Favoring the rich
Political Pulpit
Most of us know that Jesus and the biblical witnesses were concerned about the plight of
the poor. Fact is, he could be pretty darn hard on the rich. That theme is especially
evident in several assigned pericopes in the first months of the new year -- especially in
the gospel for February 11 (Luke 6:17-26). Something like this theme appears in the first
lesson for January 14 (in the promise that Israel would be restored from its hard times), in
all the lessons for January 21, the first lesson for February 4 (as Isaiah 6:1-8 [9-13] is
about our proclaiming good news to the oppressed), the gospel for Ash Wednesday on
February 21 (as Matthew 6:1-6,16-21 reminds us that where we place our treasures is
where we set our hearts), and the first lesson for February 25 (as Deuteronomy 26:1-11
directs us to celebrate our bounty with all the aliens). With texts like this, how can we
remain silent about the growing class divisions and the federal government's "preferential
option for the rich" that began with the Reagan revolution? At least since the 1960s,
American church-goers have been caught up with individual morality questions to the
detriment of the poor and working classes.
Of course, I have friends who support Bush and tell us of all the short-term recent economic gains (for the rich). They may report job growth statistics, forgetting to mention that the pay scale for most of these new jobs is below the paltry U.S. minimum wage (of $5.15 per hour) and that wage increases, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only average 1 percent in manufacturing jobs. Besides, because the statistics on lower unemployment rates need to be considered in relation to how many of the long- term unemployed stop looking for work (18.4 percent of the unemployed), and are therefore not counted as unemployed in Bureau of Labor statistics, the actual percentage of Americans not working is much higher than reported. As for lower gas prices, they're still astronomically higher than we were paying at the beginning of the Bush era.
We need to look at the economy in relation to long-term trends. Here are the facts: Between 1980 and 2004, with no appreciable change if 2005 data is included, real wages in manufacturing have fallen 1 percent, while the real income of the richest people in America rose 135 percent. The top fifth of the population in America received half of the nation's annual income while the bottom fifth earned a paltry 3.5 percent. For the bottom 80 percent of income earners in America (that's most of the middle class, too, my friends), the percentage of total national income has declined. By other calculations, the top 20 percent of the population earns nineteen times per year what the bottom 20 percent earns. Recently released Bureau of Labor statistics for 2005 indicated that wages now represent the lowest percentage of the gross American domestic product since 1947, while corporate profits are at all-time highs.
These dynamics make the poor poorer. The Census Bureau reports 37 million Americans are in poverty, and 46 million of us have no health insurance. Meanwhile the middle class feels the pinch of high gas prices, astronomical college tuition costs, rising costs for medical care, and the end of traditional pension plans (held by just 33 percent of the labor force today compared to 84 percent in 1980). And then there is the disappearance of affordable housing. Half the working poor spend at least 50 percent of their weekly income on rent. There is no way that a family can save and escape the cycle of poverty with those statistics. The first months of the New Year afford a great opportunity for the American church to break its silence on these matters and get this data before our parishioners so that the new Congress can feel some pressure from those of us who share Jesus' (and our nation's founders') priorities.
Yes, times are hard, but what can government or the church do about it? Some Republicans might contend that this is merely a matter of the business cycle, that there is not much we can do. Let's get some historical perspective on this matter and some hard facts about what the federal government has done since the Reagan era to exacerbate the plight of the poor and the middle class.
The two greatest gains made by the middle class and the poor came in eras when the presidency and the Congress were in the hands of those committed to using government pressure to help the plight of the poor and working classes, if necessary, at the expense of the rich. The New Deal recovery produced a 67 percent increase in the wages of production workers between 1929 and 1947, while the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans actually lost 17 percent in income during those years. From 1947 through 1973 (years dominated by a democratic majority in Congress and by the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations clearly favoring the working class and the poor), real income rose 81 percent. Again, America's richest 1 percent of the population were losers, gaining only a 38 percent rise in income. Of course, in those years, we had fewer restrictions on welfare than we do today, and while the labor unions were strong, today only 12 percent of the labor force is in unions. Yes, it certainly is a different story today, and there are good (political and legislative) reasons.
The exporting of American jobs in our global economy has perhaps only "cost" one million jobs in the service industry (according to a special report in the June 15, 2006, issue of The Economist). But the use of the global supply of labor (or at least the threat of such a resource) has reduced wages and raised the returns of capital. These dynamics not only concentrate wealth at the top, but also tend to fracture the traditional link between skills and wages. Even if we grant my colleague, Chet's, suggestion that these dynamics are economically inevitable in our globalized context (as I am not yet prepared to do) we can still ask why Congress has passed laws and trade agreements like NAFTA which reward businesses functioning in this way.
