Get E-Mail Updates

Cut the Deficit--Cut Military Spending

President Obama's 2011 budget, submitted to Congress this week, totals $3.8 trillion and projects a deficit of $1.6 trillion. And while analysts have had only two days to dissect the massive document, the president's priorities are clear: jobs and the military. The biggest problem he faces is the rapidly growing deficit.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

With the economy still in recession and unemployment still at 10 percent, the domestic priority is clearly job creation. The budget includes a $100 billion jobs program, with substantial amounts targeted to tax breaks for small businesses in order to stimulate job creation. Also included are tax credits that assist lower-income workers with expenses such as child care, which make it more possible for them to find employment.

And despite the administration's plan to enact an overall freeze on discretionary domestic spending, it appears programs that focus on low-income and poor people were increased. Bob Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said in a statement on the budget that "Contrary to fears expressed last week that the President's proposed freeze on total non-security discretionary funding would provide inadequate support for education, for vulnerable Americans, and the like, the budget actually does well in these areas." It appears that major programs in nutrition, housing, education, TANF, etc. all are higher than last year.

But as usual, the sacred cow that cannot be touched is the military. First, a thanks to the administration for having the honesty to include the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, rather than waiting several months and then coming back with requests for supplemental funding as has been the practice in past years. Let's at least know up front what we're dealing with. In round numbers, the military budget includes an operating budget of $549 billion, plus funding for the two wars at $192 billion (including an already planned request for $33 billion this spring), for a total of $741 billion.

I, too, am concerned about the rapidly growing deficit. While some degree of deficit spending is necessary in a time of severe recession, it is growing so fast that it threatens our future and our children's futures. Last night, I ran into David Walker on the Amtrak train coming home from Philadelphia. We are both on book tours, and his new book is Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility. David and I had talked over the holidays, but now we had the chance to sit down and have a long train conversation about this topic. He is also concerned that the deficit not be cut on the backs of our poorest people and that the most vulnerable be protected. And he also thinks cutting excessive and wasteful military spending must be part of the solution. So here's a suggestion: Let's start with the military.

In a preliminary analysis of this budget, Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, and other defense experts said that:

A close analysis of the FY 2011 defense budget reveals that it does not go far enough to impose real fiscal discipline on our defense spending

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 9:26am

NF, you do understand that Jim Wallis has a superior ability and understanding as to the type of jobs that should be created, don't you? /sarc

You can cut spending, but the real decisions have to be made at the level of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These will bankrupt us, have bankrupted us.

Cut military spending all you want, but you will put people out of work.

Much better to spend money on things that will never be used and never provide security like rail programs. I can hardly wait for the day when I, instead of getting in my car and getting from Columbus to Cleveland in about two hours (or less), drive 20 minutes to the train station, pay to park my car, wait for the train, take the 3 hour 45 minute train to Cleveland, get there, arrange for transportation, go to my one hour meeting or court hearing, then check into the hotel for an overnight stay at which time, I get to spend almost five hours getting back to Columbus.

It's this kind of moronic thinking that this is somehow better, more efficient, that has many of us scratching our heads at the lack of wisdom of those who propose it.

I do agree that we could do as well with less money in the Pentagon budget. It's filled with pork. Make some real decisions on how to spend it, but recognize that entitlement spending and age demographics are the real problem.

by: Guest

02-16-2010 @ 8:41pm

Concerned about the deficit? How about concern for the national debt? That's the problem. 2/3 of our federal gov't spending is on entitlements. Why don't we start there? I'm so tired of hearing the "military industrial complex." I wish you folks would bother listening to the entire speech and put it into context, instead of picking and choosing the parts you like to exploit. The current military looks nothing like it did during the post-WW2 era. Let's also remember the primary role of having a federal government in the first place - to defend the sovereignty of a nation and protect it's citizens. You have to have a military to do that, folks.

by: pawheel

02-08-2010 @ 12:27pm

I really can't accept the consideration of the military boosting employment as a good thing. I personally know many of my childrens friends who chose the military for that reason, and a couple that chose military subcontractor for the same reason (which pays better), but to me that's a pretty sad statement about our country. Can't we use some of the Military budget to assist employment growth in some form, other than mostly overblown projects like over hyped rail development, etc? For example, no matter what you think of global climate change, using some of the manpower and brainpower that now goes to the military to develop new weapons and such could help us reduce foreign oil addiction with true clean energy solutions. We have to start somewhere and both political sides have said we need to get off of foriegn oil addiction. And the construction industry is on it's knees - I know more people who work construction than any other field except I.T. and most of them have spent most of the last year or more unemployed, including most of my extended family.

