A White House official said tonight that just because an issue didn't get mentioned in the State of the Union Address doesn't mean the president doesn't care about it. The National Council of Churches, representing over 45 million U.S. Christians, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism -- along with other people of faith -- asked that the president use tonight's address to re-affirm his campaign commitment to offer up plans to cut poverty in half by 50% over ten years. That didn't happen. Does this mean poverty isn't on the president's agenda? Of course not.
I'm disappointed that President Obama didn't lift up the needs of the nearly 47 million Americans living in poverty but know that action speaks louder than words and that the president's Recovery Act and the Affordable Health Care Act have kept millions from falling into poverty during the Great Recession and helped tens of millions more from falling deeper into poverty. No one should doubt the president's sincerity on this important moral issue.
At the same time, the president needs to take a more public role in addressing the issue of poverty. In 2007 candidate Barack Obama said:
We can't allow this kind of suffering and hopelessness to exist in our country. We can't afford to lose a generation of tomorrow's doctors and scientists and teachers to poverty. We can make excuses for it or we can fight about it or we can ignore poverty altogether, but as long as it's here it will always be a betrayal of the ideals we hold as Americans. It's not who we are.
He was right then and we need his voice now more than ever.
Church leaders wrote to the president earlier this month that:
There is no greater concern among the churches of Christ than for those in this nation who live in poverty. This could hardly be otherwise because Jesus himself lived among the poor: loving them, eating and drinking with them, healing them, and speaking words of justice and assurance that God's own love for the poor is unsurpassed.
And so, people of faith regardless of party should support the president's economic policies -- particularly around education, innovation and health care -- because these goals all advance the fight against poverty. The president also said, unfortunately, that his budget will include "cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs." We'll have to fight those cuts because they will hurt the most vulnerable, which would violate the president's stated goal tonight of making sure the budget was not balanced "on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens." As the Half In Ten Campaign notes, some members of Congress have proposed even deeper cuts in anti-poverty efforts. That cannot be allowed and we must use our voices and our pulpits to demand a better America for every child.
We must also work with the president to end the unneeded tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. These tax cuts add to the deficit and create added pressure to cut important domestic programs. In short, we're giving away money to the richest of the rich and taking it away from those Jesus called the "least of these."
Why is it important to set a goal in this area? If President Kennedy had said that "one day America should go to the moon" it never would have happened. Today, we need President Obama to give hope to the tens millions of Americans who through no fault of their own have fallen into poverty during the worst economic period since the Great Depression by offering a road map with a time table to cut poverty dramatically. No one should live a third world life in a first world nation.
There were other issues that the president addressed in which America's faith community can find common cause.
We should congratulate the president and bi-partisan leaders in the Senate for finally passing the New Start Treaty which, as the president noted tonight, means that "far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists."
And faith leaders that disagree on important issues like abortion -- Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, members of the United Church of Christ and other mainline churches -- all support the president's call for immigration reform.
Certainly, we've witnessed a growing consensus between Roman Catholics, mainline Christians, and evangelicals (along with other people of faith) over the need to protect our environment. Supporting the president's goals for cleaner energy will make sense to most people of faith.
As for the issue of poverty, I've already reached out to the White House and asked that the president find a venue of some importance to more fully articulate his vision for a better America where poverty declines instead of grows. As the leaders of the National Council of Churches told the president recently, "this is a very ambitious goal and there are far too many politicians in this nation who might not take the risk or pursuing it without the strong advocacy of the President. But as you renew this commitment, be assured that we stand with you and that you have the support and prayers of all 37 member communions of the National Council of Churches." As the president has already demonstrated through the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act, he cares about those living in poverty. We know that. But to reduce poverty we need more. We need the president's leadership and passionate voice fighting for an America where equality means that no one goes hungry or lives in homelessness. Only then can we truly say that state of our Union is strong.
