Wealth Poverty and the Role of Government

Over at Homebrewed Theolgoy last week there was a post on this report by the Heritage Foundation, which questions the Federal definition of poverty, because poverty should be limited to those who can't provide at all for the necessities of life for themselves and their families. Warren Buffett also wrote a piece last week calling for more taxes for himself and the wealthiest Americans. Today on NPR there was this discussion on Welfare 15 years after Clinton signed into law a major overhaul of the welfare system. And also today Harvey Golub has a rebutal to Warren Buffett's piece saying he pays plenty in taxes thank you very much.

There are a flurry of claims and counter claims here. There are statistics, some very disturbing like the amount of wealth held be smaller and smaller percentage of Americans, and yet Harvey Golub claims he still pays 80% to 90% of his income to some form of taxation.

There are I competing assumptions and presuppositions hidden in all of this.  On the one hand there are those that simply assume that it is the role of Government to provide for and take care of the poor, ie the Nation as a whole through the operations of the State. There is the assumption that money I earn is mine and most if not all of it should be at my disposal to do with it as I see fit or desire.  Taxation itself flies in the face of this, but one can of course argue that an entity like a nation and a government creates the stability necessary to be able to live and work without being robbed and ensuring agreed upon standards of business and law etc.  So one pays through taxation into this stability that allows one to earn money.  A government could care about the poor and provide for them to further ensure said stability.  By this view though there may be reason to limit aid to poor, if it is seen that this aid keeps people who should be in the workforce from entering it.  This was one reason given for the Clinton Welfare Reform.   But what about when there isn't a robust economy and there are fewer jobs than there are people who want to work?  But should everyone be in the workforce?  and might the Government have an interest in supporting people who are doing work that doesn't earn them the money they need to live on?  But why should those who are working and/or in positions to earn vasts amounts of wealth through taxes and the State support those whose life work does not earn them a living? Or more to the point should this form of support come from other segments of society than the State?

Unfortunately our discussion on these issues tends to either be Statist (or State collectivist in some fashion) or individualist and opportunist.  Also, these discussion divide the world up between Employers (the wealthy) and the employed (everybody else).  We seem to  be unable to conceive making a living that doesn't involve either making money off other people or receiving a paycheck from those who are making money through being employed.  Granted that is what we are dealing with largely, but few in my experience find this situation ultimately fulfilling.

This is rambling, because I'm attempting to get at something that is obscured.  There is a tendency among Christians both liberal and conservative when talking to the Middle Classes in comparison to the rest of the world that they are incredibly wealthy (granted liberals and conservatives say this to elicit differing responses, for liberals it is to drum up support for the State taking care of the poor, and for conservatives it is to drum up donations to help alleviate poverty).   But (and this was my own reaction to the Heritage Foundation report) when someone suggests that maybe most poor in this country are in comparison to those who can't provide for the necessities of life quite well off, it is offensive.  Eugene Cho today is talking about downward mobility and simplicity. He has a point, but if he can ask and continually ask what is needed to live in our context as a pastor and someone of the Middle Class (?), why is it wrong to ask about at what point should the government step in and provide aid to people?

And yet I can't help but think that when you ask "Well if their poor, why to they or their children have X." this is asked from a place of privilege and out of  a resentment based upon an assumption that the poor are poor because its their own fault.  People are wealthy not on the backs of others but because of their hard work.  But what if this isn't either or.  What if both are actually true?  And what if hard work isn't always rewarded and what if welfare does at times reward irresponsibility?

I also wonder if as much effort and energy went into attempting to reform the current system and funnel peoples greed into altruistic paths through the bureaucracy of the State went into people seeking to create alternative ways of being and living if we'd find that we don't need solutions to poverty just alternative ways of living.

Or to put it another way: I'm not convinced any longer that biblical and eccelsial teaching on care for the poor  is about getting any particular state to so care for the poor.  Rather it is the people of God, those gathered out of the nations who are to be a light to the nations, showing forth an alternative to the ways of the world and the realms humans continually create in their own image.  Just a thought as we rightly wrestle with wealth, poverty and the role of government.