by: pawheel

02-08-2010 @ 12:08pm

Sam Hamilton,
I get the impression that since 9/11 especially, being "soft" on defense is considered weak, anti-American, with the terrorists (as in the Bush quote "..youre either with us or your against us"), pick your favorite phrase. Whichever you choose, for a Congressman or Presidential candidate it leaves themn so easily vulnerable to a full frontal attack as any one of the above descriptions by the people who would have used the attack phrase "commumist" 40 years ago.

by: ckgmail

02-05-2010 @ 1:26pm

Remember, TARP was originated under the previous administration. It was scaled down considerably from what the then Secretary of the Treasury asked for. And we do not know what would have happened if the banks had not been rescued. Perhaps unemployment would be 20% or greater. We don't know.

by: ckgmail

02-05-2010 @ 1:32pm

Further amend it to the "military industrial medical prison complex." Lobbyists for the medical insurance companies were able to gut the proposed health reform act. And believe me the prison industry has taken the place of agricultural field workers in many rural agricultural areas. Many displaced farmers work as prison guards. The PC term is correctional officers. And displaced field hands, or their offspring, are the prisoners.

by: jesse3

02-04-2010 @ 4:16pm

I think faith communities are right to be concerned about the deficit. Debt is something the Bible speaks very clearly about. But what if domestic spending was going to contribute to the debt? What if programs that are being proposed would increase it? Isn't that a moral issue?

The issue is the deficit, period, not just what is being spent to increase it.

by: dlondonx

02-04-2010 @ 4:45pm

I cannot see how anyone can talk about 'the deficit' without talking about the myriad things that go into making it up. This is the whole strategy that the Republicans are engaging in. When a Democrat comes into office, start whinging about the deficit. Dont offer any substantive policies ideas to correct it, just whinge about it. Then, when people vote the Republicans into office, forget about the deficit entirely. There is really only one party in this country that cares at all about the deficit, in that they offer real solutions to the problem. The other party is simply out to make sure that the entire deficit goes to the rich, to the detriment of us all.

by: ckgmail

02-04-2010 @ 5:01pm

When even President Bush worried about increased deficits before passing the second round of tax decreases, VP Cheney is reported to have said, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

by: WaveTossed

02-04-2010 @ 5:02pm

Amen!!! I've been saying this for years. The mitary has been taking up a huge chunk of the Federal budget. Which is why it has been known as "The Black Hole in Bagdad" -- and now "The Black Hole in Kabul."

And one doesn't have to be a raving, left-winger to believe this. Go to antiwar.com and read some viewpoints from all different sorts of political perspectives. The U.S. has too many of our own problems to try and continue being the Morality Thought Police of the World.

by: chadbowen

02-04-2010 @ 5:05pm

The deficit is certainly a moral issue in its own regard. However, mirroring the financial choices of the U.S. individuals and corporations, the government has been spending beyond its means for quite some time. It is simply not feasible to fix such a large deficit immediately when it accumulated over time.

There is an ethical dilemma to cutting Medicare funding, which our elderly depend on, in the name of the deficit. The same goes for education, and many of the other things mentioned in Wallis' article.

In regards to military spending, however, I would argue with Wallis that we have disposable income that can be cut tremendously without great moral dilemma-- we have only lessened our capacity to kill people.

In short, the deficit is absolutely a moral issue and must be dealt with. However, it is also a moral issue to take away benefits for people that are a necessary for their health and well-being.

by: Guest

02-16-2010 @ 10:41pm

Concerned about the deficit? How about concern for the national debt? That's the problem. 2/3 of our federal gov't spending is on entitlements. Why don't we start there? I'm so tired of hearing the "military industrial complex." I wish you folks would bother listening to the entire speech and put it into context, instead of picking and choosing the parts you like to exploit. The current military looks nothing like it did during the post-WW2 era. Let's also remember the primary role of having a federal government in the first place - to defend the sovereignty of a nation and protect it's citizens. You have to have a military to do that, folks.

by: fundamentalist

02-04-2010 @ 5:33pm

Moody's has threatened to dowgrade the credit rating of the US, from AAA to AA, if Congress doesn't rein in the deficit. That means the feds will pay higher interest rates to borrow, which will increase the share that interest payment take out of tax receipts.

