RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Our Moral Audit of the Budget

by Jim Wallis 03-02-2009

Four years ago, faced with a disastrous federal budget proposal, Sojourners coined a phase, “budgets are moral documents.”  That phrase has now entered the common lexicon, but it remains our fundamental principle.  Budgets reflect the values and priorities of a family, church, organization, city, state, or nation. They tell us what is most important and valued to those making the budget. So, it is important that we do a “values audit” of President Obama’s proposed budget, a “moral audit” of our priorities. Who benefits in this budget, what things are revealed as most important, and what things are less important?  America’s religious communities are required to ask of any budget: what happens to the poor and most vulnerable — especially, what becomes of the nation’s poorest children in these critical decisions?

The values of the American people should also be applied to the budget, e.g. fairness (everyone paying their fair share); opportunity for all Americans; fiscal, personal, and social responsibility; balancing important and different priorities; defining security more broadly than just military considerations, as it is related to economic and family security too; compassion and protection for the vulnerable; building community; and upholding the common good.

That’s a principle that has been forgotten in the past years.  We have trusted in “the invisible hand” of the market to make everything turn out all right, but things too often haven’t turned out all right. The invisible hand let go of some things, like the common good. The idea that policies which benefit the wealthiest will eventually benefit everyone has proven false. The president’s budget is a step toward restoring the value of the common good to our policy.  It is a step to rebalance our priorities, protect the vulnerable, and strengthen the middle.

It contains major investments in the president’s three priorities: significantly expanding health care coverage, focusing on climate change reduction and developing renewable energy, and investing in education – early childhood programs, strengthening and reforming public schools, expanded opportunities for college — all of which will benefit low-income people.  There are also specific changes in important areas such as tax policy, food and nutrition programs, housing, needed aid to veterans, prisoner re-entry, global food security, and increased foreign aid for combating pandemic disease. It’s a budget aimed at redressing the imbalances.

The growing inequality in America over decades is a sin of biblical proportions, and it’s time to bring our principles of social justice to bear.  As columnist E.J. Dionne wrote,

The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade-long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth.  Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism’s bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue.

It is that question that should guide our moral audit of the budget. The fundamental moral question in the upcoming budget debate is whether to begin to reverse the rapid and massive increase in American inequality which has grown over the past thirty years — and has dramatically increased during the past eight. I believe it is time to stop helping the undeserving rich, under the now demonstrably false assertion that this will then benefit the rest of us. When the top 1 percent of the country now get 20 percent of its income, control 33 percent of its wealth, and pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than their receptionists do (as Warren Buffet has pointed out)—something has gone terribly wrong in America. The new Obama budget is the first and dramatic step to fix all that, and turn the nation in a different direction.

The new budget proposed by the White House is a dramatic step in the direction of the common good, with strong support for the middle of America, real help for the poorest among us, and the proposition that the wealthiest pay their fare share. And my prediction is that many in the faith community, especially those on the front lines of serving the poor, will rally around the principles and priorities of this budget, bringing their energy and advocacy to bear on the debate that now lies ahead. Because this will not just be a policy debate, but also a moral one; the prayers of the faithful — along with their watchful eyes, willing hands, and ready feet — will surround the congressional budget process over the next few months.

This post comes  from Jim’s remarks at a media teleconference today. Click here to listen to the call.

Categories: Economics
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • leeh1128
    Isn't it immoral that the top 1% of income earners take home 18% of the income in this country and pay 40% of the income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 5% of wage eaners take home 32% of the income and pay 67% of all income tax? Isn't it immoral that the top 7% take home 40% of the income in this country and pay 95% of all income taxes? The top 5% are 80% of all small business owners in this country. So why are we penalizing them? That is immoral. The lower income earners need to stop relying on Government to solve their problems and make something of themselves.
  • zuskie
    Jim - I'm sad to read this. Since when is it moral to approve a budget that spends unimaginable amounts of money that we don't have...thus passing more debt to future generations? Spending more than we have is what got us into this mess (individually, corporately, and governmentally).

    I had hoped that the criticism you've had of government in the past years would not be partisan & would continue into this administration. But apparently you think it's moral to toss money at insolvent/failed institutions and to spend what we don't have in amounts that have never been seen before.

    And then to imply that it's immoral to oppose such a budget is too much for me.