"..you have ample goods laid up for many years..."

The above quote is from the Gospel for this past Sunday August 1: Luke 12:12-21. These are the words of a person Jesus calls a fool, a rich fool. I was struck that if we (most classes in the U.S) allow ourselves to be identified with the rich man of this parable we can see that the rich mans attitude is the expectation and/or desire of most if not all classes of people. Our sense of the good life and a just society is one that would provide for all a job that allows everyone to store up ample goods for many years in the form of retirement plans of various kinds, homes, cloths, cars etc. This is of course complex for the inability of many to store up for themselves something is an issue of injustice and exclusion from the centers of economic power. So the expansion of this ability to lay up goods for many years and allow one to stop working at a certain age was and still is a matter of justice. And yet Jesus' words here challenge such a sense of economy, prudence, and justice. I would say Jesus' words even critique state run versions of the rich mans individual safety net.

Since, our economy tanked and we uncovered numerous problems with our economic and financial system based upon accumulation of wealth through investments dependent upon the actions of financiers and gaining the largest possible return on ones investment, I have personally been puzzled and struggled with the general attitude to locate greed only in the bankers financiers and professional investors while excluding from greed the middle and lower classes who have been hit so hard by the failure of the financial system. I struggle with this because part of what allowed greater access to mortgages, high yeild investments for retirement was in part the invention of new ways to make and accumulate wealth. I have wondered at our continued faith in this system shown by our demand that it be controlled by more government regulation. Few if any have asked if there is perhaps something simply ethically flawed about the whole system tightly regulated or not. It seems that what we want as an American people to one degree or another is the expansion of who gets to live as though they are wealthy. We are seeking to expand this storing up that allows one to have a disposable income to spend on investments that if it pays off (and we want the guarantee that it will) will ensure that we will after a certain point in life have no worries about our financial well being.

This seems like a good, and yet here is Jesus saying that that attitude is that of the wealthy and foolish person, who has no understanding of what the Kingdom of God is and will find that when God comes calling that said person will not even know it, and will have lost their soul.

We'd like to say that those other peoples forms of wealth accumulation and creation are greedy. Thus the average American who has been hit deeply and fallen on hard times was not greedy, only those financiers and investors who took risks and invented new and ever more risky ways of making money and increasing their own but also that of the average American's portfolios, it is those people labled "Wall Street" who are the only greedy and unethical ones. Even I would like to say that I am exempt from this parable, that I who have no investments or pension fund, who left aside 7 years ago now seeking to only accumulate things and space for my wife and I and our family alone am free of this. And yet, if I am honest I too when and if a financial windfall comes want to store that money and goods up. I have many things that I have for some future that may never come, for a future I may not be called into. I seek to acquire things that may have nothing to do with God, or what God requires of me. My own denomination requires that its clergy store up for themselves with the denominations pension plan.

The good news here I think is that Jesus is talking about true liberation and true security, which we should know now can't come from our government nor the financial and economic institutions that set themselves up as necessary for our ability to survive and live and thrive. Also, what allows me to be prepared for the future or for that moment which is now to render to God's what God requires of me which is my whole being my soul, is God's own invitation in Jesus Christ. Also it is that the moment is always now, God continually comes and asks us to follow and as Bonhoeffer says bids us come and die. Our soul is always required of us and the grace I know is that God accepts the amount of ourselves we understand to give. The challenge of this parable is to seek to be one who seeks to have no possessions as the one who seeks to have them. However, it seems to me that our entire culture is bound up in the attitude of the foolish rich man, and so to answer Jesus' call we must begin by letting go of the values of a culture that says security and prudence are found in storing up so that one may at some point when old have more than enough to survive without needing to work.

Tripp has preached something similar .