In addition, China owns a huge portion of the federal debt. We have given control of our finances to creditors, and as Solomon warned in Proverbs, we have become their slaves. From now on, foreign creditors will dictate policy to the US. What a sad ending. I blame Republicans and Democrats alike for this mess.

by: SpareChange

02-04-2010 @ 5:38pm

"Congressman Barney Frank was also at Davos and told me that he is proposing a 25 percent cut in the military budget. He said he will need help from the faith community. I support his effort, and we will saying more about it as details emerge."

JIM, since you are on good speaking terms with Barney have you been able to take him to task on HIS ROLE in this financial crisis regarding Freddie and Fannie?!? Or do your political leanings supersede taking both sides to task for this mess?

by: DJ9791

02-04-2010 @ 5:48pm

Our deficit spending is contributing to the world's economic crisis; our military adventurism is contributing to the world's instability and our own economic problems...but whatever is done on the Federal budget will follow political lines and not responsible governing.

Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to this mess, and neither is offering any real promise of working responsibly to rein in spending...and of course, it's un-American to cut the military budget!

As Christians, we have not only a personal responsibility in our own finances, we have a moral responsibility to speak out against our representatives when they act irresponsibly by padding the budget to favor their campaign contributors, the majority of whom represent large corporate interests and not the nation's. "Defense" lobbyists rein supreme among those who sidetrack our nation's finances for their own interests, followed closely by banks and energy companies.

Our packed Supreme Court has just opened the floodgates to a new wave of special-interest spending which will enrich many in Congress and many in business, at the expense of the typical American.

Pray for Peace and Dare to Act!

by: Ngchen

02-04-2010 @ 5:49pm

At the cost of sounding politically incorrect, yes the military budget can and should be cut substantially. There is much unnecessary spending in that area, although there are of course the two wars which need to be funded, at least for now.

First and foremost, why is Uncle Sam spending more on the military than almost (or more than) the rest of the world combined? Second, why are troops deployed to more than 100 countries in the world? It would be actually great for families too if troops can be redeployed back home, to keep them closer to their loved ones. After all, it is the Department of Defense, right?

by: mikejg

04-02-2010 @ 11:55pm

Amen, Jim. Are there other organizations who are promoting Rep. Frank's initiative besides Sojouners and the FCNL?

by: Belt Disc Sander

04-10-2010 @ 3:16am

Yes, I think so. Mr. President should cut a military spending.

by: desmontes

02-04-2010 @ 7:37pm

Your quote "It's time to stop subsidizing the shameful profits of the "military industrial complex" that former President Eisenhower warned us about long ago.

I suggest that we amend that quote to read "military industrial congressional complex"---most members of congress push for military spending especially for such spending in their home areas!

by: Dan Borden

02-04-2010 @ 7:48pm

Are you serious?? Increase the budget for welfare recipients who leech off the productive member of society? Decrease military and defense spending when we have radical islam on the ropes? Cut useless social welfare spending.

by: nuclearferret

02-04-2010 @ 7:58pm

You missed adding the global welfare cases we support under the guise of "foreign aid."

by: nuclearferret

02-04-2010 @ 8:00pm

You all do understand military spending does equate to jobs, right? At least for those items built in the US, not to mention the businesses that depend on service members and their families spending money in their communities.

by: alphacarol

02-04-2010 @ 8:03pm

The ungodly paradox in cutting the military is that so doing will potentially increase the unemployment rate. One can only hope that our military has learned enough in the educations that they have received to be highly employable. Nevertheless, Peace trumps it all. Peaceful solutions ARE available. We just need to use them. They cost money, but not as much as the killing does.

by: ford49

02-07-2010 @ 4:08am

Fundamentalist I agree on this one!

by: ford49

02-07-2010 @ 4:18am

Your compassion is completely underwhelming. I hope and pray life never afflicts you with events that puts you in a position to eat those words.

As for radical Islam, I think saying they are on the ropes is premature; we will be dealing with this matter for decades or longer. We in the West are reaping a bit of what we have sowed in that part of the world for a century or more.

by: jesse3

02-04-2010 @ 4:16pm

I think faith communities are right to be concerned about the deficit. Debt is something the Bible speaks very clearly about. But what if domestic spending was going to contribute to the debt? What if programs that are being proposed would increase it? Isn't that a moral issue?

