Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute, published a new column today in the Detroit News:
‘Social Justice’ is a complex concept
Rev. Robert Sirico: Faith and Policy
A column by Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, a Catholic writer for the Washington Post, makes the claim that “Catholic social justice demands a redistribution of wealth.” He went on to say that “there can be no disagreement” that unions, the government and private charities should all have a role in fighting a trend that has “concentrated” money into the hands of the few. In this conjecture Stevens-Arroyo confused the ends with potential means.
What Stevens-Arroyo is promoting is an attenuated and truncated vision of “social justice” that has fostered a great deal of injustice throughout the world. This path, he should know, has been decisively repudiated by the Church.
He also betrays a strange split in thinking common to those on the religious left, who are quick to denounce the profit motive and commercialism. Yet, they seem to think that the key to happiness is giving people more stuff — by enlisting the coercive power of government. This perverse way of thinking holds that “social justice” demands that we take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have less of it. That’s not social justice; that’s materialism.
A friend and colleague, Arthur Brooks, a social researcher who is now president of the American Enterprise Institute, has shown that what makes people truly happy is a system that “facilitates earned success among its citizens and does not create disincentives to achieve or squash ambition.” That’s the market economy.
The incredible growth of economies in places like China and India isn’t happening because wealth was being shifted around, but because wealth is being created.
What happens when wealth is “redistributed” is obvious now.
We’re seeing the train wreck of the “social assistance state” in Europe.
In his 1991 social encyclical “Centesimus Annus,” Pope John Paul II warned that a bloated state “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase in public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concerns for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” I call that prophetic.
Let’s also be clear that the Church’s teaching condemns the idolatry of money and material goods.
The Church finds another way, neither condemning market activities nor exalting them beyond their rightful place in the grand scheme of things. It asks us to work for the highest good and to contribute as we can our time, talents and wealth that we have earned for the betterment of the world. The Church also demands that we build just systems of trade that enable the poor to be the agents of their own betterment.
So let’s drop these false notions about what constitutes the Church’s understanding of social justice.
A system that pits the haves against the have-nots, with politicians and bureaucrats acting as referees, should be rejected by anyone sincerely interested in building a just social order.
Ronald Reagan clearly had a personal religious motivation at the summit, which he pursued on his own volition, certainly not at the urging of advisers.
For Thursday, I also plan to focus heavily on Reagan’s lifelong battle against communism and the 1981 assassination attempt on the president and how they shaped his faith life. Other topics that will be addressed is Reagan’s 1994 letter to the American people announcing his Alzheimer’s affliction and a brief discussion of President Barack Obama and all the news reports comparing him to Reagan.
Most of all, we want to hear your voice. If you are in the Grand Rapids area please make plans to join us and participate. Find the Facebook page here.
If you weren’t able to join us in person for the inaugural lecture of the 2011 Acton Lecture Series, fear not: today, we’re pleased to present Rev. Robert A. Sirico’s “Christian Poverty in the Age of Prosperity” for our loyal PowerBlog readers. The lecture was delivered on February 3rd at the Waters Building here in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The next lecture in the 2011 Acton Lecture Series takes place on March 16 and features Peter Greer, President of HOPE International. If you’re interested in attending, click here to register.
With his writing and speaking in a variety of popular and academic contexts, Dr. Hunter Baker has made a compelling and comprehensive case for the integration of the Christian faith into all areas of life, including economics and business. … Baker said the award was made all the more meaningful to him in light of the “power and diligence” that Michael Novak has shown over a long career. “Novak’s work helps readers understand the importance of the Christian faith as both a supernatural relationship with God that stirs the soul and as a powerful impetus for and sustainer of liberty, compassion, creativity, and excellence in the broader culture,” he said.
About the award: “Named after distinguished American theologian and social philosopher Michael Novak, the Novak Award rewards new outstanding research by scholars early in their academic careers who demonstrate outstanding intellectual merit in advancing the understanding of theology’s connection to human dignity, the importance of limited government, religious liberty, and economic freedom.”
Hunter has been a good friend to the Acton Institute, and as the award recognizes, holds forth a promising future for a career (building off of his already significant achievements) articulating the foundations of a free and virtuous society.
