By: Dale Weckbacher
Matt 25:34-36
34 Then the King will
say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I
was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick
and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
NKJV
Matt 26:11-12
11 For you have the poor with you always, but
Me you do not have always.
NKJV
As someone interested in achieving results for my efforts,
my initial reaction to the above passages from the Bible is to throw up my
hands and say what’s the use. On one
hand, the Lord is telling me to help the poor and that in doing so it is like
helping Him but on the other hand, he is telling me that those efforts are
essentially useless because we will always have the poor with us. However, in these versus we can discern why
forced governmental income redistribution with the goal of achieving income
equality is destined to fail.
In these versus Jesus is speaking of charity. He is encouraging us to have charitable
hearts that are willing to share the abundance God has blessed us with by
voluntarily giving it to the poor. In 2
Corinthians 9:7, the Word says,
7 So let each one
give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves
a cheerful giver.
NKJV
The lesson we learn from these scriptures is that God has
called each of us to give to the poor and that in doing so we are in essence
demonstrating our love of God. However,
this work of assisting the poor will never cease until the Lord returns. However, God does not want us to give because
someone has forced us to or out of necessity.
God is looking for people to give cheerfully out of the abundance of
love God has placed in their hearts.
These versus also explain why forced income redistribution
in the context of achieving income equality will fail. If, as Jesus said, we will always have the
poor with us, no matter how many new programs the government institutes or how
much money the government gives to individuals through these programs, there
will always be income inequality.
Eventually when we run out of other people’s money to redistribute, the
poor will no longer be able to receive help from the government they have
become dependent on to take care of them.
We saw evidence of this in Greece when there were riots over the
implementation of austerity measures for Greece had simply run out of other
people’s money to redistribute.
As I am writing this, the President has not delivered his
State of the Union Address. However, we
have learned that part of his speech will deal with his desire to achieve
income equality. He will most likely
propose increasing the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, and Obamacare
as a means of achieving this mythical equality.
However, these programs are destined to fail because:
1)
We have had a minimum wage since 1938. (1) One would think that after 76 years of a
minimum wage that started at $.25 per hour and has grown to $7.25 per hour we
would have achieved income equality. Yet
in President Obama’s speech, we can expect him to speak of an even higher
minimum wage, touting that it will help achieve income equality. Well Mr. President history does not support
your theory.
2)
We need jobs not extensions. Unemployment insurance was initially designed
to be a temporary measure to assist people who through no fault of their own
found themselves unemployed. Its purpose
was to help them survive a period of unemployment until they could find
work. The continual extensions of the
program since Obama took office have turned the program into an almost
permanent welfare program. Mr.
President, rather than continually extending this program, why not implement
economic policies that increase the profitability of the private sector. A more profitable private sector will result
in a more jobs and less need for unemployment.
3)
Obamacare is evidence of the failure of bloated
bureaucracies. The lesson from
Obamacare’s failure is obvious. Huge
government programs managed by bloated bureaucracies cannot succeed. The best way to manage health care is for it
to remain a decision made between the patient and doctor. Involving the government or even a large
insurance company only decreases efficiency and increases cost. The solution to spiraling health care costs
is increasing competition for health care services in the private sector, which
will reduce prices and restore the doctor patient relationship.
Liberals constantly attempt to paint a picture of
conservatives being people that have no compassion for the poor. In reality, however, conservatives are not
uncharitable but understand that helping the poor is best accomplished through
private charities where individuals voluntarily contribute to assisting the
poor rather than forced charity through some coercive government program. Since we will always have the poor among us,
why should we bankrupt our nation by trying to eliminate poverty through
governmental wealth redistribution?
Prior to the implementation of social wealth redistribution
programs by the government, the poor were taken care of through churches and
charitable organizations. I say we begin
eliminating many of these bloated failed government programs, place more money
in the hands of private individuals, and trust these individuals to care for
the poor in our society through charities and churches. Otherwise, we risk bankrupting our nation and
creating a large class of poor people, dependent on a government that
eventually will be unable to provide for the needs of the poor in our
society.
1. Grossman, Jonathan. Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage. www.dol.gov. [Online] U.S.
Department of Labor. [Cited: January 28, 2014.]
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm.