The issue is the deficit, period, not just what is being spent to increase it.

by: dlondonx

02-04-2010 @ 4:45pm

I cannot see how anyone can talk about 'the deficit' without talking about the myriad things that go into making it up. This is the whole strategy that the Republicans are engaging in. When a Democrat comes into office, start whinging about the deficit. Dont offer any substantive policies ideas to correct it, just whinge about it. Then, when people vote the Republicans into office, forget about the deficit entirely. There is really only one party in this country that cares at all about the deficit, in that they offer real solutions to the problem. The other party is simply out to make sure that the entire deficit goes to the rich, to the detriment of us all.

by: ckgmail

02-04-2010 @ 5:01pm

When even President Bush worried about increased deficits before passing the second round of tax decreases, VP Cheney is reported to have said, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

by: WaveTossed

02-04-2010 @ 5:02pm

Amen!!! I've been saying this for years. The mitary has been taking up a huge chunk of the Federal budget. Which is why it has been known as "The Black Hole in Bagdad" -- and now "The Black Hole in Kabul."

And one doesn't have to be a raving, left-winger to believe this. Go to antiwar.com and read some viewpoints from all different sorts of political perspectives. The U.S. has too many of our own problems to try and continue being the Morality Thought Police of the World.

by: chadbowen

02-04-2010 @ 5:05pm

The deficit is certainly a moral issue in its own regard. However, mirroring the financial choices of the U.S. individuals and corporations, the government has been spending beyond its means for quite some time. It is simply not feasible to fix such a large deficit immediately when it accumulated over time.

There is an ethical dilemma to cutting Medicare funding, which our elderly depend on, in the name of the deficit. The same goes for education, and many of the other things mentioned in Wallis' article.

In regards to military spending, however, I would argue with Wallis that we have disposable income that can be cut tremendously without great moral dilemma-- we have only lessened our capacity to kill people.

In short, the deficit is absolutely a moral issue and must be dealt with. However, it is also a moral issue to take away benefits for people that are a necessary for their health and well-being.

by: fundamentalist

02-04-2010 @ 5:33pm

Moody's has threatened to dowgrade the credit rating of the US, from AAA to AA, if Congress doesn't rein in the deficit. That means the feds will pay higher interest rates to borrow, which will increase the share that interest payment take out of tax receipts.

In addition, China owns a huge portion of the federal debt. We have given control of our finances to creditors, and as Solomon warned in Proverbs, we have become their slaves. From now on, foreign creditors will dictate policy to the US. What a sad ending. I blame Republicans and Democrats alike for this mess.

by: SpareChange

02-04-2010 @ 5:38pm

"Congressman Barney Frank was also at Davos and told me that he is proposing a 25 percent cut in the military budget. He said he will need help from the faith community. I support his effort, and we will saying more about it as details emerge."

JIM, since you are on good speaking terms with Barney have you been able to take him to task on HIS ROLE in this financial crisis regarding Freddie and Fannie?!? Or do your political leanings supersede taking both sides to task for this mess?

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-04-2010 @ 11:06pm

Thank you Jim for saying this. Militaristic imperialism is the self-indulgent vice that will destroy our economy just as it destroyed Russia's.

by: DJ9791

02-04-2010 @ 5:48pm

Our deficit spending is contributing to the world's economic crisis; our military adventurism is contributing to the world's instability and our own economic problems...but whatever is done on the Federal budget will follow political lines and not responsible governing.

Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to this mess, and neither is offering any real promise of working responsibly to rein in spending...and of course, it's un-American to cut the military budget!

As Christians, we have not only a personal responsibility in our own finances, we have a moral responsibility to speak out against our representatives when they act irresponsibly by padding the budget to favor their campaign contributors, the majority of whom represent large corporate interests and not the nation's. "Defense" lobbyists rein supreme among those who sidetrack our nation's finances for their own interests, followed closely by banks and energy companies.

Our packed Supreme Court has just opened the floodgates to a new wave of special-interest spending which will enrich many in Congress and many in business, at the expense of the typical American.

Pray for Peace and Dare to Act!

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-04-2010 @ 11:08pm

Military spending has actually been shown as the LEAST effective use of taxes for job creation.

by: Ngchen

02-04-2010 @ 5:49pm

At the cost of sounding politically incorrect, yes the military budget can and should be cut substantially. There is much unnecessary spending in that area, although there are of course the two wars which need to be funded, at least for now.