In this passage Jesus refuses to be the one to decide how and who gets what they are due, rather he calls all to abandon the search for the accumulations of things and wealth. We are to have our attention elsewhere, we are to trust that there will be enough,that there is enough. When God provided manna in the desert for the people of Israel, it could not be stored up even for a day except before the Sabbath. The year of Jubilee undid all accumulation of wealth and in fact the whole cycle of sabbath years and Jubilee does seem to indicate that wealth creation and accumulation takes place at the expense of others: if one has surplus of something it means another has less off it, such disparities are reversed in the year of jubilee. We on the other hand seem to believe quite the opposite: we believe that everyone can have a surplus without someone else having less or less than they need. But the issue isn't simply justice, or rather justice isn't simply about liberation and freedom from oppression but living according to the call of God, the claim of God on us each one. justice is then ultimately to place us in that moment where we can receive God's call and claim on our souls, our whole beings. Justice is not an end in itself, but a means to true communion with God. So, if we work for economic justice in our system of wealth creation and accumulation, of the need for economies to grow without end, or slip or stall, we must understand that the system itself could be just by our standards (perhaps) but fail to open us up to the call of the Totally Other, who has an absolute claim on our lives. In the End Jesus says gaining entrance into wealth and the supposed security of having enough to sustain one without worry, will hide us from the truth of life.

Earth Quake in Haiti and Our Responses: Or what is truly troubling about Robertson's remarks

I admit that I am having difficulty getting my mind around the devastation in Haiti after the earthquake. And my heart and prayers go out to the Haitian people and all effected and all who will be helping in the recovery. I am heartened by the responses from the global community, from relief organizations, and the overall good will that seems to be going out the the people of Haiti. And yet I have questions: not so much about the earth quake, itself but about the the poverty that was already in Haiti.

A 7.0 quake is going to be devastating anywhere, but it does seem that a quake of this magnitude, would be less devastating say in California, where there is money for infrastructure, technology and building design to withstand to some degree quakes etc. This is not the largest earthquake to have happened around the world in the last several years (most in poorer countries). Some have been larger and less destructive, some just as destructive. It's an interesting bit of research to follow the links from the Wikepedia article on the Richter scale to various Magnitude 7.0 and larger earthquakes in recent years. I know enough to recognize that the location of an epicenter effects how much devastation and death toll an earthquake leaves. Yet it does seem as well that the ability to have a decent infrastructure that can with stand and coordinate around a disaster also has something to do with it, that is in the end it has to do with wealth or poverty. So it seems to me that in the end there is in the midst of all of this a mater of injustice, one that goes beyond this particular moment, one that reaches back into the past and stretches into the future. The injustice woven into this situation is then at least in part responsible for the extent of the devastation we are seeing. The global economy our economy is bound up in this injustice, our response is not just compassion but also because in fact this is our collective responsibility.

This leads me to Pat Robertson's remarks on Haiti, and the uproar over his remarks. Frankly I am a bit puzzled by what people seem to be focusing on: Robertson's claim that Haiti is cursed. I am puzzled not because I think Robertson's remarks are simply fine, or even true as he conceives them, (I find just about everything he says in the clips provided by the AP video bellow deeply troubling) but because I think most people are misinterpreting Robertson. (I recomend watching the video before continuing, especially if you haven't actually heard or read his remarks.)

