Big corporations have been stockpiling cash rather than investing in expansions to their operations for years, but a report Thursday indicates that recovery-bridling behavior is worsening in 2013. Cash hoarding sped up in the first quarter of the year, and American companies are now holding a record $1.73 trillion on the sidelines. According to Bloomberg, the turnaround in corporate investment attitudes owes largely to political instability and congressionally-inflicted economic wounds. Businesses were slowing their cash buildup, but “That changed in last year’s second half, with the U.S. presidential election under way and Congress struggling to reach a compromise on the federal debt as automatic budget cuts loomed.”

Rather than encouraging greater private-sector spending, which Republicans insist is the natural consequence of cutting government spending, the shift to austerity in the U.S. has companies sitting on their hands. That slowdown in corporate investment could lock the economy into below-average growth, Bloomberg adds. In other words, corporate hoarding is both a symptom of shaky economic growth and a contributing factor to it.

As corporate America withholds investment, it’s also achieving record profits, paying record CEO salaries, shrinking the portion of the pie that goes to workers, and sending rock-bottom amounts to the Treasury in taxes. This chart from The Economist shows that while profits have vaulted back above their pre-recession highs, corporate tax payments haven’t:

There is some international momentum for revising the corporate tax code. But with conservatives continuing to demand further cuts in the United States, and European leaders unwilling to enact stimulus even as they acknowledge the failure of austerity, western policymakers do not seem prepared to take all the steps that corporate America’s actions suggest are necessary.

As the House Agriculture Committee convened earlier this week to discuss whether or not to cut as much as $4.1 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), the conversation between lawmakers devolved into an exchange that was equal parts bad policy and bad theology.

As House members discussed slashing the budget for the Farm Bill, which funds SNAP, Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN) took issue with some Democrats who cited Jesus Christ’s call to care for “the least of these” when describing the government’s need to assist the hungry. Instead, Fincher explained that his support for the proposed cuts by quoting a very different Bible verse – 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.”

But while the use of 2 Thessalonians is a convenient tool for those who want to justify ignoring the poor, Fincher’s lukewarm Biblical argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. As many religious bloggers have already pointed out, the author of 2 Thessalonians was actually referring to ancient Christians who had stopped working in anticipation of Jesus’ Second Coming. The verse is concerned with correcting a theological misunderstanding (i.e., don’t just wait around for Jesus, live an active faith), not passing judgement on the poor.

Worse still, Fincher’s use of the Bible to defend the slashing of food stamps isn’t just bad theology, it’s also bad policy.

Undergirding Fincher’s sloppy exegesis is an old conservative fiction that people who rely on food stamps are lazy parasites who mooch off the government and refuse to work. In reality, most of the country’s 47 million food stamp recipients are children or the elderly, and many are employed. A 2012 report from the USDA found that 45 percent of SNAP recipients were under 18 years of age, nearly 9 percent were age 60 or older, and more than 40 percent lived in households with earnings.

Fincher’s misguided Bible-thumping ignores the plight of America’s 8.9 million “working poor.” This massive group includes the thousands of participants from the recent fast food and retail workers strikes, people who, despite working full-time 40 hours a week for booming industries, often only make around $7.25 an hour, or $15,000 a year. That’s far below the federal poverty threshold of $23,550 for a family of four and leaves many working families with no choice but to apply for food stamps just to feed their loved ones. The strikers, who are consistently backed by droves of religious leaders, are clearly willing to work, yet lawmakers like Fincher (who made his millions with the help of government farm subsidies) stand poised to deny them access to the food they need by decimating funding for SNAP.

Fincher’s misuse of scripture is also a slight to disabled Americans who rely on SNAP to stay afloat. Americans with disabilities, many of whom are elderly or military veterans, are burdened with any number of maladies that make full-time work difficult, if not impossible. Far from encouraging freeloading behavior, food stamps and programs like Meals on Wheels help us honor our national commitment — and, for many Americans, a religious duty — to assist our fellow citizens when they need us most.

Fincher is free to draw his own conclusions about the Bible and its teachings. But using scripture to accuse millions of Americans of being lazy freeloaders is not only spiritually bankrupt, it’s also politically stupid. SNAP and other programs that help the poor still face the potential for massive cuts as versions of the Farm Bill move through Congress in the coming weeks, but millions of struggling Americans are hoping that elected officials will spend less time concocting dehumanizing theology and more time creating policies that grant much-needed assistance to our country’s most vulnerable.

Our guest blogger is Jack Jenkins, a Senior Writer and Researcher with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative.

Photo via the AP

The report found that building owner Sohel Rana had permission to build a six-story structure and added two floors illegally so he could rent them out to garment factories. Past statements from authorities said the owner had permission for a five-story structure and added three floors illegally.

The report also said the building was not built for industrial use and the weight of the heavy garment factory machinery and their vibrations contributed to the building collapse. Those factors had previously been cited.

The ground on which the building was built was not fit for a multi-story building, the report said.

The investigation committee has recommended that Rana and the owners of the factories be sentenced to life in jail if they are found guilty.

There are more signs of shoddy construction in other Bangladesh factories, though. Cracks were spotted on the walls of another factory in Gazipur, near Dhaka, that is still operating and making clothing, including Wrangler shirts, for North Carolina-based Liz Apparels. Walmart has stopped using the factory because it is on the company’s “red” list after its own audit found cracks. Inspectors for Inditex, owner of Zara, also saw cracks, and Reuters Television found a vertical crack running up a wall that appeared to have been recently plastered over.

Even in the face of these concerns, some major American companies have continued their opposition to signing a broad safety agreement that would upgrade Bangladesh facilities and was signed by six large European retailers. When some shareholders questioned Gap’s refusal at its recent annual meeting, CEO Glenn Murphy voiced his concerns: “In the United States, there’s maybe a bigger legal risk than there is in Europe.” While the company is still in support of a global agreement in theory, the current one does not “make sense” for the company, he said.

Walmart and Target have also declined to sign the agreement, citing similar concerns. American companies Abercrombie & Fitch and PVH, owner of Calvin Klein, Izod, and Tommy Hilfiger have signed on.

While cost has also been raised as a concern for both companies and consumers, upgrades to Bangladesh’s factories could cost consumers as little as 10 cents per garment if all of the costs were passed on.