How we Reduce the Deficit is a Moral Issue
“You don’t know what you have here in America, you know?” said the cabby who drove me home from the airport. When his father died in Ethiopia, he had to drop out of his American university where he was studying computer engineering to start driving cabs to support his family back in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has no social safety net.
“In America,” said my cab driver, “you have services and programs that help keep families together in hard times.” He hasn’t seen his family in nine years. His cab-drivers’ salary is hardly enough to pay for a plane ticket to Ethiopia. Besides, if he takes time off, that would be less food, education, and possible eviction for his mother, brothers and sisters.
While it is true that America has a social safety net, it is weaker than it was just forty years ago and it’s come under more intense attack in recent years. The deficit is the justification for shredding the net now. And extremists are pushing the party that claims a lock on “family values” to nullify the programs that protect at-risk American families from slipping into poverty.
In the name of “fiscal responsibility,” the Tea-Party led House GOP passed H.R. 1956, a bill that takes cash from the hands of America’s poorest working families in order to protect the richest of the rich. HB 1956 requires workers to present a Social Security Number rather than an IRS issued Individual Tax Identification Number to claim the child tax credit. Seems simple enough, but the bill is crafted to target working immigrant families the hardest, even if they are legal residents or have children that are American citizens. The GOP called this a compromise. H.R. 1956 is what they offered in return for the extension of the Payroll Tax cut. Congress could have paid for that extension by ending the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which were set to expire on January 1, 2012. But the GOP said absolutely not. Instead, they crafted H.R. 1956.
Think about that. The House GOP took cash from the hands of poor children to prioritize tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And now the bill is being considered by the Senate.
According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Bush-era tax cuts will be the single largest contributor to America’s long-term debt within seven years. When we add the residual costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, together these two expenses will account for half of the entire U.S. Public Debt (measured as a share of the economy). Check out this graphic.
In a recent emailed statement Ellen Nissenbaum, senior vice president of government affairs for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, stated: “In both a legislative and political context, the threats are growing to the core safety net programs that are the most essential to reducing poverty and helping vulnerable families.” Nissenbaum added, “Attacks on SNAP, the refundable tax credits for working families, Medicaid and even on Unemployment Insurance, which obviously is not limited to low-income workers, are growing in the campaign airwaves.” Roadside campaign rhetoric cultivates the climate for post campaign policy-making. If this rhetoric was actual policy at the time of the economic downturn, then millions more people would have fallen into poverty without a safety net in 2010.
We know how to balance the deficit without threatening the lives and livelihoods of poor people and without making middle class and working people more vulnerable to poverty in hard times.
- If we ended the Bush-era tax cuts we would cut the long-term deficit by one third over the next seven years.
- One of the greatest contributors to the deficit is escalating health care costs and their drain on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The solution is not to cut aid to hurting people. It is to cut costs. The chief recommendation of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in a 2010 report was the addition of a “Public Plan” to Insurance Exchanges to drive down the cost of health care.
- Protection of programs like SNAP/Food Stamps not only protected 2% of the population from falling into poverty in 2010, this program and other safety net programs like it serve as great boosts to depressed economies. Money flows directly from the hands of recipients and into local super markets, farmers’ markets, and convenience stores.
- Continue the present administration’s moves to make the military more efficient, nimble, and cost effective.
Budgets are moral documents and how we reduce the deficit is a moral issue.
Nowhere in scripture do we see an example of God instituting or approving policies that snatch money from the hands of poor people to protect the wealthiest individuals and businesses—nowhere. Rather, we see God’s establishment of the Sabbath, the Sabbatical Year, and the Year of Jubilee. All three policies protected the poor and workers and limited the level of wealth that could be amassed by any one individual, family, business, or even by the nation of Israel itself within a generation.
I am not advocating that America becomes a theocracy or adopts these policies verbatim. We are a democratic republic, by and for the people, not a theocracy. What I argue is that these three fiscal public policies offer a window into God’s priorities. In God’s economy people are more important than profit. Under God’s governance food is never ever ripped from the mouths of hungry children in order to line the pockets of the rich. Never.
Lisa: While I applaud your willingness to engage in a respectful conversation with fellow followers of Christ, I feel compelled to point out that the tone of your discourse, “How we Reduce the Deficit is a Moral Issue” comes across as significantly less than respectful; certainly to me, and no doubt to the many other Christians I know with whom I share the conservative, small-government, strict-constructionist region of the multi-dimensional political universe in America.
