WASHINGTON (ABP) — With House Democrats winding down their “First 100 Hours” legislative agenda and the Senate taking up many of the measures, moderate and conservative Christian ethicists agree the proposals raise moral and ethical issues far beyond the fates of embryos.
The chamber took up the last piece of the six-point agenda — ending federal subsidies for the oil industry — Jan. 18, just days after expanding federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
The research has proven controversial, pitting religious conservatives who believe it is tantamount to abortion against scientists who believe it holds the strongest current promise for curing many terminal diseases.
But economic aspects of the agenda raise important questions for Christians as well, according to Suzii Paynter of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission and Jerry Zandstra of the Michigan-based Acton Institute.
As Democrats took control of the chamber for the first time in 14 years, their first order of business after passing congressional ethics legislation and implementing national-security reforms was to increase the federal minimum wage. The boost will take the lowest hourly wage from $5.15 to $7.25. It is the first minimum-wage hike in 10 years.
Paynter, executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas' public-policy arm, said the hike was “long overdue for families that are subsisting — especially when we have such a large portion of our single-parent families that are functioning at the threshold of poverty in our country.”
While many Republicans in the House supported the bill, the chamber's previous GOP leadership had stymied other attempts at wage hikes. In lieu of a federal increase, several states in recent years have boosted their minimum-wage laws.
Although most of those states have not seen significant increases in unemployment as a result, conservatives have continued to argue that any mandated wage increase on the federal level will hurt the very people it is designed to help.
“There is a biblical concern for the poor. The question is: who's responsible for that?” said Zandstra, who is a senior fellow at the Grand Rapids, Mich., think-tank, a former Republican candidate for the Senate and a minister in the Christian Reformed Church. “Is this is primarily politically driven or is it economically driven? And the economics of increasing the minimum wage just don't make sense.”
The Acton Institute advocates free-market views of economics in a Christian context. Like many conservative economists, Zandstra said mandating a nationwide increase in the minimum wage will increase unemployment for the lowest-wage jobs. Most small employers, he noted, have a finite amount of money to spend on entry-level workers. If they have to pay each worker more, then many of them will reduce the number of positions at that wage level.
“When you raise the minimum wage, every point you raise the minimum wage by, every dollar you raise the minimum wage by, you actually raise unemployment among the poorest people you're trying to help,” he said.
Many moderate and liberal economists dispute that assertion, claiming the benefit to low-wage workers generally outweighs the marginal increase in unemployment.
Zandstra made a similar argument regarding another part of the “First 100 Hours” agenda: Reducing prescription-drug costs by increasing Medicare's ability to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.
'You're going to have to sell most of your drugs to the government, which is going to force a price control on you,” he said. “Is it a good goal to have lower drug prices for our government? Sure. Is it a social good on the moral scale to try to make drug prices lower? Sure. But if, in doing so, you dry up research and development dollars so you aren't developing drugs to treat cancer and Alzheimer's and other diseases — if you take the profit motivation away — have you done good? No, you really haven't.”
Zandstra pointed to Canada, where government-mandated costs for prescription drugs have reduced prices but led to a virtually static domestic drug-production industry. Without the prospect of large profits, he said, pharmaceutical firms will be less likely to invest money in innovation and research — meaning fewer new drugs to treat diseases.
But Paynter said pharmaceutical firms have room for more negotiation on prices without unduly harming their research budgets. The law had previously severely limited Medicare's ability to negotiate drug prices, she noted.
“When we create a law that impacts such a large portion of the American population and we limit negotiations on that, maybe the outcome would be just the same, but the perception is that there hasn't been a fair ability to get the lowest cost for the most number of people,” Paynter said.
“So I think that, for most people, their sense of fairness [questions whether] the law is really negotiating on behalf of the consumer. That point of view prevails when we have stronger language in the bill for negotiation. And I think it gives people confidence that the government is working on behalf of the consumer rather than working on behalf of a drug company.”
On the final part of the “100 Hours” agenda — which the House took up Jan. 18 — Zandstra and Paynter shared some agreement. Curbing federal tax incentives and subsidies for oil companies was a step in the right direction, both said.
“I have a really hard time seeing how oil needs subsidies. In a sense, the federal government got involved and skewed the market already,” Zandstra said.
Paynter agreed. “I think that, clearly, reducing our dependence on oil, increasing conservation, diversifying our fuels — all those things are our responsibility to our future and to future generations.”
However, Zandstra was wary of the other half of the petroleum-industry part of the “100 Hours” agenda: Increasing government incentives to find alternative energy sources.
“Now the problem is, we're not going to end subsidies — we're shifting subsidies,” he said. “If they said we're going to get out of the energy business and just let the market work, then great. But they're not.”
He said encouraging further research into alternative fuels such as ethanol, for instance, could have unintended consequences for agriculture — causing increases in the price for certain crops, for instance. That, in turn, would increase costs for food staples, disproportionately hurting the poorest consumers.
But Paynter said the risks associated with continued national dependence on petroleum are so great that they require some government intervention.
“Having a planned way of going forward, marshaling the resources of large companies and research to do that kind of exploration and diversification — it just seems like common sense for our future,” she said.
Paynter said one of the most encouraging things about the “First 100 Hours” agenda is the broad bipartisan support for much of it. That, in itself, points to a kind of ethical improvement long needed in Washington, she said.
“One of the things [the Democrats] are shooting for is not something punitive toward the other party, but they're trying to pass some things that have bipartisan support right now,” Paynter said.
Zandstra was more skeptical, noting that many of the Democrats and Republicans who voted for some of these measures knew they would be politically beneficial in the short term but could create significant long-term problems for the most vulnerable Americans.
“Is the federal government the right place to do that?” he asked. “Or does this end up looking like political pandering?”
Paynter conceded it will be difficult for Democratic leaders to carry on beyond such consensus issues in the same bipartisan manner. But she said she hopes non-partisan voices continue to contribute to policy-making.
“I do think that the country as a whole is wanting a different kind of resolution from our elected officials. They want results,” she said. “And I basically feel like the country will get results if you listen to different voices and work together.”
She continued: “I don't know, though — it remains to be seen. Power is a very intoxicating beverage.”
The minimum-wage bill is H.R. The prescription-drug bill is H.R. 4. The oil-industry bill is H.R. 6.
-30-