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)

  • justintime
    I agree with everything Jim said so I went ahead and did a moral audit of the budget.

    I found a boatload of money in there for bailing out insolvent banks on Wall Street.
    All those taxpayer dollars are being dumped down a bottomless rat hole with no stimulus to the economy whatsoever and certainly no benefit to the jobless and the homeless in America.

    Paulson, Bernanke, Summers, Rubin and Geitner have been desperately trying to save their Wall Street buddies from total ruin at the expense of American taxpayers and our childrens' future.
    This is clearly an immoral and futile attempt to revive the walking dead.

    We the people should take over the 'zombie' banks, fire the greedy managers and award all toxic assets to the stockholders.
    Then we can use our wealth to start credit flowing again under the direct control of Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

    The vast wealth this would save will pay for a lot of social programs.
    The longer Geitner/Obama waits to do this, the more wealth will be wasted and the greater suffering by the American people.
  • nuclearferret
    Throw stockholders under the bus?

    Do you not think they are part of the economy, either? Or just the wealthy are stockholders, especially as investors in banks, once considered a fairly stable investment vehicle? Why not throw the homeowners who "purchased" homes under the bus as well, and let the banks simply deal with the real asset instead of the paper of a mortgage?
  • nuclearferret
    I guess we are progressing to government budgeting under Obama not only as a matter of politics and policy, but framing so that if you oppose the budget, you are taking an immoral position.

    Because Warren Buffet says something, as demonstrated by HIS results in the market, doesn't make it correct, either. The Federal budget depends on payroll taxes and income taxes. The receptionist isn't paying income taxes any more; he/she is a net recipient in the system now. The taxes they are paying are state and local taxes, which Obama's budget does nothing to correct because it isn't within their realm.
  • cpd
    "I believe it is time to stop helping the undeserving rich..." Who, exactly, are the "undeserving rich"?

    This sounds like government-sponsored theft. You're going to take from someone with wealth and give it to someone without. Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? Certainly there could be valid reasons - but it could also be because the person has made bad decision and we do reap what we sow.

    Ever seen Pursuit of Happyness? That movie (and the true story behind it) debunks this entire post.
  • NMRod
    The Three Penny Opera gang of billionaire financial finaglers and their "Rush" to reward themselves for their Madoff mendacities are trying to saddle everyone else with the debts they have sown to the wind, have everyone else reap their whirlwind.

    Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage about the poor being the authors of their own just misfortune, while the super-rich exploiters are simply enjoying the just rewards of a generous God for their own obvious moral infallible works.

    Well-versed in the temptations of great wealth, they have such moral concern for the character of the poor that they do everything they can to make sure that those will never be similarly tempted and fail. Generous to many faults, they take that enormous burden of the corrosive properties of great wealth completely upon their own sacrificial selves.

    To Bernie and the legion of mini-Madoffs, the Puritans' Wealth Jesus proclaims: "Well done, My just and faithful servants!"

    "Well done, Sirs, well done! And as my servant Conrad Black has observed, (he being currently engaged in penitence and contemplation) 'What a splendid conveyance of wealth it has been!'"
  • cpd
    "Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage about the poor being the authors of their own just misfortune..." I never said it was from Calvin - seems like common sense to me.

    You're talking about three specific people - I'm talking about are the regular people who have worked hard, earned money that now the government wants to take. Not billionaires. Regular folks who own the businesses or work for businesses to support their families. Where does the scripture ever say wealth raiding is permissible? People are to contribute individually.

    Sorry you're so mad about this. I wonder why that is?
  • kevin47
    "Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage"

    Um, he did...
  • squeaky
    "Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? "

    Have you?
  • cpd
    Yep. That's why the bulk of our giving outside our church offering goes to Compassion kids. Compassion has a track record of actually doing what they say they'll do - they feed, clothe and educate kids who, through no fault of their own, are in extreme poverty.

