Justice, Deficits, and Taxes
Can there be a coherent Christian perspective on the massive, interrelated issues of US deficit reduction and tax reform?
Bracketing off questions related to whether our government leaders can ever actually accomplish what I am about to propose, I offer two simple principles that might constitute the outline of a coherent Christian perspective on the fiscal problems we now face as a nation.
1. The American people must learn to pay on time and in full for the services we wish to purchase from our government.
I am moving briskly away from an expansive, compassion-based vision of what government can perhaps accomplish for God’s reign toward a more modest Lockean and contractarian vision. This move has many sources: a sharper sense of the contrast in responsibilities between the state and other sectors, greater realism about the limits of what government can accomplish in “fixing the world,” awareness that in the real world every expansion of government spending creates a permanent, expensive constituency of government servants and clients, and a growing sense that Christians have too often offered biblically driven but constitutionally and theoretically illiterate policy prescriptions.
So let’s try a thought-experiment. Consider thinking of federal budget making as the process by which a diverse citizenry chooses to tax itself for a very particular set of services to be provided by the national government. The central issue for political debate in each session of Congress, then, would concern how much of which types of services we wish to purchase. Given unlimited possibilities for services, together with limited resources, this debate will always be fierce.
What should not be a matter of debate is the principle that whatever services we choose to purchase should be paid for on time and in full. There can be emergency circumstances that might dictate borrowing. But emergency conditions have become the rule rather than the exception.
The principle of paying today for the services we buy today is a matter of basic moral responsibility, especially to the next generation, but also to this one. A government budget choked with debt (6% of federal spending is simply loan payments) forces wasteful spending on interest both now and in the future, and blocks us from buying more valuable services, including social services.
2. Given government spending of nearly $5 trillion annually, and the $1.3 trillion gap between federal budget spending and revenues, the American people must in principle first cut spending, then raise taxes, then hold both steady.
Cutting spending is a rather bland way of saying something that should be said much more sharply: we must accept that most Americans are unwilling to pay for the full range of federal government services that we have been buying. Therefore we must buy fewer and less costly services. Logically, this requires starting at the budget items that cost the most and then working from there. Coming to grips with a smaller government means facing hard choices and losing benefits we have enjoyed:
a) We must choose whether we want to spend $700 billion (20% of the budget) to continue to buy the largest and most expensive military in the world, with a commensurately expansive global role in projecting American power. We must wean ourselves off of this role.
b) We must choose whether we want to continue to buy federally provided retirement (20%) and health benefits (21%) for an aging and sickening population. I believe we must now rethink and shrink that federal role, especially by means-testing benefits, but in other ways too.
c) We must review our spending on the 14% of the budget that provides a safety net for the poor, with the bias toward finding more efficient ways to meet the same needs;
d) We must choose whether we want to continue to buy the vast range of products and services that we buy with the remaining 20% of the federal budget, and constantly look for ways to trim spending.
e) Every budget manager in every federal department must be required to trim operational expenses by 5% every two years to establish a mindset of frugality and move the budget toward balance.
f) Having cut first, we must then be willing to pay the taxes for the services that together we conclude are indispensable. These taxes should be progressive but not confiscatory and cannot be loaded onto the backs of any one portion of the population.
Whether we accomplish such reforms depends on our will as a people, and our ability to overcome narrow interests and political gamesmanship to do what is right for America. Christians ought to know something about how to rise above self-interest for the sake of others.
This essay was originally printed as a “Capital Commentary” for the Center for Public Justice.
Thank you, Dr. Gushee, for this very helpful framework for addressing America’s ongoing addiction to deficit spending. The first principle you mention states, "The American people must learn to pay on time and in full for the services we wish to purchase from our government." Accepting this principle, I wanted to comment briefly on a potential option for implementing it. What I have in mind is legislation that initiates an automatic tax increase for any spending increase above a certain level (to be debated) that is associated with a new federal program, initiative, or activity? For example, a new military action or health care benefit would result in a tax increase that is statutorily activated. The size of the tax increase would not have to aim to increase revenue to match the increase in spending. Rather, the main purpose of the tax increase would be to communicate to citizens that the new program or action may be worthwhile, but it must be considered with an eye toward the additional tax burden attached to it, hopefully engendering more thoughtful and critical debate about the justifications for the program, initiative, or activity in question. The automatic tax increase would also serve to remind Americans that nothing is free.
Given the U.S. is presently adding over $1 trillion/year to the national debt, your second principle states that the, "American people must in principle first cut spending….." Could you elaborate on how we, as Christians concerned about public justice, might prioritize among the seven general areas of federal spending that you mentioned? It seems you are suggesting across the board cuts, but do you advocate distributing these cuts equally in proportion to the size of each area’s budget allocation? Or, would you overlap this principle (to first cut spending) with additional considerations, such as the following: degree to which each area of spending corresponds with a proper function of government, degree of perceived good provided by each area of spending, degree to which the tangible need for the good provided is consistent with the size of the expenditure, etc.? I’m interested in how your view of the nature and purpose of government and the norm of public justice informs how you would prioritize the spending cuts that must take place.
