Republican Budget is an Immoral Document
Sojomail - August 2, 2012
Republican Budget is an Immoral Document
Editor's Note: The following remarks were given on Capitol Hill on Aug. 1 as part of a call from faith leaders across the religious spectrum urging Congress to extend the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit for low- and moderate-income Americans.
A budget is a moral document. That phrase was coined by the faith community and has become a refrain in the ongoing debates over deficits and budgets. But in this week’s House vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts, we see one more example of the priorities and principles of the broader GOP budget and how they apply to the rich and to the poor. Because of this, we must conclude thatthe Republican budget is an immoral document — in the way it treats the poor. I certainly don’t believe that all our Republican lawmakers came to Washington to hurt poor people, but it’s time for some of them to challenge the dominant forces in their party and face the consequences of such indefensible choices.
We have a genuine hope for a long term bipartisan solution and, in particular, a moral non-partisan commitment to protect the poor and vulnerable from being expendable in these fiscal debates. We should also say that Democratic budgets have not been models of fiscal responsibility and social justice either. But what the House budget is calling for is morally objectionable on religious and biblical grounds — and people of faith from all political stripes should say so. In particular, to roll back tax credits for the poor to help fund tax breaks for the rich is morally reprehensible, and the faith community has to speak out.
Here is what the debate reveals from the highest moral lens: the House GOP budget wants to extend tax cuts and credits for the wealthiest people of our society while cutting tax benefits for the poorest — including millions of low-income working families with children at risk. Proven and effective tax credits, which can lift families out of poverty, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which have historically had bipartisan support, are now being dramatically reduced. All the while, tax cuts for the wealthy are further expanded and the amount of money the richest can keep from their estate taxes continues to grow. This is an egregious contrast and a starkly immoral budget choice.
To reward the rich even more while actually punishing the poor is a direct offense to all of our religious traditions. For Catholic lawmakers, it is a fundamental violation of Catholic social teaching, and the Catholic bishops have said so. They called this budget choice “unwise” and “unjust.” Every Catholic lawmaker who votes for those misplaced priorities should be held accountable by their church. But that accountability can’t stop with Catholics.
The Bible confronts every Evangelical lawmaker with more than 2,000 verses that call us to defend the poor and vulnerable. If we say we believe the Bible, we simply can’t support policies that directly reward the rich and punish the poor: Christian lawmakers can’t keep going into their prayer breakfasts and leaving their Bibles at the door.
The Senate Democrats should be thanked for blocking these cuts and protecting tax credits for low-income families last week. But, to be honest, neither party has clearly and publically stated a fundamental principle that the poor and vulnerable should be protected. In these critically important deficit debates, that principle is crucial and must be central to policy decisions.
Reducing excessive deficits is a moral act, but also how we reduce them is a moral issue. It’s time for both parties to commit themselves to this principle: We will not reduce the deficit in ways that increase poverty and economic inequality. This is the fundamental principle of the Circle of Protection, a broad table of more than 60 church leaders and organizations across the theological and political spectrum committed to protecting the poor and vulnerable in these crucial fiscal decisions. We will continue to press and pressure the leadership of both parties to uphold that principle. Our nation has achieved bipartisan agreement to that principle in past deficit reduction, and we must do it again. This is a moral and religious imperative that we should hold all lawmakers to. And the Circle of Protection will do that on both sides of the aisle.
In all of our decisions, the poor and vulnerable — the ones Jesus called “the least of these” — should be protected, especially by people of faith, regardless of their party affiliations and political philosophies. It’s time to cut through all the political clutter, ideology, and self-interest. The Christian leaders of the Circle of Protection feel called by God in saying this to our political leaders: It’s time to do the right thing and protect the poor.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners.Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Gore Vidal and the Death of Refined Public Repartee
Science, Faith, and An Ongoing Conversation
I have a love/hate relationship with the Olympics. I love the pageantry and global drama of it all. And even as one who hardly ever watches sports (I make exceptions for Roller Derby and Quidditch), I nevertheless find myself glued to the screen whenever the Olympics roll around. At the same time I am uneasy with the neo-colonial aspects of the Games and the fact that one's ability to win a medal increasingly depends upon how much money one's country has (making the Games a vivid illustration of global economic injustice). Yet even as I have watched (and enjoyed) the London Games with conflicted emotions, I find myself more and more uncomfortable with the ways the presentation of the Olympics serves to reinforce harmful assumptions about women in our culture.
Seeing those suffering abroad — seeing people still willing to die for their faith — puts things in perspective. It invites you to think before you invoke the religious freedom card.
Think before you decide that the rights of an entire segment of the population should be subjected to a religious debate. (Read: Gay marriage should not be seen as an affront to your religious freedom.) Think before you start to use someone's out-of-context words for political posturing. I'm looking at you, mayors of the United States. Be careful before jumping on the "not-in-my-city" (mildly unconstitutional) bandwagon. Think before you decide that religious freedom is only applicable to your religion — or that Muslims shouldn't have the same right as Christians to build their houses of worship.
Could it not be argued on as many bases that we're advancing in positive ways — even particularly with regard to affirmation of the rights of the marginalized — as we can for moral decline? Yes, pornography is a real problem, but what about our historic problems with sexual oppression and abuse? Is it really worse now than ever before?
How society self-identifies is changing. Most Americans no longer say they are solidly "pro-life" or "pro-choice" — rather they say both terms describe them well. While 71 percent of black Americans and 77 percent of Hispanic Americans say "pro-life" describes them well, 75 and 72 percent, respectively, also identify with the term "pro-choice."
|GIVE TO SOJOURNERS: Donate now to support this voice for justice and peace.|
GET THE MAGAZINE: Subscribe today