On "Wealth and Poverty"

"Wealth and Poverty" was written by a BYU professor in, like, 1994 (revised several times since) and is the heated topic of many classroom discussions these days. I couldn't find a link to anything on line, but I have it saved as a Word document and will send it to anyone if you'd like to see it.

My wife Courtney told me about this paper last semester when she read it for a business class. The class discussion got very heated as people began to defend their feelings about the poor. Johnson claims that he often finds “anti-poor attitudes” among students, and that they see the poor as lazy, stupid, satisfied with being poor, and that they deserve to be poor. These are exactly the attitudes that Courtney told me were being defended by her fellow classmates. And what’s worse, these people hide themselves behind the curtain of what they regard as religious principles.

One of their biggest issues is with government support of the poor. I will admit to being on that side while I was younger, but I was hit with a giant liberal bullet my Freshman year out here at the Y and became more tolerant of some things. Since members of the church are most often social conservatives, they throw their votes to the Republican Party, as well as other right-wing organizations, and subscribe to all their platform has to offer, including economic issues. Many of the statistics Johnson quotes in his paper (written in 1994) describe the change in economic climate from the late 1970s to the early 1990s--a twelve year period in which Reaganomics highlighted the American economic system. During that time the poverty programs set in place were what Johnson called “wealth-fare” because of the subsidies and tax credits the big businesses received through Reagan’s trickle-down plan. Without needing to poll a group, or run a survey, I could probably tell you today that Ronald Reagan with his conservative, capitalist Cold War agenda is the most popular president in LDS culture, most likely known as the thirteenth apostle in many a Mormon home.

Reaganomics “solved” the economy with capitalism, and President Reagan tore down the Berlin Wall, proving capitalism to be superior to the socialist way of the U.S.S.R.. The combination of these ideas in LDS culture have culminated in animosity towards the idea of the government helping the poor. A lot of it has to do with “where my hard earned money is going, and why isn’t it my wallet,” but I think that’s exactly what Johnson’s telling us the problem is. We should want to help the poor. The idea of small government has taught us that the government should be taxing us less, allowing us to make wise decisions with our money and do as we wish. Johnson has observed that this belief in free capitalism comes from a core religious belief in free agency. Thus earning more money is what God would want us to do. In doing so, we pay tithing and are able to make more generous contributions to other church funds, as well as other charities as we wish. Such charitable institutions eliminate the need for socialist governments consisting of the liberal devils of universal health care and employment safety nets, right? No.

(The following remarks do represent my feelings concerning policy adoption of the United States, only my approval of similar institutions in other countries and cultures)

What churches and charities do is not sufficient to care for the needs of those who need it. Government programs that give aid to the impoverished are not against the gospel, but part of God’s plan as we are to care for each other. Any society that believes in looking out for their fellow countrymen and creates government institutions which can do so deserves the respect of all practicing Christians. These programs are very expensive and create a heavy tax burden on the citizens, which is not a very appealing thought to Americans who live in a country where lower taxes lead the rhetoric of politicians smoozing their way into office. Countries that agree on such bold ideas receive my admiration, as our government finds it hard to agree on anything. Johnson declares the great unrecognized sin of our LDS subculture is that we do nothing or selfishly cling to one’s wealth while others suffer, and do so seeking protection under the flag of capitalism.

When is the government helping too much? Johnson cites economists who say that suffering and deprivation is a useful motivator for people to try harder. Many people say that such systems would not provide sufficient motivation for people to work. In the Christian picture of things, are we to judge what people do with our charitable gifts? Some argue that they don’t want to be an enabler to addiction or continued demotivation to work ethic. Whether it be a man with a sign at a street corner, or a single mother at the welfare office, the argument remains the same. I don’t think that people realize that welfare checks are written out to families on the basis of the needs of the children. How can we refuse to give aid to poor children despite what we might believe of their parents (considering the stigmas among Johnson’s students that poor people are poor because they’re lazy, or they’ve earned their position in life and deserve poverty)? I don’t see how we can judge others for their financial situation, seeing that most people’s wealth and socioeconomic status derives from having the right parents, the right genes or being at the right place at the right time. Don’t we believe as Christians, that people deserve more chances? Isn’t the Lord standing with his hand “stretched out still?” (Isaiah 5:25) If people mess up have they truly earned their situation, or do we as Christians believe that they deserve another shot at life? I think we know the answer. Further, I believe that we cannot judge others for not taking the same path we have chosen to follow when secondary education is as viable an option to poor children as earning a million dollars is to the middle class.

Wealth seems to be more situational than earned most times. We may not see ourselves as wealthy from our own situation, but what is ‘wealthy’ anyways? Johnson suggests that today’s ‘modest’ living could easily be defined as a ‘high’ level of comfort and convenience, whereas in times past such circumstances were only available to the upper class. Most people will put themselves into the category of ‘middle class,’ however I think the upper class not a static level, just the next one someone wants to reach. Johnson believes that wealth, materialism and self-indulgent consumption stand at odds with contemplation of Christian morality. Isn’t this what we do when we try to accumulate more and more wealth? The question is really is it morally acceptable to let the rich get richer while the poor get poorer (something that is really happening, not just said in rhetoric, mind you)? Thomas Jefferson is quoted in the paper to have said that if people forgot themselves “in the sole faculty of making money,” the future of the republic would become bleak. I think the Lord would make a similar bleak prediction for one’s spiritual standing. In the story of the widow’s mite we learn that the Lord’s judgment over the use of money is based not on how much we give away, but on how much we keep for ourselves.