Left, right, and wrong on the budget fight

The Christian Post cleverly frames the controversy over the Paul Ryan budget proposal as political. Christians critical of the plan to cut programs that help the poor and give more to the rich are characterized as merely politically liberal. Thus, it is a political squabble among Christians and Ryan should be given the benefit of the doubt when he claims that scripture and religious principles informed his plan. Does this framing pass the smell test?

Here is Paul Ryan's defense of supply side "subsidiarity" as summarized by the Christian Post:

In particular, Ryan mentioned the Catholic tenets of "subsidiarity," the principle that large, complex organizations should not deal with problems that can be dealt with by small, simple organizations, and "preferential option for the poor," the principle that the needs of the poor should be considered before the needs of others. The Republican budget is consistent with these principles, Ryan said, by reducing the role of the federal government in civic society and eliminating programs that keep the poor dependent on government.

Never mind that subsidiarity as defined within the Catholic social teaching never said government has no role. In fact, the role of government and other complex organizations is to fill needs not meet by individuals and private groups according to papal writings.

One question never gets asked of Ryan and his collaborators. Who will pick up the slack for the safety net they are shredding? That little detail is never specified.

Perhaps congregations and religious organizations will be able to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for the poor, sick, elderly, and disabled. Not likely. During the recent recession, contributions to churches and other faith-based organizations declined even as membership grew. In other words, contributions to religious organizations parallel the larger economy so there will be less resources available when the need is greatest.

What about the wealthy? Jesus never had much faith in the rich.

Luke 6:24-25: "Woe to you who are already rich for you have your comfort.  Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep."  

Mark 10:25: "It will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

The Lord was more than justified in his dim assessment of the rich. Study after study has found that the wealthy give a smaller percentage of their income to charitable causes than people of modest means. Even more damning than the hoarding by the rich is where they contribute their money when they do give. It is all about vanity rather than helping the less fortunate. Most of the money goes to private colleges, hospitals, and the arts, which offer naming rights and cater to the affluent.

Another interesting trend is where the money goes. About 41% of the $89.9 billion donated to charity in 2005 by households with incomes under $100,000 went to causes that helped the poor meet their basic needs, according to a study (.pdf) by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Of the $51 billion donated by households with incomes above $1 million, less than 15% benefited causes that helped the poor. The very wealthy tended to favor health- and education-related charities and to give to religious causes over giving to the poor.

Paul Ryan has no plan to replace the government safety net he wants to shred and there is no substantive reason to believe that giving more to the wealthy will trickle down to locally controlled empowerment programs for the less fortunate. Ryan is on the wrong side of scripture and the politics of greed.