First and foremost, why is Uncle Sam spending more on the military than almost (or more than) the rest of the world combined? Second, why are troops deployed to more than 100 countries in the world? It would be actually great for families too if troops can be redeployed back home, to keep them closer to their loved ones. After all, it is the Department of Defense, right?

by: SamHamilton

02-04-2010 @ 11:23pm

I agree with Jim here. It's beyond me why President Obama thinks that defense and "homeland security" should be off limits to a spending freeze or cut.

by: SamHamilton

02-04-2010 @ 11:25pm

I understand that some people here generally think throwing money out the door at random projects regardless of their value or worth and calling it "stimulus" is a good idea, but we shouldn't be spending taxpayer dollars simply because it creates jobs.

by: SamHamilton

02-04-2010 @ 11:27pm

Good point. Something tells me that if Barney Frank had a military base or major weapons contractor in his district he'd be arguing right now that this base is vital(!) to national security and that only other bases/projects should be closed.

by: John Mulholland

02-04-2010 @ 11:55pm

Hmm, I would say that TARP has been pretty ineffective, what with the 10%+ unemployment and all.

by: Guest

02-16-2010 @ 8:41pm

Concerned about the deficit? How about concern for the national debt? That's the problem. 2/3 of our federal gov't spending is on entitlements. Why don't we start there? I'm so tired of hearing the "military industrial complex." I wish you folks would bother listening to the entire speech and put it into context, instead of picking and choosing the parts you like to exploit. The current military looks nothing like it did during the post-WW2 era. Let's also remember the primary role of having a federal government in the first place - to defend the sovereignty of a nation and protect it's citizens. You have to have a military to do that, folks.

by: pawheel

02-08-2010 @ 12:27pm

I really can't accept the consideration of the military boosting employment as a good thing. I personally know many of my childrens friends who chose the military for that reason, and a couple that chose military subcontractor for the same reason (which pays better), but to me that's a pretty sad statement about our country. Can't we use some of the Military budget to assist employment growth in some form, other than mostly overblown projects like over hyped rail development, etc? For example, no matter what you think of global climate change, using some of the manpower and brainpower that now goes to the military to develop new weapons and such could help us reduce foreign oil addiction with true clean energy solutions. We have to start somewhere and both political sides have said we need to get off of foriegn oil addiction. And the construction industry is on it's knees - I know more people who work construction than any other field except I.T. and most of them have spent most of the last year or more unemployed, including most of my extended family.

by: Belt Disc Sander

04-10-2010 @ 3:16am

Yes, I think so. Mr. President should cut a military spending.

by: pawheel

02-08-2010 @ 12:08pm

Sam Hamilton,
I get the impression that since 9/11 especially, being "soft" on defense is considered weak, anti-American, with the terrorists (as in the Bush quote "..youre either with us or your against us"), pick your favorite phrase. Whichever you choose, for a Congressman or Presidential candidate it leaves themn so easily vulnerable to a full frontal attack as any one of the above descriptions by the people who would have used the attack phrase "commumist" 40 years ago.

by: desmontes

02-04-2010 @ 7:37pm

Your quote "It's time to stop subsidizing the shameful profits of the "military industrial complex" that former President Eisenhower warned us about long ago.

I suggest that we amend that quote to read "military industrial congressional complex"---most members of congress push for military spending especially for such spending in their home areas!

by: Dan Borden

02-04-2010 @ 7:48pm

Are you serious?? Increase the budget for welfare recipients who leech off the productive member of society? Decrease military and defense spending when we have radical islam on the ropes? Cut useless social welfare spending.

by: nuclearferret

02-04-2010 @ 7:58pm

You missed adding the global welfare cases we support under the guise of "foreign aid."

by: nuclearferret

02-04-2010 @ 8:00pm

You all do understand military spending does equate to jobs, right? At least for those items built in the US, not to mention the businesses that depend on service members and their families spending money in their communities.

by: alphacarol

02-04-2010 @ 8:03pm

The ungodly paradox in cutting the military is that so doing will potentially increase the unemployment rate. One can only hope that our military has learned enough in the educations that they have received to be highly employable. Nevertheless, Peace trumps it all. Peaceful solutions ARE available. We just need to use them. They cost money, but not as much as the killing does.

by: ford49

02-07-2010 @ 4:08am

Fundamentalist I agree on this one!

