Manipulating the Traditional Family; P. Leithart

Taxationhaslongbeenrecognizedas apowerful tool for achievingpolitical,economic,and social agendas.Marx and Engels recognizedthe useful nessoftaxationas an instrumentofthe proletarian revolution. In The Communist Manifesto, they summarized Communist theory in the slogan: "Abolition of private property." Since the bour geoissystemofprivatepropertywasthe "finaland mostcompleteexpression"of "the exploitationof the manyby the few," it had to be scrapped,along with the bourgeois family, bourgeois education, and bourgeoisnationalism. The firststep in this demolitionof propertywas to be the rise to power of the proletariat, which would "use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees,allcapitalfromthebourgeoisie,to central izeallinstrumentsofproductionin the handsofthe Mr. Leithart serves aspulpit supply ofthe Reformed Her itage Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Vestavia Hills, Alabama. He is married with five children.

state,Le., of the proletariatorganizedas the ruling class,and to increasethe total of productiveforces as rapidlyas possible,"all of whichwouldinitially require "despoticinroadson the rightsof property andon the conditionsofbourgeoisproduction."To this end, they urged the adoption, among other things,ofprogressivetax rates and the abolitionof inheritance.2 Private property, Marx and Engels recognized,could be undermined by tax policies, and the undermining of private property would servetheir revolutionaryends. Another giant of modern economic theory, John Maynard Keynes, also viewedfiscal policy -taxing andspendingas a toolforlarger,chiefly economic,policygoals.3 Alfred Malabre,Jr., ~um marizesthe Keynesianapproach: Keynesiantheoryurgesthat governmentspend ing be stepped up during recessions,even if an appreciablebudgetdeficithappensto be among the consequencesof suchstimulativemeasures.

A corollaryto this notion is the danger of a so called liquiditytrap, which may develop when moneyis pumpedinto publichandsbut is saved and not spent. As savingspile up, the economy nosesdown on accountof lacklusterspending. The Keynesiansolution,as it has often been appliedby policymakers in postwarAmerican recessions,is for UncleSamto spenduntilbusi ness.recovers. According to this theory, tax reduction tends to stimulate the economy,by leavingmore moneyin the handsof consumers, whiletax increaseswork the oppositeway.4 Keynesiantheory views fiscal policy as a tool to regulateaggregatedemand.5 Supply-sidetheory also emphasizesthe importanceoftaxpolicyin the achievementofeconomic growth.Paul CraigRoberts distinguishesbetween Keynesian theory, which seeks to "manage de mand" throughtax policy,and supply-sidetheory, which focuses on the incentivesproduced by tax cuts. Supply-sidetheory,Roberts argues,pays no attention, as Keynesiantheory does, to aggregate demand.Accordingto supply-sidetheory,tax cuts stimulatethe economybecausetheymakesavings, investment,and work more profitable,regardless of aggregatedemand.6 Despite these differences, it is still true that Keynesian and supply-side theory both see tax policy as an instrument for the advancement of larger economic goals. The Keynesianuses fiscal policyto regulate demand, while the supply-sideruses tax policyto stimulate economicgrowth.

Finally,tax policyis seen by many as a tool for achievinga more "democratic"egalitariandistri butionofwealth.By taxingthe richat confiscatory rates, and redistributing the money to those de fined as "poor" (and to the bureaucrats who run Federal programs),the federal governmentseeks to equalizewealth.Herbert Schlossberghasargued that thisform of egalitarianismis rooted in envy: It has been a commonassertionthat envyis fos tered by inequalityand can be ended by equali tarian redistribution. British economist E. J. Mishanbelievesthat feelingsofdeprivationthat cause envy will be eliminatedin the processof equalization, and that the progressiveincome tax is the best way to accomplish that task. "Ideally... the taxshouldsufficeto coverallthe initial and subsequent claims necessaryto pla cate everybodyin the lower-incomegroups,and the stronger is this envy of others, the heavier must be the tax."7 Somefeministshavefound in tax policya pow erful tool for achievingtheir socialagenda.In the United States, tax policiestend to force families into a more egalitarianmold,evenwhenthe fami lies don't acceptfeministideology.George Gilder has written: The United Statesis enactingmanyof the poli cies that brought sexual suicide to Sweden.

