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 that the 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.
These 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.
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
So no I don't feel sorry for the "poor" if they are physically healthy. What is funny now that I could afford to get a manicure and a pedicure, my hands and feet are too scarred for them to help. If I a person that dropped out of school at 16 and went to work picking tomatoes and strawberries on my hands and knees in the heat of central Florida can work my way up from the bottom, others can too. But They have to want OUT.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eQZoXAU7X0&list=FLzGPK1mP6oe5kJJrtFHnbLA&index=5&feature=plpp_video
Can you not think outside the box that even with a reduced government there is still a safety net system in place? Can you not see how the private sector can supplement? How is the morality of
putting such debt on the children of this country that they can never pay it back? This Jesus the Socialist routine is old and no one buys it anymore.
It was a bad year, and crops were poor because of the drought. Food was scarcer than it usually was, and many were concerned how they would feed their families. They met and decided they should take the grain from the farmer's stores, and could because they were many and the farmers were few. So they took the grain and divided it among themselves, and there was plenty through the winter. When the rain came in Spring, the farmers couldn't plant all their fields--their seed having been taken and eaten. The next winter, the many ate the farmer's oxen and mules, but there was still much hunger, and many starved. The farmers moved to another place, and no one lived there anymore.
Once wealth is created, it will trickle down/redistribute (choose your term) due to taxation, investment, employment, or purchases--in a sound economy based on rewarding risk. If there are burdens to creating new wealth, and/or existing wealth is being confiscated, it goes into the mattress whether you are rich or poor. It does not move, it does not create income or taxes, it is not invested in creating growth,. It does not purchase things you have to sell, including your labor. Or it simply goes somewhere else where opportunities exist.
It's just pap and pablum to soothe your neo-con consciences for being un empathetic and, denying the bible's teachings.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" - Gandhi
Just a VOTE would be nice...put it out there, discuss it, have the public REALLY see that there is a better way to achieve what Progressives AND Conservatives want.
Maybe when they get back from vacation? You think?
Here it is...no commentary...just the budget...read and decide for yourself. (And it CAN be scored!)
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%20CPC%20FY2012%20Budget.pdf
(Or Goggle: People's Budget).