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: jesse3

02-04-2010 @ 4:16pm

I think faith communities are right to be concerned about the deficit. Debt is something the Bible speaks very clearly about. But what if domestic spending was going to contribute to the debt? What if programs that are being proposed would increase it? Isn't that a moral issue?

The issue is the deficit, period, not just what is being spent to increase it.

by: jesse3

02-04-2010 @ 4:16pm

I think faith communities are right to be concerned about the deficit. Debt is something the Bible speaks very clearly about. But what if domestic spending was going to contribute to the debt? What if programs that are being proposed would increase it? Isn't that a moral issue?

The issue is the deficit, period, not just what is being spent to increase it.

by: dlondonx

02-04-2010 @ 4:45pm

I cannot see how anyone can talk about 'the deficit' without talking about the myriad things that go into making it up. This is the whole strategy that the Republicans are engaging in. When a Democrat comes into office, start whinging about the deficit. Dont offer any substantive policies ideas to correct it, just whinge about it. Then, when people vote the Republicans into office, forget about the deficit entirely. There is really only one party in this country that cares at all about the deficit, in that they offer real solutions to the problem. The other party is simply out to make sure that the entire deficit goes to the rich, to the detriment of us all.

by: dlondonx

02-04-2010 @ 4:45pm

I cannot see how anyone can talk about 'the deficit' without talking about the myriad things that go into making it up. This is the whole strategy that the Republicans are engaging in. When a Democrat comes into office, start whinging about the deficit. Dont offer any substantive policies ideas to correct it, just whinge about it. Then, when people vote the Republicans into office, forget about the deficit entirely. There is really only one party in this country that cares at all about the deficit, in that they offer real solutions to the problem. The other party is simply out to make sure that the entire deficit goes to the rich, to the detriment of us all.

by: ckgmail

02-04-2010 @ 5:01pm

When even President Bush worried about increased deficits before passing the second round of tax decreases, VP Cheney is reported to have said, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

by: ckgmail

02-04-2010 @ 5:01pm

When even President Bush worried about increased deficits before passing the second round of tax decreases, VP Cheney is reported to have said, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

by: WaveTossed

02-04-2010 @ 5:02pm

Amen!!! I've been saying this for years. The mitary has been taking up a huge chunk of the Federal budget. Which is why it has been known as "The Black Hole in Bagdad" -- and now "The Black Hole in Kabul."

And one doesn't have to be a raving, left-winger to believe this. Go to antiwar.com and read some viewpoints from all different sorts of political perspectives. The U.S. has too many of our own problems to try and continue being the Morality Thought Police of the World.

by: WaveTossed

02-04-2010 @ 5:02pm

Amen!!! I've been saying this for years. The mitary has been taking up a huge chunk of the Federal budget. Which is why it has been known as "The Black Hole in Bagdad" -- and now "The Black Hole in Kabul."

And one doesn't have to be a raving, left-winger to believe this. Go to antiwar.com and read some viewpoints from all different sorts of political perspectives. The U.S. has too many of our own problems to try and continue being the Morality Thought Police of the World.

by: chadbowen

02-04-2010 @ 5:05pm

The deficit is certainly a moral issue in its own regard. However, mirroring the financial choices of the U.S. individuals and corporations, the government has been spending beyond its means for quite some time. It is simply not feasible to fix such a large deficit immediately when it accumulated over time.

There is an ethical dilemma to cutting Medicare funding, which our elderly depend on, in the name of the deficit. The same goes for education, and many of the other things mentioned in Wallis' article.

In regards to military spending, however, I would argue with Wallis that we have disposable income that can be cut tremendously without great moral dilemma-- we have only lessened our capacity to kill people.

In short, the deficit is absolutely a moral issue and must be dealt with. However, it is also a moral issue to take away benefits for people that are a necessary for their health and well-being.

by: chadbowen

02-04-2010 @ 5:05pm

The deficit is certainly a moral issue in its own regard. However, mirroring the financial choices of the U.S. individuals and corporations, the government has been spending beyond its means for quite some time. It is simply not feasible to fix such a large deficit immediately when it accumulated over time.

There is an ethical dilemma to cutting Medicare funding, which our elderly depend on, in the name of the deficit. The same goes for education, and many of the other things mentioned in Wallis' article.