Despite the defeatof the Equal RightsAmend ment and universalday care, the feministsare gainingtheir ends piecemeal.In particular,the declinein the value of the child deduction has 377 shifted the tax burden massivelyonto families with children.Throughcourt decisionsin favor ofcomparableworth,throughthe infiltrationof the schools by feminist texts and teachers, through the day-caretax creditsand other sub sidiesfor the two-earnerfamily,and throughthe rapiderosionofthe jointincome-taxreturn and the housewife'srightto socialsecurity,feminists are winning quietly by legal and legislative actionwhatthey cannotwin in referenda.8 ShouldTax Law Be Changed? Faced with these facts,some conservativewrit ers are advocatingchangesin tax law that would encouragetraditional family structures and large families.9 Allan Carlson, a pro-familyconserva tive, proposes "a somewhatprogressiveincome tax structure that recognizes and supports mar riage." Specifically,"the tax system should give strong preference to children as national trea sures." To this end, "Congressshould:(1) double the personal exemption, for children only, from the current $2,000to $4,000per child; (2) expand child-caretax creditinto a universalcreditset at a fixed amount of $750 per child, available to all familieswith a preschoolchild... ; and (3) create an additional universal Dependent-Child Tax Credit of $600 per child."10 These incentives would encourage larger families,without forcing mothersto choosebetweenfamilyand career.

Demographer Ben Wattenbergalso advocates changes in tax policies that would encourage larger families. The federal government should not only encourage large families, but should encourage women to stay home with their chil dren. How? "Givethem money.Lotsofit,in order to at least partlycompensatefor lost earnings."11 A differentargumentfor pro-familytaxpolicies is offered by Bryce Christensen, writing in the RockfordInstitute'sFamilyin Americanewsletter, who observesthat traditional,two-parentfamilies are statisticallyhealthierthan broken families.It is unjust, therefore, for intact families to carry so heavy a burden for health care. Governments "must either imposevaluesor imposecosts,"and public policy ought to strengthen, rather than weaken,the family. Christensenmaintains:"Gov ernment affirmationsof marriage and legitimacy mightmarginallyrestrictthe freedomofsome,but government indifference to these standards will 378 THE FREEMAN • OCTOBER 1990 mean economic injustice for all those who safe~ guard their health by making the personal sacri fices that family life requires."

In other words, these writers urge the use of tax policies to achieve anti-feminist goals. In my judg ment, the goals of these policies are laudable,12 and these proposals are preferable to current poli cies. But what about the means of achieving these goals? As a Christian, I would ask the further ques tion of whether such policies are consistent with a Christian view of the role of civil government. Definingthe Role of CivilGovernment This question requires an examination of sever al related issues. First, what is the function of civil government? Romans 13:1-7 is the classic scrip tural text on the role of the civil ruler. According to Paul, the main function of the ruler is to execute God's vengeance, that is, to punish wrongdoing and to "praise" those who do right. On the other hand, Scripture strongly condemns rulers who claim absolute sovereignty over their subjects. Nebuchadnezzar was reduced to a beast because of his arrogance (Daniel 4:28-37).Under God, the civilruler has a legitimate and positive role to play in a free society, but he is not called to control the lives of law-abiding citizens.

Second, what is the nature of the family? Taking a biblical approach, we discover that in the New Testament, the Christian Church is the Christian's true family, and his commitment to the Church is more absolute than his commitment to his blood family. Jesus said in the strongest terms that we must break our ties to our blood relatives if they conflict with our loyalty to Him and to His people (Luke 14:26).Loyalty to the blood family is not absolute. Promotion of the blood familyis less cru cial than the pro-family conservative maintains. This is not to say that the family is unimportant, or that we should neglect the family.Rather, it is sim ply to say that the Church is more important. 13 Further, it is clear that a person can be healthy and can make contributions to society even if he has no family. From a Christian perspective, we could note that Jesus was the perfectly healthy Man, and never married. Paul never married. The New Testament clearly presents marriage as a call ing.(I Corinthians 7). It is suitable for some, but unsuitable, for various reasons, for others. Family, like marriage, is a calling. Some men are called to be husbands and fathers; some are not. Some women are called to be wives and mothers; some are not. Even some married couples might not be called to become parents. Men and women are normally intended to live in families, yet men and women can live healthy lives and promote the good of others without either marrying or bearing children. Though the Bible does envision strong families, it does not view the family as a salvific institution, as some conservative writers tend to do. Leaving aside for the moment the theological and biblical arguments, it is still the case that there are many single persons who make substantial contributions to the good of society.