Thank you again for your comments.
Thank you, Dr. Gushee, for this very helpful framework for addressing America’s ongoing addiction to deficit spending. The first principle you mention states, "The American people must learn to pay on time and in full for the services we wish to purchase from our government." Accepting this principle, I wanted to comment briefly on a potential option for implementing it. What I have in mind is legislation that initiates an automatic tax increase for any spending increase above a certain level (to be debated) that is associated with a new federal program, initiative, or activity? For example, a new military action or health care benefit would result in a tax increase that is statutorily activated. The size of the tax increase would not have to aim to increase revenue to match the increase in spending. Rather, the main purpose of the tax increase would be to communicate to citizens that the new program or action may be worthwhile, but it must be considered with an eye toward the additional tax burden attached to it, hopefully engendering more thoughtful and critical debate about the justifications for the program, initiative, or activity in question. The automatic tax increase would also serve to remind Americans that nothing is free.
Given the U.S. is presently adding over $1 trillion/year to the national debt, your second principle states that the, "American people must in principle first cut spending….." Could you elaborate on how we, as Christians concerned about public justice, might prioritize among the seven general areas of federal spending that you mentioned? It seems you are suggesting across the board cuts, but do you advocate distributing these cuts equally in proportion to the size of each area’s budget allocation? Or, would you overlap this principle (to first cut spending) with additional considerations, such as the following: degree to which each area of spending corresponds with a proper function of government, degree of perceived good provided by each area of spending, degree to which the tangible need for the good provided is consistent with the size of the expenditure, etc.? I’m interested in how your view of the nature and purpose of government and the norm of public justice informs how you would prioritize the spending cuts that must take place.
Thank you again for your comments.
Thank you, Dr. Gushee, for this very helpful framework for addressing America’s ongoing addiction to deficit spending. The first principle you mention states, "The American people must learn to pay on time and in full for the services we wish to purchase from our government." Accepting this principle, I wanted to comment briefly on a potential option for implementing it. What I have in mind is legislation that initiates an automatic tax increase for any spending increase above a certain level (to be debated) that is associated with a new federal program, initiative, or activity? For example, a new military action or health care benefit would result in a tax increase that is statutorily activated. The size of the tax increase would not have to aim to increase revenue to match the increase in spending. Rather, the main purpose of the tax increase would be to communicate to citizens that the new program or action may be worthwhile, but it must be considered with an eye toward the additional tax burden attached to it, hopefully engendering more thoughtful and critical debate about the justifications for the program, initiative, or activity in question. The automatic tax increase would also serve to remind Americans that nothing is free.
Given the U.S. is presently adding over $1 trillion/year to the national debt, your second principle states that the, "American people must in principle first cut spending….." Could you elaborate on how we, as Christians concerned about public justice, might prioritize among the seven general areas of federal spending that you mentioned? It seems you are suggesting across the board cuts, but do you advocate distributing these cuts equally in proportion to the size of each area’s budget allocation? Or, would you overlap this principle (to first cut spending) with additional considerations, such as the following: degree to which each area of spending corresponds with a proper function of government, degree of perceived good provided by each area of spending, degree to which the tangible need for the good provided is consistent with the size of the expenditure, etc.? I’m interested in how your view of the nature and purpose of government and the norm of public justice informs how you would prioritize the spending cuts that must take place.
Thank you again for your comments.
Nathan, this is a very helpful comment. I would in principle think it a marvelous idea either to require corresponding spending cuts for every new expansion of spending, or some kind of automatic tax increase proportionate to the new spending.
As for where the cuts ought to fall among the seven areas, a rational budget-balancing plan would probably combine the "standard" belt tightening already proposed in the article with deeper cuts prioritized based on something like the three tests you articulate. Excellent feedback, thank you.
Nathan, this is a very helpful comment. I would in principle think it a marvelous idea either to require corresponding spending cuts for every new expansion of spending, or some kind of automatic tax increase proportionate to the new spending.
As for where the cuts ought to fall among the seven areas, a rational budget-balancing plan would probably combine the "standard" belt tightening already proposed in the article with deeper cuts prioritized based on something like the three tests you articulate. Excellent feedback, thank you.
Nathan, this is a very helpful comment. I would in principle think it a marvelous idea either to require corresponding spending cuts for every new expansion of spending, or some kind of automatic tax increase proportionate to the new spending.
As for where the cuts ought to fall among the seven areas, a rational budget-balancing plan would probably combine the "standard" belt tightening already proposed in the article with deeper cuts prioritized based on something like the three tests you articulate. Excellent feedback, thank you.