    I'm sorry, but you've lost me as a reader.
  • reahti
    The good nuns at NETWORK have long been using that language and it's
    embedded in Catholic social teaching. Maybe Sojo gets the press, but
    they didn't coin the phrase and the folks there would do well to
    remember those who came before them better.

    I used to be a Sojo fan until they started acting like they were the
    only progressive faith gig in town and developed a huge personality
    cult around Wallis. I don't deny that the message is often right, but
    it has indeed been said before by others out pounding the pavement
    rather than looking for a media splash.
  • letjusticerolldown
    How has Sojo taken credit for the work of others??

    Who else used the phrase more than four years ago??

    Is it possible for two persons to have the same thought??
  • Doer
    "When the top 1 percent of the country now get 20 percent of its income, control 33 percent of its wealth, and pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than their receptionists do (as Warren Buffet has pointed out)..."

    Shame on you for twisting the facts.

    We have to start with the truth. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent. The bottom 50 percent pay 3 percent of the income taxes.
  • reahti
    Just FYI - Sojourners didn't coin the phrase "budgets are moral documents" - several others in the progressive faith community have been using it for YEARS. Rather typical of Sojo to take credit for the work of others.
  • jrn
    Again, the country is broke. The Stimulus is spending money we do not have. The omnibus bill contains billions of dollars of port, financed by deficit spending. Where is the change we can believe in? Where is the new politics?
  • BuckeyeDon
    I can't answer for the logic of different taxation rates between capital gains and so-called "ordinary" income. It could be there's no particular logic--it's just that Congress passed and the IRS implemented the different parts of the tax code at different times.

    I think taxing investment transactions directly would have the undesirable effect of discouraging investment that DITE is concerned about. Taxing only the gains in value at the time of sale still helps discourage speculation without discouraging investment in the first place. Remember, if the investor never sells the asset, it is never taxed, no matter how much gain in value it has made.
  • I think this story is a good one to remember. I'm not sure what your entire point is, but in the United States today, those who bought homes were not previously without some dwelling place, whether rented or living with relatives or some other arrangement. When they agreed to the terms of a loan, they signed their name to a document that promised to pay back the loan. It was a contract on terms both decided were mutually beneficial. They were wiling to pay X% interest because they decided that the interest was worth the gain in having a home to call their own. That's what we all do.

    "But they were lied to and the contract was tricky and hard to understand!" you may say. But I'm curious, if anybody is going to buy a home for, say, $50,000 and up (my hunch is these homes are mostly going for more than that), wouldn't it make sense, if you felt unsure you were understanding things properly, to hire a lawyer at $500 or $1,000 to confirm your suspicions and look after your best interest? I acknowledge and will agree that there are those who were preyed upon by lenders, but there are other considerations to take into account; why would those lenders lend to risky buyers if not given an incentive to make risky loans?
  • Bill, unfortunately Wallis somehow believes money grows on trees. He doesn't realize that the government does not have a single penny, for it earns nothing. It must take from the people in the name of "taxes" and then hide the fact that it is plunder by providing "common good services" as its excuse for making us pay for it at gunpoint.

    I think your description of "mass murder" is interesting. I used to be a "big defense" sorta guy, but now I'm seeing the folly. Good reference to Orwell!
  • " Lassaiz-faire "conservatives" are really economic neo-liberals, not conservatives."

    I think this is an apt point, though I'm not quite so sure "conservative" is a good label for those opposing Obama's budget. Both conservatives and progressives alike want their own modicum of control over the lives and finances of others. Libertarians want no such thing but rule of law and protection of fraud and initiation of unwanted force.
  • letjusticerolldown
    I do not understand much about these issues. Is there reason for taxing different methods of making money at different rates??

    Is there a logic for taxing gains instead of taxing transactions if it is the speculative/volatile investing we want to modearte?
  • Barryb64
    I was doing a study of Neh 5:1-13 and could not help but notice the similarity between the situation described there and what is happening today.

    Nehemiah was the governor of Judea. It seems the people in that area were in dire strait. One group were in desperate need of food, another group went into debt so as to buy food from Jeish nobles and a third went so far as to send their kids into slavery for the same reason. The second group, by the way, mortgaged their home to raise the money to buy the grains.

