I’ve been wrestling with myself all week. I think the more left-wing folks would call it “conscience”; the right-wing folks would say “common sense”; the cynical kids at the back of the class would say “white middle-class guilt.” Here I am getting ready to have a really nice vacation. I live in a nice house and have good medical coverage, plenty to eat and drink, clothes that have to be washed on the Delicate cycle (in a washer and dryer I own) and a computer on which to type a blog entry. I’ve been very blessed and I’m very grateful. I would trot out the old saw that says my husband and I have worked hard for what we have, and while that is true I also know that he and I had opportunities a lot of folks just never got because they were born to different people in different circumstances.
Hence all the internal wrestling.
We’ve been talking on Bridgett’s Facebook about the role of Charity in society this week, as she discussed Winthrop’s “Model of Christian Charity” (1630) in her class.* In that document, Winthrop proposes that God will evaluate a state based on the charity it extends to its less-fortunate members. Bridgett in turn urges our current leaders to see this document and realise that charity has always been part of the government’s call.**
So that has lead us to discussions on subsidised housing, food stamps, Social Security and all the rest.
o Should Food Stamps be limited in the items that people can purchase?
I personally think so. WIC has limitations, and I think that it’s entirely fair to say one can’t use food stamps for candy bars, cakes, sodas and other ‘luxury’ food items. Although when I’ve brought this up before I was told that it’s none of my business what people do with their food stamps. After all, those in adverse circumstances deserve treats too. (We’ll discuss the word “deserve” another time…)
o Should those in HUD homes be forbidden to smoke inside their own home?
This is a super-tricky one for me because it involves “inside the home” and privacy and government intervening in privacy. And smoking regulations, which I think are a lot of bunk, generally speaking. Still I do see the philosophy behind it, that being if we are going to pay for your home we don’t also want to pay your cancer bills.
o Should Fast Food be disallowed for Food Stamps?
I know I’m tempted to say “yes”, but frankly I’d rather see the poor kids get a hamburger every now and then instead of being forced to live on Mac and Cheese, spaghettios and other low-income diet staples.
It’s just so hard because I know that I’m blessed. My husband and I have been able to make it thus far without claiming the Social Security Disability benefits to which I am legitimately entitled. We’re libertarians and the idea of taking that money goes against everything we stand for. And then again, I did work and pay into the system from the ages of 16-36. So I have a sound basis on which I can say “it’s my money anyway.” See? All these dilemmas!
And while I’d like to remain thoughtful and kind and keep the ideals of charity in my mind at all times it’s really hard to watch a woman complain about being evicted from her Section 8 housing (the government underwrites $1100 of her $1500/month rent) while still having a playstation, a computer, a flat-screen tv, several iPods, an iPad and $5000 worth of designer clothes. That’s when I start to feel like we, a country in massive debt, are being gulled by chiselers.
*Bridgett is a professor of History
**I hadn’t read the Winthrop document for 20 years. In rereading it in preparation for this article I see that that Winthrop was proposing a Christian state to be governed by the church, not unlike England. Which, for the time, was pretty much what people knew. He was sort of saying that he wanted to set up another church-state combo that would be more generous to the poor than England had been. As a Mennonite Christian libertarian I think he was completely wrong about the structure he wanted.
Just Another Pretty Farce 
Oh man…this is a can of worms.
Here’s what I think:
If I believe capitalism (voluntary, mutually-beneficial exchange, not corporatism or economic fascism, et al.) is the greatest wealth-producing engine in the world, it would make sense for me as a Christian to support free-market capitalism if I want to help the poor at a macro level. If that’s true I should also believe that anything that hinders capitalism is hindering the poor (as well as everyone else). If that is true, then wealth distribution programs for example–impediments to the free market system via coerced taxation (or printed fiat money)–are hurting the poor more than helping them. They distort crucial price signals and create bubbles, divert resources away from wealth producers who would otherwise hire more employees, work to decrease the cost of production. Programs would also divert wealth from wealth owners who would otherwise be create more wealth via savings or investments.
Whereas my reaction to Coble’s post is to figure that a person who has “a playstation, a computer, a flat-screen tv, several iPods, an iPad and $5000 worth of designer clothes” while qualifying on paper for Section 8 assistance is going to bilk whatever system is around, in major ways.
I have had a succession of neighbors who get Section 8 (one of the houses on my block is owned by an absentee landlord who will only rent to people with Section 8), and none of them has owned any of that stuff. Well, maybe someone had a Playstation, but I don’t think so. The fact that one person has figured out how to work a hustle on the gov’t doesn’t mean that the program is a bad one, any more than the fact that some people are able to cheat successfully on tests means that testing is bad.
I personally think the government giving money to the poor isn’t charity on my part. The government gives a lot of breaks to the very rich. Moreover the top 10% of the country has most of the money, most of the tax breaks, and aren’t taxed the way the poorer 90% are. In addition, there are corporations who benefit from my tax money in a way that is more devastating to me than the person on section 8. So, if one looks at it as a purely monetary transaction, we give more money to the rich than we do to the poor. Yet, we blame the poor for taking our money and not using our charity better.
Charity in the Bible is generally shown as what a church does for the poorer people in its congregation and what one person does for another. It’s not something the government has anything to do with. If I give some money to a poor friend, that is charity (holding the poor “dear”) and it is a personal connection. I have personally felt the loss of money and the joy of helping another. IF I give the money to the government to help another, that is just taxes. And so much more of our taxes go to despicable murderous and greedy causes. Yet we don’t get angry about that.
My best friend went on food stamps for about one year at 38 years old after being diagnosed with breast cancer and having a double mastectomy. She had a job, but she could not work steadily for about a year while she went through cancer treatments, which made her very sick. At the time, she owned her car, her big TV, and all the other comforts that we enjoy. She got some help from family and friends to keep her mortgage current, but they could only give so much. She just needed some help affording food while she recovered. I see no problem with this. She has been a tax paying citizen since 18 years of age, and has paid into those benefits. What I’m trying to say is that we make assumptions about people on food stamps. She paid for and owned all of those things before she got on food stamps. But she suffered a lot of scorn from critics for “having nice things” while taking food stamps. What is the answer? Make her sell off all her possessions before taking food stamps? Without assets (like her car), that would surely *keep* her on food stamps for longer than she initially needed them, because then she wouldn’t be able to return to work without a car.
With so many hardworking Americans unemployed and underemployed, many are turning to food stamps to sustain their families. How do we determine who deserves it and who doesn’t?