I feel like we can still vote with our own values, there isn't this dividing line when it comes to what we deem to be right and what we deem to be wrong that doesn't apply to the way we vote. Like, the Bible is very clear we should care for the poor, so I will vote for the party that prioritizes that the most.
I agree that helping the poor is an important value, but discernment is needed regarding how to do that. Jesus once stated that “the poor you will always have with you” (MT 26:11). However, He also taught us to “give to the poor” (MT 19:21). These verses suggest that
we should do our best to alleviate, if not completely eliminate, the problems related to poverty.
We know that “You shall not steal” (EX 20:15) is the eighth of the Ten Commandments (TOJ #110). Yet, implicit in the command of Jesus is that if the rich share their wealth by not exploiting workers or stealing in the form of maximizing their profits by paying workers as little as possible, then people will not need to steal in order to survive.
The apostle Paul synthesized these two commands in Ephesians 4:28, saying: “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.” Another command (in 2THS 3:10) states: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” Paul also states (in 1TM 5:8): “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” And again, he wrote: “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.” (2CR 8:13)
Equality does not require uniformity or conformity or a communist system, which results in a smaller pie to share/equal poverty except for the rulers, but rather that every person should have an equal opportunity to earn a living.
Sewing these verses together with spiritual thread, we can discern that the will of God is for people who are able to work to seek employment, so that earning a fair wage will provide at least the basic necessities plus something (a tithe or tenth per Malachi 3:8-10) left over for charity.
Full employment at a livable wage is a wonderful goal; the problem is how to achieve it. On one side of the debate are those who seem to believe that government can solve the problem of poverty by giving people welfare in one form or another. On the other side of the issue are those who stress that every able-bodied adult should work and support themselves without charity (sometimes called workfare). The “welfarists” criticize the “workfarists” for an apparent lack of sympathy for the poor, while the “workfarists” say the “welfarists” create permanent dependency by the poor. The area of agreement by both sides surely includes the fact that people sometimes experience financial misfortunes beyond their control and need help. Perhaps most people would agree that the need for help often exceeds the capabilities of many families and private agencies, so there is a need for government to do something, but
what should wise governments do to encourage industry and discourage laziness?
It seems reasonable that governments should encourage employers to pay workers a wage that will provide at least a subsistence level of living (including food, clothes and shelter) plus ten percent (a “tithe”) for a family of four people. Parents should not procreate more children than they can afford to support,. although promoting a replacement birth rate seems desirable. It also seems reasonable for a typical work week to be no more than six days (then a “Sabbath”), and for a typical work day to be no more than ten hours (although MT 20:1-8 speaks of sunrise to sunset), so that workers have enough time to rest and be with their families.
My idea about how governments might help people find jobs utilizes the concept of indentured employment is as follows. Every county seat and large town would have a job assistance office, and all of these would be connected by a nationwide computer system. People could apply for a job anywhere in the country, and the federal government and hiring business would split the costs of relocation and training for those below a qualifying amount of assets. In return the employee would have to commit to some minimum time of employment (similar to the contract rules of the National Football League).
During the term of the contract, the employee’s tithe (the amount of the minimum wage that is above subsistence level) would be garnisheed until the hiring costs were reimbursed up to some limit that corresponded to the length of the contract. (Assuming a minimum wage of $5 per hour for 10 hours per day for six days per week, the subsistence level income would be $300 per week or $15,600 per year plus ten percent. If the cost of hiring were $500, the maximum indentured term would be about 3.2 years at the rate of the garnisheed tithe of $156 per year.)
The federal government would insure the contract and reimburse employers if an indentured employee wanted to quit before the costs associated with their hiring were recouped.
Quitters would not be eligible for welfare; they would have to accept another job, unless they could support themselves some other legal way. (Of course, those who resorted to crime in order to make a living would be punished with a just penalty.) The amount of hiring costs owed from their previous job would be added to the new contract.
Ideally, this program would be self-supporting, but it may need to be subsidized by the federal budget, so that the minimum wage and cost of living would be equivalent for everyone in the country. Surely the cost of helping people become productive workers should be much less than that of adequate welfare. This program would only guarantee job opportunities for legal citizen independent adults. It would provide tax incentives that reward companies who have profit-sharing (and loss-sharing for CEOs), healthcare, retirement plans, and other benefits such as those mentioned previously.
1