Once we qualify the importance of the family, we are forced to the conclusion that promoting the family ought not to be the supreme test of the rightness of a public policy.Adherence to or con sistency with norms of justice is our standard. Faithand Economics All of this suggests that the tax policies of a civil government should not seek to manipulate people into commitments to which they are not called, or penalize them for failing to adhere to the social goals of the rulers. Christensen admits that his recommendations involve "marginal" restrictions of freedom for single men and women. But why should men and women who have been called to singlehood have their freedom restricted in any way? More basically, Christensen's analysis tends to assume that people remain single for selfish rea sons, because they do not want to make the sacri fice. But this is not true in every case. Even if it were true in the majority of cases-an unprovable assumption-tax policy would not solve the basic problem, which has more to do with faith and com mitment than with economics.

Having outlined some biblical principles of both family and civil government, we can raise a more precise question: What role is the magistrate to play in the family? The one specific biblical war rant for intervention in the family by civil judges -Le., the punishment of incorrigible juveniles -involves capital punishment of a criminal (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).There is no specific bib lical warrant for other kinds of state intervention, though it is possible to extrapolate from this case law to other criminal cases. But one cannot infer MANIPULATING THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY 379 from this passagea generalwarrant for civilover sightoffamilylife.As a generalprinciple,interfer encewithfamilylifebycivilofficialsshouldbe lim ited to punishmentof criminals. Thisconclusionis alsosupported by a consider ation of the questionof property rights.When tax laws promote certain uses of money or certain forms of conduct, the framers of those laws are implicitlyclaimingthat they knowbest how a per son's wealth should be spent, how many children he shouldhave,and whether his wifeshouldwork.

The issuehere is, who has the right to make deci sionsabout the use of property or the structure of family life? Does the civil ruler have the right to erect obstaclesin the way of certainperfectlylegal behavior, or to clear the path for alternative, equallylegal behavior? More bluntly (if less pre cisely), the question is, who is the steward of wealth and property, the civil magistrate or the familyand individual?Whois the head of the fam ily, God or Caesar? Through their tax regulations and policies, Congressand the IRS implicitlyclaimthe right to determinehowresourcesare bestused;theyclaim, in short, a rightof ownership.In a free society,the choice of whether to borrow or save and invest would be left to the individual and family. Deci sions about family size and structure would be madeby the family,withoutthe added pressuresof tax policy.It is not the civilgovernment'splace to encourageone result or the other.

Of course,Christensenis correct that tax policy is not neutral in relation to the family. It is either pro-or anti-family.But there is more than one way for taxation to be pro-family.Freeing the family from manipulativetaxationis just as pro-familyas subtle changesin tax law. Usingthe tax systemto adjust economicand socialconductpoliticizesthe wholeofsociety,andis inherently,ifonlyimplicitly, totalitarian,14 D 1. CarolynWebberand Aaron Wildavsky,A Historyof Taxation and Expenditurein the WesternWorld(NewYork:Simonand Schus ter, 1984),p. 603. 2. KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,The CommunistManifesto,in Marx and Engels: Basic Writingson Politicsand Philosophy, ed. LewisS. Feuer (Garden City,N.Y.: Anchor Books,1959),pp. 20-29. 3. On the Christian employment of Keynesian theory, see Ian Hodge,BaptizedInflation:A Critiqueof "Christian"Keynesianism (lYler,Texas:Institutefor ChristianEconomics,1986).