Respectful conversation does not apply labels such as “extremists” to those of us who believe that the federal government is the least appropriate of our societal institutions for providing “programs that protect at-risk American families from slipping into poverty.” Respectful conversation does not need to employ hyperbolic language such as, “(t)he House GOP took cash from the hands of poor children” — unless, of course, the argument if made dispassionately would be too weak to stand on its own, thus requiring the rhetorical boost.
But enough on the “how you are saying it” and on to the “what you are saying.” I completely agree when you say, “Budgets are moral documents and how we reduce the deficit is a moral issue” (in sharp contrast to many liberals and libertarians who are too often quick to shout out, “You can’t legislate morality!” — completely ignoring the original and most fundamental rationale for the existence of law in human society).
And I completely agree that there certainly is a moral (and spiritual) obligation on those who are rich to help those who are poor. My fundamental disagreement, however, comes from an “insider’s” view (having worked in, or directly with the federal government for more than 30 years). I hold that the federal government is the least qualified organization — from either the standpoint of economic efficiency or objective morality — to define, mandate, and enforce such obligation. In fact, the return on investment in the federal government’s programs intended to provide for the poor (i.e., the amount of beneficence actually received by the poor per dollar spent) is so low, and the abuse and fraud so high, I would submit it is poor stewardship of God-given resources, if not actually immoral, not to allow the taxpayers themselves to provide those dollars directly to the poor, or at least to local churches and charities that can provide a much more efficient and effective safety net to those who really need it.
The two comments posted by Wayne Sweitzer (one after Lisa Shapon Harper’s posting and one after the set of leading questions) advances our conversation by shattering the false stereotype that all of those on one side of the political aisle are committed to addressing the needs of the poor while all those on the other side are only committed to increasing the wealth of the richest among us. At the same time that Sweitzer identifies himself as being “conservative” and for “small government,” he “completely agrees that there is a moral (and spiritual) obligation on those who are rich to help those who are poor.” Furthermore, based on his experience, he suggests, with obvious approval, that the vast majority of Americans share common ground in advocating for the “ends” of “justice for the downtrodden, assistance for the needy, equal opportunity for all to pursue their dreams.”
But the common ground disappears when one discusses the best “means” to accomplish these shared ends, and the question of who should implement those means. Sweitzer argues that government is the least qualified organization for addressing the needs of the poor, adding that this obligation should be met by individuals, local churches or charities. In sharp contrast, Lisa Sharon Harper envisions a very significant role for government in providing a safety net for poor American families. The important point to be noted here is that many political disagreements pivot around alternative views as to the most appropriate means to accomplish ends that are embraced by many on both sides of the aisle.
An important by-product of this recognition is that it calls into question the dubious but prevalent practice of impugning the motives of those on the other side of the aisle. Believing that the free market is the best means for addressing the needs of the poor cannot be equated with lack of concern for the poor and a desire to make the rich richer (although that may be the motivation of some). At the other end of the spectrum, believing, as I do, that significant governmental programs are needed to assist those who do nor fare well in the free market economy, and that the wealthy should bear their fair share in supporting such programs by means of a progressive tax structure, cannot be equated with a desire to wage class warfare against the rich (although that may be the motivation of some).
I am suggesting that unless we have proof positive to the contrary, we are walking on thin ice when we start speculating as to the motives of our political opponents, which are largely unknown to us. Furthermore, it is this speculation as to motivation that poisons much of political discourse. I say this to reiterate my hope that as we continue our Alternative Political Conversation we will avoid speculating as to motives of those who disagree with us, and will rather focus on identifying “ends” that we can agree upon, and then debating the relative merits of the alternative means we may propose for accomplishing these ends.
The two comments posted by Wayne Sweitzer (one after Lisa Shapon Harper’s posting and one after the set of leading questions) advances our conversation by shattering the false stereotype that all of those on one side of the political aisle are committed to addressing the needs of the poor while all those on the other side are only committed to increasing the wealth of the richest among us. At the same time that Sweitzer identifies himself as being “conservative” and for “small government,” he “completely agrees that there is a moral (and spiritual) obligation on those who are rich to help those who are poor.” Furthermore, based on his experience, he suggests, with obvious approval, that the vast majority of Americans share common ground in advocating for the “ends” of “justice for the downtrodden, assistance for the needy, equal opportunity for all to pursue their dreams.”