In a recent Acton Commentary, Stephen Grabill and Brett Elder reflect on the tension that often exists between conceptions of ministry in the church and in the world. They point especially to the Cape Town Commitment, which on the one hand identifies a “secular-sacred divide as a major obstacle to the mobilization of all God’s people in the mission of God.”
But on the other hand, write Grabill and Elder, “The gulf between economics and theology in evangelical social engagement and missionally informed action is a momentous barrier that must still be overcome before we can truly embrace all legitimate vocations as sacred and worthy callings.”
There are some positive signs on this front, however, and the workplace section of the Cape Town Commitment is one of them. A piece by Rob Moll in today’s Wall Street Journal highlights this hopeful trend, as he writes, “Not only does the church tend to privilege church and missionary service over business, but it often condemns business practices and implies the guilt of any participants. Yet there are signs that this dynamic is changing—not least because churches rely on the donations of business professionals.”
After hearing about an established Christian publisher recently launching an official blog for their products, I did some thinking about the relationship between the traditional publication outlets and social media.
I’m sure that traditional publishers have a relatively large budget for print advertising, but it seems that they are very slow to hire professionals to do serious social media work, blogging, and online advertising. This seems true at least in the academic markets and relative to their print marketing outreach. And the blogs that publishers do have are usually not very good, although there are exceptions.
All this is true even though there are a number of reasons why digital advertising is better than traditional print. With digital advertising and outreach you can get real numbers in terms of reactions in real-time, seeing almost immediately what is effective and what isn’t. But you are also engaging people in a place where they are much more likely to buy and doing so is far easier.
If someone sees an ad in a magazine, they have to either stop what they are doing and go to a computer or pick up the phone, or remember to do so later after they’re done reading the magazine. When you reach someone on a website, Twitter feed, or a blog, they already poised to buy in that they are always one click away from Amazon, where they already have an account set up, and so on.
And despite many of the rumors of the death of blogging, I liken the relationship of blogging to social media to the relationship of journalism to blogging. Without blogs and the kinds of content generated on blogs, there’s far less to drive social media, just as without journalistic content there’s far less to drive blogging. So I don’t see blogging going away any time soon, but the turnover rate of blogs will continue to be high because of the variety of competitive voices and sources for news, commentary, and promotion. The kinds of transition over at First Things in recent years, which has really become a full-service complement to the print publication, seems to me to be a good model for established publications looking to broaden their digital footprint.
My latest for Acton Commentary. I’m also adding a couple of videos from Hotep and the Institute for Justice.
Let the Hustlers Hustle
By Anthony Bradley
If necessity is the mother of invention, then there is nothing worse than quenching the entrepreneurial spirit of people seeking to improve their situation by imposing arbitrary third-party constraints. America’s unemployment problems linger because hustlers cannot hustle.
For many, “hustling” connotes business activity that is shady, or even illegal. But in the black community it is common to use the term to describe the entrepreneurial spirit that drives people to take risks to meet one’s needs and to provide legitimate services through creative enterprise in the marketplace. The latter view is the one taken by indie Hip-Hop mogul Hotep, who has created Hustler University as an effort to redeem hustling as a way to create space for economic empowerment. Clients include the NAACP, the Urban League, Clemson University, the National Education Association, Illinois Public Schools, and Morehouse College.
Hotep defines a “hustler” as “an enterprising person determined to succeed, [a] go-getter.” Participants in Hustler University are exposed to the idea that human beings were made to be innovative and creative and “to manifest our dreams into creation,” says Hotep. Among the Hustler’s 10 Commandments that Hotep aims to teach today’s entrepreneur are the aphorisms “your network is your networth,” “the early bird gets the worm,” and success is “where opportunity meets preparation.”
Hotep offers helpful direction, but for independent-minded hustlers to succeed and thereby benefit both themselves and their communities, they need an environment that provides them opportunities to work freely. While there are many factors that keep entrepreneurial spirit dormant such as laziness, the absence of mentors, and skill deficiencies, one of the greatest obstacles is the mass of regulations generated by federal, state, and local governments.