First about the remarks that seem to have everyone in a tither: that Haiti is cursed. For the moment lets set aside the racial, economic, and patriarchal power dynamic, I'll get to that in a moment, but I think we need to hear what Robertson is actually saying as well as what he is not saying. He is not saying that Haiti is under God's judgment (at least not in this clip). He says that the Haitians seeking their freedom from the French 200 years ago made a pact with the devil. A strange claim perhaps (and possibly a reference to the Vodou ceremony performed by Vodou priest Dutty Boukman in 1791)It should be clear though from this that the actor in this from Robertson's perspective is not God but Satan, the devil. He then goes on to say that since then the Haitian people have been "cursed by one thing after the other.." Note they are not cursed by God. God does not appear until the end when he hopes for a great turning to God (freedom from the curse) for the Haitian people. I may not agree with the theology here but it isn't about God's judgment, rather he is naming a demonic and satanic stronghold, a curse, held over the nation of Haiti. One may think this is dangerous nonsense but please correctly identify the theology. This is not a twisted uber-Calvinism with God as sovereign over everything using suffering and natural disasters to judge people and/or bring them to God's self. For Robertson Satan, and the demonic, is very active in these things. Also, if I understand the theology out of which this statement is made, a curse is not something God does, but is only the work of Satan and demons. Rather, God is in the habit from this perspective of breaking curses not cursing people. However the only way to break a curse is for one to come under the protection of the Blood of Jesus Christ. So Robertson was not saying that this was God's judgment on the Haitian people for what their ancestors did under the French, but that the curse that the Haitians laid upon themselves through this pact with the devil continues to have its impact and is the explanation for the over all tragedy of the Haitian people of which this earthquake is the most recent and obvious example. I don't defend this theological perspective and it may not in the end be much better, but people listen to what he is actually saying.

And in listening to what he is actually saying I find his capitalist and patriarchal mindset more troubling than this theory of Haiti being cursed, though the two may be linked. Pat Robertson articulates a hopefulness that from this destruction Haiti can be rebuilt as a more prosperous nation, as though somehow starting from scratch, having to rebuild most everything, would suddenly create a viable economy in Haiti. Bill Horan of Operation Blessing (which Robertson founded) deflects the optimism, probably actually knowing better, and having some sense of the complexities in the the very least, and possibly also knowing Haiti's problems are not just Haiti's. Robertson is aware of the poverty but treats it as if it isn't related at all to the Global economy and the politics of that economy and the injustices inherent in our current system. This is where the curse idea elides with his captivity to our current economic system: the idea of the curse and pact with the devil explains Haitian problems without needing to look at the political and economic realities outside of Haiti that give some account for Haiti's poverty. Yet, it seems to me if Robertson was not captivated by the idol of our current international economic and political system, his theory would lead him to reflect on the ways in which this demonic and satanic curse is bound up with the political and economic realities of colonialism and post-colonial global economy (not to mention that Haiti has been occupied by the US). It seems to me that if Robertson would let his theory do its actual theological work, it could undermine his trust in the present economic system, where resorts that exist for those of the wealthier nations somehow equals economic prosperity. From a Biblical perspective if the Haitians made a pact with the devil (and I am not saying they did), why would they have done so except in recognition of the fact that Satan has control over the nations and powers and wealth of the world (cf. Jesus' temptation after his Baptism, Matt 4:8-10 and Luke 4:5-9). And yet, Robertson seems not to recognize the ways in which he may have his own pact with the devil as since here appears pretty aligned with the world system (which is Satan's to give to Jesus if Jesus will only worship Satan, and since he seems to have relegated Satan to the realm of curses that somehow has effect on economy and politics etc. but only that of the poorest nations, and not the wealthy. This pact has perhaps created a certain blindness. We perhaps focus on the ideas of cursing because they seem outlandish, and perhaps because we too still put a great deal of hope in our nations, our ability to create a just economy and the ability of the global economic order to do the right thing. Perhaps we have all made a pact with the devil.

Midwinter Closing Breakfast

My experience of of Midwinter began and ended with the issue of contemporary slavery. As I noted in an earlier post my first Workshop was Dr. Boaz Johnson's seminary on Global Slavery. Today at the closing breakfast, Gary Haugen president and founder of International Justice Mission (IJM) spoke to us. The organization works to protect victims of injustice and oppression around the world and to restrain and bring the laws to bear on oppressors. His take and message overlaped and also contrasted with Boaz Johnson's. His message was to us pastors and for us to take home to our churches was that we the church were to be involved in what he called the adventure of working for justice and against injustice. He has seen that so many Christians in the states are like he was at 10 when his father and brothers climbed up Mt. Ranier but he fearful claimed that such a hike seemed boring and that he'd rather stay in the visitor's center while. Many Christians are like he at ten in the visitors center of the Christian life, while Jesus is going out into the world. On the other hand after he told some stories of slavery he admitted that it was easy to get overwhelmed and full of despair as the job seems to big. He then brought to bare on this the story of the feeding the five thousand. First, Jesus tels them that they should feed the enormous crowd, and then tells them to bring what they have to him. God doesn't expect us to perform the miracle but to be willing to bring to God what we have so that through us and what we have God can perform the miracle and transform the world and bring an end to injustice.