    As I mentioned above by citing the movie Pursuit of Happyness, there is precious little reason to be poor in America. Will it be difficult to get a good education if you're a latch-key kid who never knows when his next meal will come? Of course. I'm not naive. But it is not impossible.
  • datroxell
    This is a very telling post. Giving moral stamp of approval to the Obama budget. Suddenly it is moral to increase the national debt to even more unprecedented percentages (not to mention actual dollars) than ever before? That is not moral in my view of all that the scripture teaches about finances.
    And it is moral it increase taxation on those who pay 80% of the income tax even though they make only 20% of the income? I've even heard that 40% of the working people don't pay ANY income tax? This is moral?
    And we have been fighting the war on poverty since the 60"s and yet it continues to grow worse. Would it not be moral to stop and analyze if the programs are working? Or are they making them more dependent on government, hence building a greater voting block?
    And it is moral to seek to destroy private charitable organizations by decreasing the deductions the "undeserving rich" can get for them. (cpd post a very good question on this above). This whole scenario is contrary to the sharing described in Acts where Christians voluntarily gave to help their poor (only those who wer among them) and as the story of Ananias and Sapphira shows, they were free to keep their property and once sold to give as much as they wanted. They were executed by God for the lie that they had given all, not whether or not, nor how much they gave. Again I find Jim's moral yardstick poorly calibrated with the Scripture.
    Lastly, IF through government we could "save" all from poverty, but could not also present the gospel of Jesus Christ (as our government cannot) to save their souls, is that not immoral in light of what Christ came to do?
    My suggestion would be that if Jim truly wants to help the poor, he would seek government policy that would encourage giving to the local church so that it could reach the poor in their community with physical needs and the gospel.
  • letjusticerolldown
    "Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism’s bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy?"

    Jim asserts that is the question to guide our budget audit.

    For clarity's sake--I am assuming the measure, then, is whether the budget provides a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty.

    Frankly, I am very surprised Jim goes to that point. There are a host of pundit/critics making a fundamental charge that this is the basic goal of the administration--the redistribution of wealth.

    And you assert that this is the fundamental moral measure of the budget???

    If the government confiscated all wealth and granted each person $200 per month--there would be absolutely fair distribution of wealth. Is that the desire?

    To be fair the question simply asks for a fairer distribution. So if that is the audit measure--what is the ideal distribution so we know if this gets us there.

    But secondly, I thought a budget described how the assets of the government would be spent. I am unclear how the budget process gets at a redistribution.

    I believe there are foundational government responsibilities that serve the common good. I believe that in common we are to define those responsibilities and then apply a system of taxation to pay for those commitments. I believe in progressive taxation--but only as a means to pay for our common commitments. Not with the goal of equitable distribution of wealth.

    The capacity to bring "balance" in a massively complex global order depends on controlling far more than government ought to be controlling.

    By demanding so much of government I believe you essentially doom it to failure.

    Don't take this as an ounce of defense for the way budgets have been or where Federal priorities have been. I am just befuddled at what you are laying out as the basis for audit--and the scale of government you are after. I don't doubt for a second the legitimate desire for justice -- but equitable distribution through massive government control of society is profoundly dangerous in my thinking.
  • datroxell
    I agree with your post. the following is a quote I believe shows a great deal of wisdom. I wish more people would apply wisdom as well as empathy to help the poor.

    The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) Memphis, TN, offered the following observation several years ago and it bears great Significance today.

    "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."

    "You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it"
  • I would hug you if you were in the same room as me. That quote is succinct, poignant, and apt.
  • JoannaCW
    "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. " Yes indeed. When some people are considered 'too good' to do manual labor and yet expect to receive physical sustenance--not to mention a lot of luxury goods--then other people are forced to to more than their share of physically taxing work for little compensation. Taking a few luxuries from the former group, and providing better health care and somewhat more of a safety net for the people in the latter group, does not remedy this basic injustice, but at least it's a palliative measure.
  • datroxell
    "Thine, O Lord is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Thine is the dominion, O Lord, and Thou dost exalt Thyself as head over all. Both riches and honor come from Thee, and Thou dost rule over all, and in Thy hand is power and might; and it lies in Thy hand to make great, and to strengthen everyone." I Chronicles 29:11, 12
    If we believe that God is sovereign, then you are concluding that government would do better than God at being just. I don't think that you could produce evidence that any of the many socialist states in existence are doing that.
    You also make an assumption that all rich only exploit those they hire/manage, either directly or indirectly. And you also make a corollary assumption that all poor work hard. Both are assumptions are false.
  • 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.
  • Forget the redistribution part, what about the immoral amount of spending of money the government doesn't have. Forget that the government "earns" no income anyway, we're running A DEFICIT people!

    Does anybody have a moral conscience when it comes to such a "moral document" as a budget?! It's absolute insanity the amount we're spending. This is not only more of the same of the past eight years, it's a jump further off the cliff of insanity.
  • kevin47
    If only IRS audits were this cavalier.

    Q1) Do you have good intentions?

    A) Yes sir!

    Q2) Do you agree with our political viewpoints?

    A) Absolutely.
  • :-)

    Consequences matter more than intentions. Unfortunately the consequences of such a bill only stimulates the politically well-connected and not everyone.

    Hey Wallis, if you're about equal tax burden, how about a flat tax for all adults, with no special favors for being single or being married?
  • kevin47
    That's my thing. Every big business has a public affairs arm. Do people think governmental affairs officials exist to make sure Congress does nothing? I've worked on at least two-dozen public affairs campaigns. Only once was I arguing for the status quo.
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