With a larger labor pool from which to draw, American businesses have the upper hand on the labor unions, which have less clout if they threaten strikes. But the federal government has not helped their situation with passing so-called "Right-To-Work" legislation which makes it more difficult to organize the labor force in many corporations. The federal government might help the plight of workers with an increased minimum wage, which in turn usually impacts all businesses in favor of their offering higher wages. But at a mere $5.15 per hour, the minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, during which period the typical CEO pay is up 73 percent. And that is how much Congressional salaries have risen in the last decade.
Let's not forget how the federal government could make affordable housing a little easier if it flooded the market with some affordable apartments or houses, but Congress has not supported such building programs since 1986. Remember the tax cuts: The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts entailed that 70 percent of all the tax benefits went to the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans. The top 1 percent of American households according to income received tax cuts worth $35,000 while the middle fifth of households received just $647! Sounds like welfare for the rich, doesn't it? And if you believe in trickle-down economics, why is the wealth not trickling down?
This sounds like I'm advocating that the church engage in class war. Yes, and that seems to be what Jesus was doing in the February 11 gospel lesson I noted (and don't forget Luke 18:25 or Mark 10:25). America's founders based our constitutional form of government on a belief that there will always be something like class wars and that we need a government structure which makes the fight fair. That's why we have the separation of powers in our system. I have previously called your attention to how James Madison made that clear in The Federalist Papers (Nos. 10 and 51). He argues there that different economic interests create different factions, and that the most powerful of them will always try to take advantage of the weakest. Sounds like today, right?
The founders also opted for federal government measures on behalf of the poor (welfare and the distribution of property). One juicy quote that comes from James Madison sounds like Great Society, managed economy programming to me:
... the great objection should be to combat the evil [of faction] by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few ... By the silent operation of laws, which without violating the rights of property reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort (Papers, 1791-1793, p. 197).
Let's stop the secularist, pro-business myth that we are all one happy family and that we need to believe that we all gain when the rich succeed because we are all basically decent human beings. We need to take sin and our selfishness seriously in our economic policies. Together we might contribute to starting a movement toward more income equality, or to at least enact legislation which truly levels the playing field. How's this for a New Year's resolution? In addition to the charity we offer those in need in our communities, we also need to do some political preaching and teaching. We would also serve our Lord well by resolving to communicate the data I've reported and to help our people gain a deeper appreciation of how it illustrates that the seedy, selfish dimensions of our personalities need to be brought to our attention and controlled with God's unconditional love and some good pro-labor, anti-poverty legislation.
Mark Ellingsen is a tenured associate professor on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta and the author of hundreds of articles and thirteen books, including "Blessed Are the Cynical: How Original Sin Can Make America a Better Place," "The Integrity of Biblical Narrative: Story in Theology and Proclamation," and "The Richness of Augustine: His Contextual & Pastoral Theology" (Westminster/John Knox Press).
Of course, I have friends who support Bush and tell us of all the short-term recent economic gains (for the rich). They may report job growth statistics, forgetting to mention that the pay scale for most of these new jobs is below the paltry U.S. minimum wage (of $5.15 per hour) and that wage increases, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only average 1 percent in manufacturing jobs. Besides, because the statistics on lower unemployment rates need to be considered in relation to how many of the long- term unemployed stop looking for work (18.4 percent of the unemployed), and are therefore not counted as unemployed in Bureau of Labor statistics, the actual percentage of Americans not working is much higher than reported. As for lower gas prices, they're still astronomically higher than we were paying at the beginning of the Bush era.
We need to look at the economy in relation to long-term trends. Here are the facts: Between 1980 and 2004, with no appreciable change if 2005 data is included, real wages in manufacturing have fallen 1 percent, while the real income of the richest people in America rose 135 percent. The top fifth of the population in America received half of the nation's annual income while the bottom fifth earned a paltry 3.5 percent. For the bottom 80 percent of income earners in America (that's most of the middle class, too, my friends), the percentage of total national income has declined. By other calculations, the top 20 percent of the population earns nineteen times per year what the bottom 20 percent earns. Recently released Bureau of Labor statistics for 2005 indicated that wages now represent the lowest percentage of the gross American domestic product since 1947, while corporate profits are at all-time highs.
These dynamics make the poor poorer. The Census Bureau reports 37 million Americans are in poverty, and 46 million of us have no health insurance. Meanwhile the middle class feels the pinch of high gas prices, astronomical college tuition costs, rising costs for medical care, and the end of traditional pension plans (held by just 33 percent of the labor force today compared to 84 percent in 1980). And then there is the disappearance of affordable housing. Half the working poor spend at least 50 percent of their weekly income on rent. There is no way that a family can save and escape the cycle of poverty with those statistics. The first months of the New Year afford a great opportunity for the American church to break its silence on these matters and get this data before our parishioners so that the new Congress can feel some pressure from those of us who share Jesus' (and our nation's founders') priorities.
