A budget is a whole lot more than just number crunching. A budget declares and/or exposes core values. As Luther puts it: "There are three conversions necessary: the conversion of the heart, mind and the purse." “Purse” being the last to convert shows just how defining it is. Thus, how we budget as a nation indicates where our hearts are and what we truly believe.
For Christian voters, it’s time to declare what we TRULY believe.
Paul Ryan’s budget proposal is a red-meat-republican’s budget. Nothing groundbreaking, just pure Republican ideals along with some crafty economics… Here is the review of it, in as objective terms as possible.
- Cut Medicare by giving new elderly folks vouchers (a stipend) to pay for care, thus limited resources should encourage elderly to spend more wisely (less)… Health care needed above the vouchers are paid for out of pocket.
- Medicaid (healthcare for the poor and disabled) would be cut overall and then given over to the states to administrate over; most states will likely offer fewer benefits.
- Reduce Taxes for the richest Americans from 35% to 25%. That’s the tax rate on an annual combined income over $373,650/year.
Usually, when pontificating Republican ideals, the fact that they are advocating for the rich by shifting burden (and blame) onto the poor and middle class is more carefully hidden under the guise of American ideals: prosperity for all, and no gay marriage or abortion. Now, it seems like they are skipping the formalities and cutting straight to the bone, they are saying this straight to our faces:
Cut from the poor, disabled, and elderly and shift the savings to further cuts for the super wealthy.
I must declare that the statement above, from a biblical standpoint is immoral. As Christians, we must not allow blasphemous rhetoric like these be associated with the core values of biblical truth; in my opinion, it’s not spanking the kid urinating on the cross. If you are a politically minded Bible believer you must reject this budget proposal as heresy. If you will not, and somehow believe that a budget like Ryan’s is consistent with scripture, then your theology is deeply faulted.
However, there is one circumstance where I could see it fit for a believer to endorse this budget, one must adhere to both of the following points:
- One must believe that scripture is not a political document, rather a document focused on individual living.
- One must genuinely believe that the benefits of such a budget outweigh the tremendous moral pitfalls inherent thereof.
If this is the case for you, then I respect that, but I must reason with you.
If you conform to the first point above, I respect your belief and I do agree with you… to an extent. You must agree that there is some sort of tension between our obligations as individual Christians and Churches that has some overlap with our obligations as citizens and voters. If you believe in the amorality of politics absolutely, then you must abstain from all political debate wholly, including abortion and gay marriage, but if you agree that there is some tension, your biblical calling to advocate for the poor must at least compel you to vote against a representative that would support such a budget.
Now, to the second point: the economist. I can also respect the belief that the positive effects from job/economic growth coming from lower taxes/smaller government would outweigh the moral consequences. But, I must argue against it… before I do I just need to make clear that the issue of helping the poor is a moral, biblical one. The job/economic growth issue is an amoral, political (non-biblical) one. To let the amoral issue take precedence over the biblical one has hypocritical implications and conflicts heavily with the first point, above.
Independent of the moral issue, the secular argument is faulty at best. Remember, economists from all political backgrounds CANNOT find basis for “Reagonomics” or the philosophy that a freer market and smaller government giving power and control to wealthy will “trickle down” wealth to the lower classes. Not only is there no expert support for such reasoning, there is no evidential support. W. Bush made tax cuts in 2002 to support job growth, and that’s what happened until the great recession of 2007; after which job growth has been stubbornly slow. Why? Because we ended the tax cuts? No. Evidentially tax cuts for the rich have nothing to do with job growth.
The wealthy store their cash in untraceable off shore accounts. Logically, when they pay less in taxes, they ought to hire more workers… in reality, jobs are being shipped overseas at an exponential rate. Multi-national corporations use tax loopholes by shifting profit to countries that have the most relaxed corporate tax code. Most American Corporations paid NO corporate taxes in 2010 (like G.E. and Exxon), all the while reporting 10s of Billions (with a B) in profits. As my friend Matthew Overby says, “you know what they say, only sh*t rolls down hill.”
As I conclude, in a stroke of moderation, I realize that a debt is a debt and liberals and conservatives have to do something about it. I can easily accept all of the demands conservative politicians have been making over the past few months: cuts to public sector salaries, (gulp) furlough days for teachers, cuts in pensions, cuts in medicare and Medicaid… IF the Republican Party acquiesced to a 35% to 50% tax rate hike on annual household income over $200,000. I realize that times are bad, but cutting from the lower and middle classes while increasing benefits for the ultra rich is (immoral and) showing favoritism.
My final word: please, PLEASE, believers, I am pleading with you to stop defaming my faith by associating Christian values with this budget. To non-Christians, please forgive us for misinterpreting scripture, forgive us, this not who we truly are. Let all read below from the passage in James and let the TRUTH speak last… and loudest.
My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?
-James 2:1-7
1 comment:
Am sorry I did not read your entire post yet--I have some imminent work dedlines to tend to. I just wanted to leave an (ironic/pessimistic) retort. What is wrong with taking away medical care from the poor and middle class while increasing the wealth of the richest among us? Doesn't that hit (kill) two birds with one stone? If you are among the rich, you decrease the lifespan of the poor and decrease their relative income, limiting their political power (so you can increase your control over the goverment to enrich yourselves with even lower taxes and subsidies that transfer wealth from the poor to the rich)! Makes perfect sense. Unless the poorer outnumber the rich (which they already do) and unless they finally become fed up with the rich and the politicians that they paid off. So with that retort, my hope is that before it ever comes to that, something changes. Or if it comes to that it I hope it that will not end up being some kind of 2nd American revolution or fall of a society like we see now with the autocratic states elswhere in the world (where the rich controlled the government) and have seen in past civilizations.
Post a Comment