Dis the Poor and Spare the Rich

I have decided that as we approach the November election, I will not listen to any candidate or media pundit who engages in inane finger pointing. Watching people tie our national financial dilemma to "the other guys" bores me.

Currently the Republicans are playing the "opposition game." I just read an "information" piece detailing all the negative effects of the tax increases we can expect if the Democrats are not turned out in November. To keep the time I spend reading articles from being a waste, I like to breath life back into banality by analyzing the shortcomings of the piece. I find two problems with this standard opposition pitch about money management.

1) It presumes that tax increases are unAmerican, that our national experience has been positive only when taxes do not increase, as if today's expected tax increases are an anachronism in America.

There was a time (1800s) when our country did not need high amounts of tax revenue because we had plenty of public land yet unsold and little competition abroad for the sale of our plentiful resources; and we avoided international political involvements and responsibilities. Indeed, the income tax was judged unconstitutional during much of our national history--but it no longer is, by anybody. To suggest a constitutional amendment to end the income tax acknowledges that it is constitutional now. Those who find taxes unbearable do not deny their usefulness, they only want to avoid the pain.

2) But more to the point, the underlying premise of the "vote against taxes" entreaty is that the defining feature of American democracy is a polity guided by the principle that a citizen has the right to make and keep money with no interference.

There is nothing wrong with money. Money is not the root of evil in its tangible, inanimate form. But it is the lubricant of selfish immaturity, ungodly hoarding, and a lack of concern for our citizen-family. I don't like taxes, but I like even less the spokespersons for capitalism-run-amok, as in the Robber Barons of old, or more recently, the golden bungee jumping CEO's, and model enterprisers like Lay, Skillings, Madoff, etc. (and etc.). Politics is a complicated jungle, financial legislation is clouded by lobbyists and hopeful (wealthy) political candidates; subsidies and public assistance usually are poorly administered, if even monitored. But an attitude of narcissism about personal rights to control tax spending should not misguide us into demeaning the less moneyed members of our population who are endowed with talents and dreams that enrich our country but not themselves.

I do not find myself drawn to the competition to reach the pantry's high shelves. I don't consider it my American right to have more money than someone else. The opportunity to make money is one of the great benefits of our democratic system, but any given wealthy American draws on the bounty of our national prosperity. The rich and the poor are in this together. Democracy does not just grant "rights." It expects equal returns in response.

Our founding generation was notably both democratic and christian. To cling possessively to a particular right that promotes imbalance in the citizen-family is neither democratic nor moral. That is not our heritage. As a student of American history and as a professing Christian, I will not stand mute when democracy and religion are divorced. If Jesus had thought the rich young ruler, who sought his counsel, could follow him while keeping his wealth, there would have been no need for him to give up his money. Jesus did not ask him to give up his civil leadership status. Jesus apparently intuited that narcissism was this gentleman's problem and money was his crutch.

I believe democracy and Christianity are a natural match. When the two tag-team, it is beautiful. But when the two fall out of rhythm, both become shallow, ephemeral specters of their real selves.