He gave us intensely personal message and largely telling of Gary Haugen's own story and journey in a sense and was impactfing. He did have to do what the head of any activist organization has to do is speak of action of the hearers and encourage participation in the politics portion of the activist organization and support the cause. Nothing wrong with this but it did strike me as a contrast to most of his message. It did the opposite of what Boaz Johnson's presentation did which was to connect our stories to the stories of the oppressed and to see how we were connected and to look for oppression and slavery in our midst as opposed to that which was out there and over there. On some level this was an invitation to the powerful not to step away from their power but to use their power and influence the more powerful to alleviate the wrong. And certainly not something to be dismissed, or rejected and yet it retains some of the power structure and form of the oppression and injustice being resisted, and it doesn't ask us to see how we are part of the problem that even our systems of economy, law, and organization of political power is bound up in the issue. Our story stays seperate in a sense from these other stories.

Clearly what Gary Haugen had to bring to Jesus Christ in facing the evil of slavery was his training and practice in Law and the Justice department and international law. And bringing that along with other also brining this an organization has been crated that is doing the work of alleviating the oppression of slavery and rescuing slaves. Yet, his presentation ignores that part of the disciples problem in being asked to feed the five thousand is that as people who had answered the call to follow Jesus closely as that group that simply followed Jesus around in his itinerant ministry, had given up their abilities to even pool together enough cash or resources to feed five thousand people. They no longer had jobs or careers that they could use to address the situation before them they had accepted a chosen poverty in accepting the call to Jesus. They brought the resources of a boy because they themselves as people who once had supported themselves with "jobs" no longer did. So the message here to a wealthy and powerful people may not just be bring what you have but are you asked to give up the power and resources that would allow you to help in the first place. Not to say that all are called to this, there are instances and hints that not all of Jesus disciples were called to this chosen poverty, the one who provided Jesus' tomb and some of the women around Jesus are such examples, and yet we have just read the stories in the common lectionary of Jesus calling people away from what could provide resources to alleviate pain. Jesus does not tell the Rich young ruler put your power and money at my disposal and dole it out over time, but to give up that position of power and influence and come follow me. I don't think this is an either or, but a both/and. And I think Gary Haugen could not have preached both messages today, and his story is of bringing his power and influence to Jesus and to bear upon this overwhelming reality of contemporary slavery. But I was aware that without the witness of chosen poverty and relinquishing completely of ones power Gary Haugen's witness and story distances us from those it creates a division, the helper and the helpless. Where as if Gary's story is just one option, one way and there is this other very radical and counterintuitive way of relinquishing the resources of the world to alleviate the pains of the world then there is no critique of the existing power structures that both work for and against justice, and alleviate and perpetuate these things simultaneously often.

Reconciler's Fair Trade Panel discussion

Last night the Social Action Committee of Reconciler as the Social Justice League of Edgwater put on Doing Justice in the Global Economy: Fair Trade, a Panel Discussion. On the Panel was Kelemwork Bayu, who worked in a fair trade shop in Kenya and now resides here in the US. Dr. David Schweickart professor of philosophy at Loyola University, Chicago, and author of After Capitalism and Amy Ellison From Chicago Fair Trade, and Barry United Methodist Church.

The panel was insightful brining personal experience with Fair Trade, experience of working to expand Fair Trade outlets in Chicago, and a critique of capitalism, showing why working for fair trade is necessary.

