited to a certain timeframe or situation. They may not even be to the people you would envision. We can all conjure up ideas of welfare babies and public funding of free housing projects. But what about farm subsidies? Urban redevelopment? Social security benefits that punish recipients for earning too much on a job? Post-Kelo eminent domain transfers? Clearly, the government gives out a lot of money every year to benefit people who are not working for it. Ephesians 4:28 is clear that one should "work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need."

Beyond the simple command to work and share benefits with those in need, one also must consider the stewardship issue. Throughout the New Testament, there are exhortations to be a good steward of the money, time, talents, and resources entrusted to the believer by God. This means that resources must be put to the best use. If there were a needy person, the most efficient way to put my resources to use for his benefit would be to let him move in with me. Slightly less efficient - but sometimes more practical - would be to give him money to use for his needs. Either way, nothing is lost in the transfer. A step removed from this would be to give money to a local charity organization or church. The organization would then cover its own expenses and dole the money out to help needy folks in my community. So a little money is lost in the transaction, but the organization would likely have a better mechanism to help the needy, so the arrangement still works well. How far removed is it from those options to get involved with a federal bureaucracy that is far from my community and has no incentive to trim expenses? To count on a distant government to force me into paying into a system that is inherently ineffective and corruptible seems like the opposite of good stewardship - particularly when there are real and effective non-profit organizations in every community in America.

Could it be that this drive to tax our way out of poverty is a form of slacktivism? A way of trying to attack a problem without really getting one's hands dirty? Just like an Internet petition or a phony donation plan for every forwarded e-mail, this solution hasn't worked yet. But what about the opposite? What could be accomplished by lowering taxes? Lowering taxes puts more money in people's pockets. Consider the GDP (gross domestic product) model of measuring economic growth. The four components of GDP - gross domestic product - are consumption (what consumers spend), investment (money spent to build capacity in a business), government spending, and net exports (exports minus imports). Liberals tend to seize on the third component, government spending, and use this as a rationalization for taxing, since a government would have to raise the money in order to spend it. But think of it like this: government spending is the opposite of taxation. Lower taxes are like government spending, in the same way that a penny saved is a penny earned. In fact, a penny not sent to the government to spend doesn't have to pay for administrative costs that will send it back into the community. On the other hand, increased consumption leads to economic growth, which is of far more benefit to the needy than a government check in the mail.

To look at it from another perspective, when people have more money in their pockets, they either spend it or save it. Spending it immediately benefits the business who receives this money. This benefit, when aggregated over the whole economy, leads to businesses expanding to keep up with demand. This means more people can find jobs, since more jobs are available. Saving it immediately benefits the savings institution. When a bank has more money on deposit, it has more flexibility to loan it out. A stronger money supply in the lending market means increased home ownership, better ability to expand business, and stronger figures in the durable goods markets. Again, these benefits flow to businesses, consumers, wealthy, and poor. That's why President Reagan called this phenomenon "trickle-down economics". He cut the top marginal income tax rates from some 70% to 28% by 1986. During this time, the economy, weak after the stag-flation of the Carter years, rebounded to the point that tax revenues actually increased. This economic framework was a large part of the prosperity during the Clinton years.

Finally, and this has been touched on already, there are plenty of opportunities to give and share personal wealth with those in need. Private charities - both secular and religious - are in a position to do a far more complete job than a simple check in the mail. We have a local organization that offers temporary housing, food service, counseling, job help, transportation, and many other services to the poor in our community. This organization reaches thousands, based on the financial support of donors. No one is forced to give anything, and yet the needy are served. Incidentally, Syracuse University Professor Arthur Brooks, said of charitable giving, "When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money." Brooks gave this quote after completing the study detailed in his book Who Really Cares.

Don't believe it? Ask Senator Joe Biden why, despite being a Democrat and a Roman Catholic to boot, he's given less than a quarter of one percent of his income to charity for the past ten years. The national average is 2%, and Biden was certainly above-average in his income level.

So, my liberal friends, put away the tired class-ism. Lay aside the misguided - if well-intentioned - socialist agenda. It's easy to call for the "rich" to be taxed more when, as the director for the non-partisan Tax Policy Center puts it, "95% of people think they are middle class." It's easy to push for the government to force others to use their resources to solve social problems. It's easy to promote stereotypes of uncaring conservatives while making yourselves out to be the saviors of the poor. But maybe, just maybe, it's better to look in the mirror, take one's hard-earned money or precious time, and put it toward real help for the needy. Real help - not a feel-good moment or a money-toss. Let the government fill the role it should fill. Let's work so we, too, can have something to share with the needy. That's my responsibility as a man of God.