But the common ground disappears when one discusses the best “means” to accomplish these shared ends, and the question of who should implement those means. Sweitzer argues that government is the least qualified organization for addressing the needs of the poor, adding that this obligation should be met by individuals, local churches or charities. In sharp contrast, Lisa Sharon Harper envisions a very significant role for government in providing a safety net for poor American families. The important point to be noted here is that many political disagreements pivot around alternative views as to the most appropriate means to accomplish ends that are embraced by many on both sides of the aisle.
An important by-product of this recognition is that it calls into question the dubious but prevalent practice of impugning the motives of those on the other side of the aisle. Believing that the free market is the best means for addressing the needs of the poor cannot be equated with lack of concern for the poor and a desire to make the rich richer (although that may be the motivation of some). At the other end of the spectrum, believing, as I do, that significant governmental programs are needed to assist those who do nor fare well in the free market economy, and that the wealthy should bear their fair share in supporting such programs by means of a progressive tax structure, cannot be equated with a desire to wage class warfare against the rich (although that may be the motivation of some).
I am suggesting that unless we have proof positive to the contrary, we are walking on thin ice when we start speculating as to the motives of our political opponents, which are largely unknown to us. Furthermore, it is this speculation as to motivation that poisons much of political discourse. I say this to reiterate my hope that as we continue our Alternative Political Conversation we will avoid speculating as to motives of those who disagree with us, and will rather focus on identifying “ends” that we can agree upon, and then debating the relative merits of the alternative means we may propose for accomplishing these ends.
The two comments posted by Wayne Sweitzer (one after Lisa Shapon Harper’s posting and one after the set of leading questions) advances our conversation by shattering the false stereotype that all of those on one side of the political aisle are committed to addressing the needs of the poor while all those on the other side are only committed to increasing the wealth of the richest among us. At the same time that Sweitzer identifies himself as being “conservative” and for “small government,” he “completely agrees that there is a moral (and spiritual) obligation on those who are rich to help those who are poor.” Furthermore, based on his experience, he suggests, with obvious approval, that the vast majority of Americans share common ground in advocating for the “ends” of “justice for the downtrodden, assistance for the needy, equal opportunity for all to pursue their dreams.”
But the common ground disappears when one discusses the best “means” to accomplish these shared ends, and the question of who should implement those means. Sweitzer argues that government is the least qualified organization for addressing the needs of the poor, adding that this obligation should be met by individuals, local churches or charities. In sharp contrast, Lisa Sharon Harper envisions a very significant role for government in providing a safety net for poor American families. The important point to be noted here is that many political disagreements pivot around alternative views as to the most appropriate means to accomplish ends that are embraced by many on both sides of the aisle.
An important by-product of this recognition is that it calls into question the dubious but prevalent practice of impugning the motives of those on the other side of the aisle. Believing that the free market is the best means for addressing the needs of the poor cannot be equated with lack of concern for the poor and a desire to make the rich richer (although that may be the motivation of some). At the other end of the spectrum, believing, as I do, that significant governmental programs are needed to assist those who do nor fare well in the free market economy, and that the wealthy should bear their fair share in supporting such programs by means of a progressive tax structure, cannot be equated with a desire to wage class warfare against the rich (although that may be the motivation of some).
I am suggesting that unless we have proof positive to the contrary, we are walking on thin ice when we start speculating as to the motives of our political opponents, which are largely unknown to us. Furthermore, it is this speculation as to motivation that poisons much of political discourse. I say this to reiterate my hope that as we continue our Alternative Political Conversation we will avoid speculating as to motives of those who disagree with us, and will rather focus on identifying “ends” that we can agree upon, and then debating the relative merits of the alternative means we may propose for accomplishing these ends.
Thank you, Harold, for providing this forum. I look forward to the ongoing conversations. I am interested in being a part of this set of discussions because I value respectful conversations and because I am looking for a place to encounter and learn from those who have radically different perspectives than I hold. My background and experiences have led me to see the importance of the role of the people acting and sharing the cost of such actions collectively, AKA "government", at all levels. I hope Wayne Sweitzer continues to contribute not only what he believes, but why and what workable alternatives he sees to accomplish the "ends" he has articulated. It is that perspective shared in respectful ways that is most difficult for me to find in the current public discourse.