In regards to military spending, however, I would argue with Wallis that we have disposable income that can be cut tremendously without great moral dilemma-- we have only lessened our capacity to kill people.

In short, the deficit is absolutely a moral issue and must be dealt with. However, it is also a moral issue to take away benefits for people that are a necessary for their health and well-being.

by: fundamentalist

02-04-2010 @ 5:33pm

Moody's has threatened to dowgrade the credit rating of the US, from AAA to AA, if Congress doesn't rein in the deficit. That means the feds will pay higher interest rates to borrow, which will increase the share that interest payment take out of tax receipts.

In addition, China owns a huge portion of the federal debt. We have given control of our finances to creditors, and as Solomon warned in Proverbs, we have become their slaves. From now on, foreign creditors will dictate policy to the US. What a sad ending. I blame Republicans and Democrats alike for this mess.

by: fundamentalist

02-04-2010 @ 5:33pm

Moody's has threatened to dowgrade the credit rating of the US, from AAA to AA, if Congress doesn't rein in the deficit. That means the feds will pay higher interest rates to borrow, which will increase the share that interest payment take out of tax receipts.

In addition, China owns a huge portion of the federal debt. We have given control of our finances to creditors, and as Solomon warned in Proverbs, we have become their slaves. From now on, foreign creditors will dictate policy to the US. What a sad ending. I blame Republicans and Democrats alike for this mess.

by: SpareChange

02-04-2010 @ 5:38pm

"Congressman Barney Frank was also at Davos and told me that he is proposing a 25 percent cut in the military budget. He said he will need help from the faith community. I support his effort, and we will saying more about it as details emerge."

JIM, since you are on good speaking terms with Barney have you been able to take him to task on HIS ROLE in this financial crisis regarding Freddie and Fannie?!? Or do your political leanings supersede taking both sides to task for this mess?

by: SpareChange

02-04-2010 @ 5:38pm

"Congressman Barney Frank was also at Davos and told me that he is proposing a 25 percent cut in the military budget. He said he will need help from the faith community. I support his effort, and we will saying more about it as details emerge."

JIM, since you are on good speaking terms with Barney have you been able to take him to task on HIS ROLE in this financial crisis regarding Freddie and Fannie?!? Or do your political leanings supersede taking both sides to task for this mess?

by: DJ9791

02-04-2010 @ 5:48pm

Our deficit spending is contributing to the world's economic crisis; our military adventurism is contributing to the world's instability and our own economic problems...but whatever is done on the Federal budget will follow political lines and not responsible governing.

Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to this mess, and neither is offering any real promise of working responsibly to rein in spending...and of course, it's un-American to cut the military budget!

As Christians, we have not only a personal responsibility in our own finances, we have a moral responsibility to speak out against our representatives when they act irresponsibly by padding the budget to favor their campaign contributors, the majority of whom represent large corporate interests and not the nation's. "Defense" lobbyists rein supreme among those who sidetrack our nation's finances for their own interests, followed closely by banks and energy companies.

Our packed Supreme Court has just opened the floodgates to a new wave of special-interest spending which will enrich many in Congress and many in business, at the expense of the typical American.

Pray for Peace and Dare to Act!

by: DJ9791

02-04-2010 @ 5:48pm

Our deficit spending is contributing to the world's economic crisis; our military adventurism is contributing to the world's instability and our own economic problems...but whatever is done on the Federal budget will follow political lines and not responsible governing.

Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to this mess, and neither is offering any real promise of working responsibly to rein in spending...and of course, it's un-American to cut the military budget!

As Christians, we have not only a personal responsibility in our own finances, we have a moral responsibility to speak out against our representatives when they act irresponsibly by padding the budget to favor their campaign contributors, the majority of whom represent large corporate interests and not the nation's. "Defense" lobbyists rein supreme among those who sidetrack our nation's finances for their own interests, followed closely by banks and energy companies.

Our packed Supreme Court has just opened the floodgates to a new wave of special-interest spending which will enrich many in Congress and many in business, at the expense of the typical American.

Pray for Peace and Dare to Act!

by: Ngchen

02-04-2010 @ 5:49pm

At the cost of sounding politically incorrect, yes the military budget can and should be cut substantially. There is much unnecessary spending in that area, although there are of course the two wars which need to be funded, at least for now.