Follow Rev. Chuck Currie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RevChuckCurrie
State of the Union 2011 | The White House
TRANSCRIPT State of the Union 2011: Obama's Full Address - ABC News
State of the Union : Pictures, Videos, Breaking News
In speech, Obama misses some Jewish priorities: poverty, abortion rights, Israel
The Ups and Downs of Abortion: Fear, Poverty and Geography Impact Abortion Rates
Obama's faulty education logic: What he said and failed to say
Nashville teachers could get bonus pay in high poverty schools
Christians have been on the ground working to prevent and fight poverty in America for centuries. To suggest that they should take care of it all and not call on the government to act as well is disingenuous at best, and at worst ignorant of the roll government plays in shaping our economic frontier. To call on politicians to oppose policies that lead to further poverty seems to be a reasonable position even if you feel government shouldn't be helping clean up the mess.
Except here on HP, I don't see a lot of moderate Christians standing up against the excesses of the Religious Right. I think you like the "Right" fine when they fight for prayer in school and 'Faith Based Charity', but you keep your distance when the body bags for the "just cause" war start coming in.
We have a hard time telling you apart.
No one is speaking against Christian Charity or any other. But if you take government funding then you should be governed by the same rules that guide Government.
By the way the Government has not only the authority,but also the responsibility to "clean up the mess" The church has no authority or responsibility under the constitutuon to do either and can walk away or take part as it suits them.
What laws that oppose further poverty are you talking about?
I agree with everything you say about the role of government and the church, and funding, etc. (again I think the majority of progressive and even moderate christians would also agree).
Opposing policies that lead to further poverty includes opposing tax cuts for the rich, opposing cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid benefits, opposing corporate subsidies to industries that are profitable and destructive to the environment, opposing war, opposing cuts to veterens benefits, opposing union busting, opposing trade agreements that don't protect labor rights and environmental standards, just to name a few things off the top of my head.
- Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com
And now you want President Obama to do what ?
- Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com
If this is the case we really have a communication proplem in the US. Cause I don't remember hearing that you guys were siding with the liberals.
It does make sense though considering that about 76% of Americans wanted single payer healthcare. A large part of this number must have been moderate Christians. In both War and Health "WE" seemed to have been ignored.
I understand that all the old hippies and Atheist on the left are now dismissed as kooks even by the leaders of 'their' own party but You folks are pretty respectable how are they ignoring ya'll?
Questioning the reality of poverty in America today is akin to ignoring the facts. The data is there.
- Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com
http://twocandlesticks.blogspot.com/
Until politicians and religious leaders tell the truth about religion and money, trusting them is like trusting your kids with a priest, it is demonstrably delusional. Only truth and justice will "set you free" and religion and politics are neither.
Here is Wisdom...
americans see it in communism and socialism but they are unable to see it in capitalism. ie the paradigm effect.
they think this large middle class was due to capitalism. it was not. it self destructed in the 20's and it was brought back with socialism then regulations. then the capitalists chipped away at those regulations. now self destruction but a lot of socialist band aids.
and we dont have a roosevelt to keep capitalists in check. obama is part of the problem not the solution.
- Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com
Seems he has lost touch with what it means to be a humble preacher. Actually is a bit excessive, don'tcha think?
Pastors of his ilk, mega church types, give true men of God a bad name.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the National Council of Churches and Chuck not only pro-legalized abortion but pro-taxpayer-funded abortion? Since it is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings, wouldn't those claiming to care about the "least of these" defend unborn life?
I would call any reason other than her health as trivial. Nothing else is as important as the new life. If there are the means to take care of the child but it is 'inconvenient' it is trivial.
If she doesn't have the means to take care of the child then it is up to the rest of the tribe to help her do so. She shouldn't bear the "blame" or responsibility by herself.
Is is not only "the man's" obligation to care for the child, it is ALL men's obligation to do so. These future/children must be cared for First. Everything else is secondary.
We have gone from provider/defender hunters and farmers, to hoarding selfish every one for himself narcissist. I don't want some women to change. I want Society to change.
Jesus called for the murder of children, he also said it would be better if some were not born at all.
The soul enters the fetus at the quickening, not at conception.
I suppose you have a memory of your own conception?
F & F!
What do you say Rev? Wanna team up and help me lead the movement? The United Church of Christ could lead the way in really making a difference in the lives of the poor.
"He NEEDS MONEY! Churches don't pay any taxes but they're always asking for a little more. God's all knowing, all powerful, all wise but somehow he can't handle money!'
Now that I say that though I honestly don't know if I would prefer the churches or the lobbyists to be more powerful.
That time is already here!! I can't wait for the big, bad guh'ment to start taxing these places!!