The Institute for Justice recently released a report describing how government regulations prevent entrepreneurs from taking off. In Houston, for example, hustling a mobile food truck business is nearly impossible. For starters, a would-be mobile food entrepreneur must obtain a license from the City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services. Potential hustlers must submit, in-person, two sets of plans that satisfy a 28-point checklist. During the government truck inspection, the vendor must provide extensive documentation including an itinerary and route list. He is required to pay $560 in fees, which includes $200 for the installation of an electronic tracking device. Operators must also disclose their menu, including every ingredient used as well as its origin, and how each dish is prepared. Even worse, a form must be filled out for each ingredient. This is just a sampling of the regulations in one city. Similarly daunting tangles of red tape exist in every jurisdiction in America, preventing entrepreneurs from starting and maintaining small businesses.
It’s clear that this regulatory regime especially hurts small businesses, the primary source of new jobs. Mark Crain, William E. Simon Professor of Political Economy at Lafayette College, conducted a study several years ago describing the disproportional burden imposed by federal regulations on small business. Crain found that firms with fewer than 20 employees spend 45 percent more per employee complying with federal regulations than do larger firms. Small firms spend 67 percent more per employee on tax compliance than larger firms do, and, compared to the largest companies, more than 4 times as much ($3200 vs. $700) per employee to comply with environmental regulations.
The black unemployment rate currently (January 2011) stands at 15.7 percent. Hispanics are a little better at 11.9, but both lag whites at 8 percent. The last thing we need are burdensome government regulations preventing hustlers from hustling. Whether intentionally job-killing or not, these types of government regulations dampen the entrepreneurial spirit of people who are trying to improve their situation and make contributions to the civic good by providing services that people need. Based on employment figures, these regulations arguably affect blacks and Hispanics disproportionately.
If America is really serious about addressing abysmal unemployment rates, federal, state, and local governments would do well to take the handcuffs off of hustlers and free them from the regulations that keep them from creating wealth. In other words, get government out of the way and let the hustlers hustle!
Michael Kinsley has a column up at The Politico in which he claims to debunk a series of Reagan myths. The one that annoys me the most is the one that is obviously and clearly incorrect and at the same time gets the least explanation from Kinsley. Here it is:
6. The Reagan tax cuts paid for themselves because of the Laffer Curve. Please.
With every other “myth” Kinsley takes on, he at least feels the need to explain himself. Not so with the Laffer Curve. I suspect the reason Kinsley doesn’t narrate here is because the slightest bit of examination would reveal that the Laffer Curve is AXIOMATICALLY TRUE.
Too much? No. The Laffer Curve is undeniable. It looks like this:
It is very simple. If you tax at either 0% or 100% you will get nothing because either there is no tax OR the effort of making money is not worth it. You can increase taxes to some optimum point where you will continue to get more revenue up to the point where increased taxation becomes counterproductive because it causes people to reduce their effort. We observed this phenomenon actually occurring in the United States when we had ultra-high marginal tax rates. Various types of earners curtailed their effort once they hit the magic level at which they would begin to pay the highest rates. They preferred to put off additional activity until the next year. Famously, the detective novels about Nero Wolfe mentioned his tendency to take a few months off at the end of the year because of the top rates of taxation.
Because people react rationally to high rates of taxation, you will realize less revenue because of a reduction in taxable activity. What exactly is Kinsley saying “Please.” about? Does he deny that moving from a 70% tax on the highest earners to a rate in the 30′s or high 20′s could lead to increased revenue as top producers expand their efforts and investments AND stop working so hard to conceal money they have made and otherwise evade taxation? At a lower rate, it is obvious that non-compliance becomes a risk much less worth taking.
No, Reagan’s embrace of the Laffer Curve was the most rock-solid common sense. And by the way, look at federal revenues after the tax reduction. Real federal revenues increased quite nicely.
The only way the Laffer Curve would be wrong is if one misinterpreted it, as some do. For example, anyone suggesting you would gain more revenue by reducing a 20% tax rate to 10% is probably wrong. But moving out of the prohibitive zone, which is likely anything over 50%, is a shrewd policy decision.