4. Alfred L. Malabre, Jr., Beyond Our Means: How Reckless BorrowingNow Threatensto Overwhelm Us (New York: Vintage Books,[1987]1988),p. 69. 5. EvenMikhailGorbachevhas beguntoemploydeficitspending in an effort to stimulate the Soviet economy.See Richard Parker, "Gorbanomics,"The New Republic(February27,1989),pp. 18-20. 6. Paul Craig Roberts, '''Supply-Side' Economics:Theory and Results," The PublicInterest(Fall 1988),pp. 16-36. Opponents of supply-side economics see the "Reagan recovery" as a classic Keynesianrecovery,stimulatedby Federal spending,huge deficits, and tax reductions. 7. Herbert Schlossberg,Idols for Destruction:ChristianFaith and Its Confrontationwith American Society (Nashville:Thomas Nelson,1983),p.103.The quotationfrom Mishanis from "A Survey of WelfareEconomics,1939-1959,"The EconomicJournal (June 1960),pp. 247-48. 8. George Gilder,Men and Marriage(Gretna, La.: PelicanPub lishing,1986),p. 153.

9. The practiceof usingtaxationto protect the familyis ancient. JamesCoffielddescribesthe "pro-family"inheritancetax of Augus tus: "Augustuslegislatedagainstcelibacy,rewardingfathersof fam ilies and inflictingcertain disabilitieson celibatesand married men withoutchildren.For example,unmarriedmen couldnottake inher itancesor legacies,exceptfrom the nearest relatives;while ma~ried men who were childlesscouldtake only halfthe amount."(A Pop ularHistoryof Taxation[London:Longmans,1970],p. 25) 10. Allan Carlson, "A Pro-Family Income Tax," The Public Interest(Winter1989),pp. 75-76.On PresidentBush'sproposalof a universalchildcredit,see "Them's theBreaks," The New Republic (February27, 1989),pp. 7-8. The New Republiceditors laud Bush's proposalas "an interestingsynthesis-liberal in its attention to the needsofpoor people,andconservativein its avoidanceof 'anti-fam ily' incentivesfor usingday-carecenters.Whereasthe [Democratic] Act for Better ChildCare wouldreimburseonlypaymentsmade to government-certifiedday-careproviders,the Bush proposalwould leave parents free to send their child to the next-doorneighbor,to grandma's,or to an inlaw's."In fact, the editors rightlycharacterize the proposalas "reallyjust an incomesupplementfor poor working familieswithchildren."

11. Ben Wattenberg, The Birth Dearth:What Happens When Peoplein Free CountriesDon't Have Enough Babies? (New York: Pharos Books, 1987),pp. 150-51.Wattenberg'ssubtitle reveals his preoccupationwiththe foreignpolicyimplicationsoflow birthrates. 12. I considerthe Familyin Americanewsletterone of the most helpfulpublicationsavailable.I havelearneda greatdealfrom read ing the essays printed there, and my challengeat this point should not be construedas an attackon the institutionor its publicationsas a whole. 13. Contemporaryeffortsto supportthe traditionalfamilyby tax policiesbear strikingsimilaritiesto the practiceof medievalgovern mentsof givingaid and protectionto the Church. 14. Incredibly, Ben Wattenberg suggests Eastern European Communistnations as models for pro-natalist tax policies:giving money to parents who have children "is an important part of the solutionthat has worked at least for a decade or so withthose dear Communist governments in Eastern Europe." See The Birth Dearth,p. 150;also pp. 141-44.On pp. 143-44,Wattenbergsays,"if we were to follow the workable and decent parts of the Eastern European model, and adapt them to free circumstances,we are talking about using enormous resources." Eastern European nations provide not only cash grants to parents, but "day care, scholarships,maternal leave, [and] housing allowances."(p. 142) Clearly,Wattenbergis no fellowtraveler,and I am far from saying that pro-natalistpoliciesare wrong becauseEasternEuropean nations employ them. My argument is rather that the Eastern European model cannot be "adapt[ed] to free circumstances"

becausethismodelassumesan enslavedpopulace,whoseentire life is centrallydirected.