Professor David Schweickart, began his presentation with an illustration of the income inequality in the US. Which illustrated that although capitalism has provided for great acheivements in technology and to some degree the lessening of poverty though it has the ability to eliminate poverty it has not done so but intensified and perpetuated great disparities in income and wealth. Schweickart, sees an alternative to Capitalism which he calls a democratic economy that has 4 key institutions: 1) Democratic labor, where firms are communities of workers who vote for a directive council that appoints managers, where there are no salaries but where what is earned is a true sharing in the profits of the corporation. 2) Public Capital, no more stock markets and other financial markets intended to get private savings into the economy, rather gain capital through taxation and distribute the capital tax through public banks for loans and capital investment in business and expansion. 3) Full employment which means the Government as Employer of last resort 4) Fair trade which he sees as including a type of protectionism he calls "socialist protectionism": as he sees it free trade is only free between nations of equal wealth. Tarifs on imports from poor countries actually benefits the poor countries especially if as he envistions those tariffs are returned to the country either directly to the industries or the Government of the country. The idea behind this is to ensure a living wage for workers in all countries and to prevent the fleeing of industry to markets where wages are lower.
Kelemwork Bayu presented here experience in a fair trade shop as a refuge in Kenya from Ethiopia. The fair trade shop not only provided her with the ability to provide for her own food clothing and shelter but also a work place that was a community and mutual support for the workers. Bayu emphasized that the community aspect of the fair trade shop was as important as what she earned, and is especially so for those who are refuges who have left home and left and lost family and don't have access to those communal networks in the place where they have come to survive. Her experience was one that fit into Schweickart's sense of cooperative businesses in terms of a business as a community of workers though from Bayu's description it seems that the running of the enterprise was not necessarily democratic, but I also may have misunderstood Bayu: I realize now that from here description I am uncertain how the enterprise was run.

Amy Ellison, talked about the formation and the activities of Chicago Fair Trade, as well as the principles of Fair Trade: Fair price, fair labor conditions, direct trade, democratic and transparent organizations, community development and environmental sustainability. At the moment the most accessible fair trade products are coffee, tea and cocoa, and most other products are generally sold in boutique type operations. The desire is to see Fair Trade become more widely accessible. However, according to Ellison that requires breaking into the existing distribution channels and that is difficult. but it has happened in places like the UK. Part of that is more people buying and seeking to buy Fair Trade certified products or at least products one knows to have been fairly traded, using the principles of fair trade but not yet certified as fair trade, since the certification costs money not all fairly traded products have the label, here Ellison encouraged us to use our discernment.

The three presentations were followed up by a good discuss and question and answer period. In that time Schweickart mentioned a company in Spain the Mondragon corporation that was begun in the Basque region of Spain and is an example of a cooperative enterprise that has been successful.

Questions didn't come to me last night, or at least not in ways I felt I could articulate for the discussion. An interesting point that was made by all was some sense that economics and our buying and selling should not ignore relationship and community. So, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs are part of this overall idea of fair trade. While I get this and it sounds good to me, I am aware of the difficulty of working, maintaining communities and relationships I have established that are not directly economic. So, I am unsure what such an assertion means for me and how I should go forward. My life is full at the moment attempting to work within the communities and networks I have. Now this is coming from someone who has sought for at least 10 years to understand where my food comes from and other things I purchase and to do so in as just a way as possible. As long as I have known about fair trade coffee i have sought to purchase it, for nearly five years now I have participated in one or another CSA program. Schweickarts ideas are interesting but they do have statist elements that I'd have to look into further, but apart from the statist elements it seems that some of his ideas may fit into both libertarian and even some anarchist concepts and senses of how economy and government should be organized. or at least it seems to me that libertarians if they are democratic shouldn't object to the creation of cooperatives and democratic business enterprises, though they probably would not like any idea of a government subsidizing or encouraging such enterprises. Well those are my thoughts for now. It was a good a stimulating and encouraging panel discussion.