    All three groups were being exploited by the nobles in that society. What did they do? They were charging interest on top of the loan payments. The interest was high enough so as to make it difficult or impossible to pay back what is owed.

    Sound familiar?? I was thinking of the current housing and larger financial crisis. I already had compassion but my heart was crying out even more after reading the above bible passage. Nehemiah represented the government of his day and God used him as an instrument of righteousness and justice. He demanded that the nobles restore to the poor what was stolen.

    I didn't stop at just reading the surface story. I looked for the underlying principles that were being violated here. The nobles were not supposed to be charging interests on their countrymen. In fact, they were not to take the person's home as their own or their cloaks as their own.

    To be fair, the borrower is to pay back what is owed and yet isn't to be made nearly impossible.
  • Not a prophetic voice, but the voice of an apologist for an Administration.

    Is mass murder moral? Obama proposes spending 52% of the discretionary budget for mass murder (virtually identical to the prior Administration) - what is called, in Orwellian doublespeak, "defense." Can't Jim Wallis see anything wrong with that?

    Are massive deficits, which serve to transfer money from ordinary people to investors, immoral? The budget proposed unprecedented deficit spending. Can't Jim Wallis see anything wrong with that?

    And these things are closely related. A major reason for deficit spending is the obscene amounts we spend for wars and preparations for wars. Where is the prophetic voice against this? I remember the early days of Sojourners, joining them in protests at arms bazaars and the like. They once did have a prophetic voice. But that has seemed to take a back seat to cozying up to the powerful.
  • BuckeyeDon
    One more thing:
    This is one reason why reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains is not a conservative position. Conserving investment assets and discouraging speculation is the true conserve-ative position. Lassaiz-faire "conservatives" are really economic neo-liberals, not conservatives.
  • BuckeyeDon
    DITE wrote:
    "I'll walk you through one of the conservative solutions slowly.

    "The problem with our economy right now is a credit crunch, right? We need more investment expenditures to increase long term economic growth. So, the logical thing to do would be to make investment more attractive. Still with me? We could do this by making the price of investment cheaper. Government can do this by reducing the punishment it places on investment success. This could be done by a reduction in the capital gains tax. It's an easy and logical solution if you want the economy to do better, which liberals claim they want. But it seams this has become second priority of the Left after making sure the rich do worse."

    DITE and other lassaiz-faire folks here, I'll walk you through the logic of taxing capital gains.

    One does not pay capital gains taxes on investing. One only pays capital gains taxes on investment gains after the investments are sold. So capital gains taxes do not discourage investment. What taxing capital gains does discourage is the very kind of overheated, speculative buying and selling of investment assets that is demonstrably one of the causes of the current financial meltdown.

    When investors have to consider the tax consequences of selling any investment assets, investors will be encouraged to be more cautious and less speculative. Investors will be encouraged to conserve investment assets rather than exploit them; thus investors are encouraged to create and maintain a solid foundation for building true wealth instead of financial houses of cards.

    Reasonable capital gains taxes that discourage speculation and encourage asset conservation should be seen as one means for reestablishing a solid, lasting prosperity.

    Peace,
    D
  • kevin47
    "Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage"

    Um, he did...
  • datroxell, it's futile explaining this to some people. It's as if having a lot of money immediately puts you on the "wanted" list of people who just may be evil because you're not doing what social do-gooders think you should do with it.

    Thanks for pointing out what you have. I appreciate your thoughts.
  • NMRod
    Yes, yes, Alan Greenspan was no libertarian, and of course we know Jesus was no Christian, either.

    I'm sure schisms can be split endlessly, but Greenspan did make the same false assumptions about human nature that his heroine Ayn Rand did, for just about the same reasons.

    And then that Atlas shrugged, saying he just didn't understand the true nature of capitalists.

    Ah, Johnny (Galt) we hardly knew ye.
  • NMRod
    I'd say you're still lacking information to evaluate accurately, if you're only doing 9% better than Veep Cheney's 1% doctrine.

    BTW, as for STILL trying to take it all, with the same sense of entitlement and greed, former Countrywide Financial officials have set up PennyMac, making a profit buying up the same toxic mortgages they created in the first place - at government expense. This gives a completley novel twist to the concept of double dipping, lending it the flavor of new exotic financial instruments of mass destruction, to use Warren Buffett's apt phrase.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008