For me, an immigrant of 31 years to the US, the first two paragraphs of this post was very important.
Many Americans grew up with a social safety net that most of the people in the world do not have. I'm going to try to "straddle" two sides, without falling into the water, so to speak.
There are people in my native country, Taiwan, who work, and work until they die because the "social net" there is enough to keep one alive, but not get by. For them, it is part of living, even part of Christian living. They never asked for anything from their government, other than provide the basic infrastructure, defense, etc. Have we forgotten that? We have it better than 90% of the folks in the world.
Of course, when I get my child credit or first time home-buyer's credit, I wasn't in a hurry to refund it back to the US gov't, so I am hypocritical there. Still, in lots of ways, Americans, as a whole society, may need to learn to do without, for the good of the future.
That being said, America also needs to look itself in the mirror and decide if it does need such a (still) gargantuan military…and involvement in multiple wars/conflicts. Are these for the profligation of democracy or is it for something else less benign? For example, why aren't we involved more actively in the Syrian atrocities? Why are we on the sidelines? Why did we jump right into the Libya / Iraq debacles? Gung-ho rah rah patriotism or something else?
I don't know, but hoping others who do know…or know more, will enlighten me. Ok the soap box is about to collapse, I'll get off of it now.
For me, an immigrant of 31 years to the US, the first two paragraphs of this post was very important.
Many Americans grew up with a social safety net that most of the people in the world do not have. I'm going to try to "straddle" two sides, without falling into the water, so to speak.
There are people in my native country, Taiwan, who work, and work until they die because the "social net" there is enough to keep one alive, but not get by. For them, it is part of living, even part of Christian living. They never asked for anything from their government, other than provide the basic infrastructure, defense, etc. Have we forgotten that? We have it better than 90% of the folks in the world.
Of course, when I get my child credit or first time home-buyer's credit, I wasn't in a hurry to refund it back to the US gov't, so I am hypocritical there. Still, in lots of ways, Americans, as a whole society, may need to learn to do without, for the good of the future.
That being said, America also needs to look itself in the mirror and decide if it does need such a (still) gargantuan military…and involvement in multiple wars/conflicts. Are these for the profligation of democracy or is it for something else less benign? For example, why aren't we involved more actively in the Syrian atrocities? Why are we on the sidelines? Why did we jump right into the Libya / Iraq debacles? Gung-ho rah rah patriotism or something else?
I don't know, but hoping others who do know…or know more, will enlighten me. Ok the soap box is about to collapse, I'll get off of it now.
For me, an immigrant of 31 years to the US, the first two paragraphs of this post was very important.
Many Americans grew up with a social safety net that most of the people in the world do not have. I'm going to try to "straddle" two sides, without falling into the water, so to speak.
There are people in my native country, Taiwan, who work, and work until they die because the "social net" there is enough to keep one alive, but not get by. For them, it is part of living, even part of Christian living. They never asked for anything from their government, other than provide the basic infrastructure, defense, etc. Have we forgotten that? We have it better than 90% of the folks in the world.
Of course, when I get my child credit or first time home-buyer's credit, I wasn't in a hurry to refund it back to the US gov't, so I am hypocritical there. Still, in lots of ways, Americans, as a whole society, may need to learn to do without, for the good of the future.
That being said, America also needs to look itself in the mirror and decide if it does need such a (still) gargantuan military…and involvement in multiple wars/conflicts. Are these for the profligation of democracy or is it for something else less benign? For example, why aren't we involved more actively in the Syrian atrocities? Why are we on the sidelines? Why did we jump right into the Libya / Iraq debacles? Gung-ho rah rah patriotism or something else?
I don't know, but hoping others who do know…or know more, will enlighten me. Ok the soap box is about to collapse, I'll get off of it now.
I enjoy reading the comments and the commentary on this site.
It surprises me that there aren't more contributors.
Is it the "respectful" part that limits the numbers of responses?
I enjoy reading the comments and the commentary on this site.
It surprises me that there aren't more contributors.
Is it the "respectful" part that limits the numbers of responses?
I enjoy reading the comments and the commentary on this site.
It surprises me that there aren't more contributors.
Is it the "respectful" part that limits the numbers of responses?