Are Supply-Side Economics (I.e., the 2017 Tax Plan) Christian? I Don't See It.

I have a real problem with supply-side economics—which is the underlying theory behind the Republicans’ new tax plan.  As a Christian, I have to follow the biblical guidance that God expects us to show a first concern for the poor, the least and the last (examples: Micah 6:8, James 1:27, James 2:15-16, 1 John 3:17-18, Luke 3:10-11).  I just don’t see it with supply-side economics.

I know that my point of view is not that of all Christians.  Supply-side Christians believe that the best way to help the poor, the least and the last is by providing a strong economy and a healthy society for them to live in.  This, they believe, allows each of us to provide for ourselves.  A strong economy also helps with better human relationships, which are necessary for health, and which can help cover gaps in the system.  With this in mind, supply-siders believe that making it easiest for businesses and owners of capital (through low taxes and low regulation), will allow them to do what they want to do: invest and operate more freely for innovation and growth.  This, they believe, is the formula for a strong economy and a healthy society.

They also have a developed doctrine of personal sin.  They believe that people are all affected by sin, and therefore need regulating.  People from this mindset often are concerned about aberrant behavior, which they normally define by hot button issues--issues like abortion, same-sex behaviors, welfare freeloaders, illegal drug users and proliferators, and untrustworthy immigrants. 

Yet, supply-side Christians confuse me with their doctrine of sin as it relates to society or corporations.  For instance racism, sexism and other sinful patterns embedded in the culture receive less attention, and sometimes are only winked at.  The idea that we can entrust wealthy corporations, or wealthy managers with free-reign over business practices, while fearing individual freedom, seems strange (hypocritical?) to my Christian ears.  Isn’t greed just as much a sin as lust?  Where is the outrage at large corporations and the super wealthy, who poor millions of dollars (or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions) into buying elections, lobbying congress for their versions of laws, and paying for climate deniers and other pro-business movements in society. 

The supply-side economics we see in the current Republican tax plan therefore seems exactly backward.  Christian principles would ask us to begin our policies by hearing from the poor, the weak and the last, and focusing on their needs.  The current plan does the opposite.  The current plan listens to moneyed lobbyists, and therefore begins with the desires of corporations and of the most-wealthy.  This plan makes the corporations and the wealthy the big winners.

We therefore have to ask: Besides Democrats, who are the losers from this tax plan?  It is an important question for Christians.  A budget is always a moral document, because it lines up resources to accomplish goals shaped by our values.  So, let me outline what I see at this point:

Who are the losers (besides the Democrats)?

1.     The sick
(and anyone interested in health insurance)

a.     13 million people are projected to lose health insurance, many the most-healthy young people. 

b.     Many of the poorest people will suffer poorer health, due to poorer, or delayed-and-therefore-poorer, care without insurance.

c.     Medical facilities are still bound to care for people with acute health needs, often through emergency room visits.  The costs for these patients must be borne by those who can pay.  Insurance premiums are projected to spike.

2.     The poor

a.     Besides health care,

b.     Most other groups get a tax cut, meaning they have more disposable income.  But not the poor; the poor (earning less than $30,000/year) are not paying taxes now.  The poor will therefore be poorer yet, relative to others, increasing the rich/poor divide.

c.     The effects on the economy may affect the poor, too.  The nation is currently near full employment.  This means wages will go up as businesses compete for labor in a tight labor market.  Economists are therefore warning against a major jump in inflation, which would cause the FED to raise interest rates. 

                                      i.     This will make credit cards more expensive, affecting the poor disproportionately, and

                                    ii.     Buying cars (to get to work) and other large ticket items, fall out of reach for more Americans.

                                   iii.     The Republicans have been resistant to raising minimum wages, which would likely mean an even greater increase in the rich/poor gap.

d.     And...How does any reasonable person think a significant increase in demand for labor will affect illegal immigration?

3.     College students
(Possibly: depending on the Resolution Committee)

a.     The House version of the bill taxes college students for the value of any tuition or fees that are waived to get them into college.  This means high achieving students, who get scholarships, or waivers of fees, will have to count the waiver of fees as a financial gift.  They will therefore have to pay taxes on it, even though they never received any cash at all with which to pay the taxes.

b.     This provision is estimated to cost students $64 billion over 10 years.  I have not seen estimates on what it will cost the nation in terms of fewer high achieving college graduates entering the work force.

4.     Future generations
(And anyone who cares about debt)

a.     Actually, history shows that supply-side economic policies have, indeed, grown the economy after tax cuts.  However, they generally grow the economy enough to recoup only about 1/3 of the amount of tax revenue lost through the cuts. 

b.     This is why the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee tasked with calculating the effects of tax legislation, estimates that only $408 billion of the $1.47 trillion loss of tax revenue will be recovered in the next 10 years.  Adding $1 trillion more to our debt should be a real concern.

c.     I believe debt is a concern because, like other economic and social realities, it works like a bubble that can expand, and then pop—leaving us with large consequences.  Those consequences will set the path ahead, which will be a path on which it is much more difficult to care for those with burning needs.

5.     The elderly
(and anyone, who expects to retire)

a.     The AARP estimates that in 2019 1.2 million senior citizens will experience tax increases, due to provisions (like the loss of key deductions) that especially impact the elderly.  By 2027 they estimate it will be 5.2 million senior citizens paying higher taxes.

b.     If the Joint Committee on Taxation is correct, the increase in deficits will trigger action from other federal laws, that requires automatic budget reductions in the face of accelerating deficits.  This will include all social programs 

c.     For retirees, this will specifically require cuts to Social Security and Medicare.  For others, the Prevention and Public Health Fund, might be eliminated.  This fund provides 12% of the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

-->

The new tax plan has been shaped by the values and theory behind supply-side economics. But why?  Why would we penalize the ones, who can bare it the least?  Why would we penalize the poor, the sick, the very young, or the very old?  Why would we burden future generations with debt they may not be able to pay?  Why would we reward most, those who need it the least?  As a Christian, I just don’t get it.