Yes, times are hard, but what can government or the church do about it? Some Republicans might contend that this is merely a matter of the business cycle, that there is not much we can do. Let's get some historical perspective on this matter and some hard facts about what the federal government has done since the Reagan era to exacerbate the plight of the poor and the middle class.
The two greatest gains made by the middle class and the poor came in eras when the presidency and the Congress were in the hands of those committed to using government pressure to help the plight of the poor and working classes, if necessary, at the expense of the rich. The New Deal recovery produced a 67 percent increase in the wages of production workers between 1929 and 1947, while the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans actually lost 17 percent in income during those years. From 1947 through 1973 (years dominated by a democratic majority in Congress and by the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations clearly favoring the working class and the poor), real income rose 81 percent. Again, America's richest 1 percent of the population were losers, gaining only a 38 percent rise in income. Of course, in those years, we had fewer restrictions on welfare than we do today, and while the labor unions were strong, today only 12 percent of the labor force is in unions. Yes, it certainly is a different story today, and there are good (political and legislative) reasons.
The exporting of American jobs in our global economy has perhaps only "cost" one million jobs in the service industry (according to a special report in the June 15, 2006, issue of The Economist). But the use of the global supply of labor (or at least the threat of such a resource) has reduced wages and raised the returns of capital. These dynamics not only concentrate wealth at the top, but also tend to fracture the traditional link between skills and wages. Even if we grant my colleague, Chet's, suggestion that these dynamics are economically inevitable in our globalized context (as I am not yet prepared to do) we can still ask why Congress has passed laws and trade agreements like NAFTA which reward businesses functioning in this way.
With a larger labor pool from which to draw, American businesses have the upper hand on the labor unions, which have less clout if they threaten strikes. But the federal government has not helped their situation with passing so-called "Right-To-Work" legislation which makes it more difficult to organize the labor force in many corporations. The federal government might help the plight of workers with an increased minimum wage, which in turn usually impacts all businesses in favor of their offering higher wages. But at a mere $5.15 per hour, the minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, during which period the typical CEO pay is up 73 percent. And that is how much Congressional salaries have risen in the last decade.
Let's not forget how the federal government could make affordable housing a little easier if it flooded the market with some affordable apartments or houses, but Congress has not supported such building programs since 1986. Remember the tax cuts: The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts entailed that 70 percent of all the tax benefits went to the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans. The top 1 percent of American households according to income received tax cuts worth $35,000 while the middle fifth of households received just $647! Sounds like welfare for the rich, doesn't it? And if you believe in trickle-down economics, why is the wealth not trickling down?
This sounds like I'm advocating that the church engage in class war. Yes, and that seems to be what Jesus was doing in the February 11 gospel lesson I noted (and don't forget Luke 18:25 or Mark 10:25). America's founders based our constitutional form of government on a belief that there will always be something like class wars and that we need a government structure which makes the fight fair. That's why we have the separation of powers in our system. I have previously called your attention to how James Madison made that clear in The Federalist Papers (Nos. 10 and 51). He argues there that different economic interests create different factions, and that the most powerful of them will always try to take advantage of the weakest. Sounds like today, right?
The founders also opted for federal government measures on behalf of the poor (welfare and the distribution of property). One juicy quote that comes from James Madison sounds like Great Society, managed economy programming to me:
... the great objection should be to combat the evil [of faction] by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few ... By the silent operation of laws, which without violating the rights of property reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort (Papers, 1791-1793, p. 197).
Let's stop the secularist, pro-business myth that we are all one happy family and that we need to believe that we all gain when the rich succeed because we are all basically decent human beings. We need to take sin and our selfishness seriously in our economic policies. Together we might contribute to starting a movement toward more income equality, or to at least enact legislation which truly levels the playing field. How's this for a New Year's resolution? In addition to the charity we offer those in need in our communities, we also need to do some political preaching and teaching. We would also serve our Lord well by resolving to communicate the data I've reported and to help our people gain a deeper appreciation of how it illustrates that the seedy, selfish dimensions of our personalities need to be brought to our attention and controlled with God's unconditional love and some good pro-labor, anti-poverty legislation.
Mark Ellingsen is a tenured associate professor on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta and the author of hundreds of articles and thirteen books, including "Blessed Are the Cynical: How Original Sin Can Make America a Better Place," "The Integrity of Biblical Narrative: Story in Theology and Proclamation," and "The Richness of Augustine: His Contextual & Pastoral Theology" (Westminster/John Knox Press).