First and foremost, why is Uncle Sam spending more on the military than almost (or more than) the rest of the world combined? Second, why are troops deployed to more than 100 countries in the world? It would be actually great for families too if troops can be redeployed back home, to keep them closer to their loved ones. After all, it is the Department of Defense, right?

by: Ngchen

02-04-2010 @ 5:49pm

At the cost of sounding politically incorrect, yes the military budget can and should be cut substantially. There is much unnecessary spending in that area, although there are of course the two wars which need to be funded, at least for now.

First and foremost, why is Uncle Sam spending more on the military than almost (or more than) the rest of the world combined? Second, why are troops deployed to more than 100 countries in the world? It would be actually great for families too if troops can be redeployed back home, to keep them closer to their loved ones. After all, it is the Department of Defense, right?

by: desmontes

02-04-2010 @ 7:37pm

Your quote "It's time to stop subsidizing the shameful profits of the "military industrial complex" that former President Eisenhower warned us about long ago.

I suggest that we amend that quote to read "military industrial congressional complex"---most members of congress push for military spending especially for such spending in their home areas!

by: desmontes

02-04-2010 @ 7:37pm

Your quote "It's time to stop subsidizing the shameful profits of the "military industrial complex" that former President Eisenhower warned us about long ago.

I suggest that we amend that quote to read "military industrial congressional complex"---most members of congress push for military spending especially for such spending in their home areas!

by: Dan Borden

02-04-2010 @ 7:48pm

Are you serious?? Increase the budget for welfare recipients who leech off the productive member of society? Decrease military and defense spending when we have radical islam on the ropes? Cut useless social welfare spending.

by: Dan Borden

02-04-2010 @ 7:48pm

Are you serious?? Increase the budget for welfare recipients who leech off the productive member of society? Decrease military and defense spending when we have radical islam on the ropes? Cut useless social welfare spending.

by: nuclearferret

02-04-2010 @ 7:58pm

You missed adding the global welfare cases we support under the guise of "foreign aid."

by: nuclearferret

02-04-2010 @ 7:58pm

You missed adding the global welfare cases we support under the guise of "foreign aid."

by: nuclearferret

02-04-2010 @ 8:00pm

You all do understand military spending does equate to jobs, right? At least for those items built in the US, not to mention the businesses that depend on service members and their families spending money in their communities.

by: nuclearferret

02-04-2010 @ 8:00pm

You all do understand military spending does equate to jobs, right? At least for those items built in the US, not to mention the businesses that depend on service members and their families spending money in their communities.

by: alphacarol

02-04-2010 @ 8:03pm

The ungodly paradox in cutting the military is that so doing will potentially increase the unemployment rate. One can only hope that our military has learned enough in the educations that they have received to be highly employable. Nevertheless, Peace trumps it all. Peaceful solutions ARE available. We just need to use them. They cost money, but not as much as the killing does.

by: alphacarol

02-04-2010 @ 8:03pm

The ungodly paradox in cutting the military is that so doing will potentially increase the unemployment rate. One can only hope that our military has learned enough in the educations that they have received to be highly employable. Nevertheless, Peace trumps it all. Peaceful solutions ARE available. We just need to use them. They cost money, but not as much as the killing does.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-04-2010 @ 11:06pm

Thank you Jim for saying this. Militaristic imperialism is the self-indulgent vice that will destroy our economy just as it destroyed Russia's.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-04-2010 @ 11:06pm

Thank you Jim for saying this. Militaristic imperialism is the self-indulgent vice that will destroy our economy just as it destroyed Russia's.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-04-2010 @ 11:08pm

Military spending has actually been shown as the LEAST effective use of taxes for job creation.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-04-2010 @ 11:08pm

Military spending has actually been shown as the LEAST effective use of taxes for job creation.

by: SamHamilton

02-04-2010 @ 11:23pm

I agree with Jim here. It's beyond me why President Obama thinks that defense and "homeland security" should be off limits to a spending freeze or cut.

by: SamHamilton

02-04-2010 @ 11:23pm

I agree with Jim here. It's beyond me why President Obama thinks that defense and "homeland security" should be off limits to a spending freeze or cut.

by: SamHamilton

02-04-2010 @ 11:25pm

I understand that some people here generally think throwing money out the door at random projects regardless of their value or worth and calling it "stimulus" is a good idea, but we shouldn't be spending taxpayer dollars simply because it creates jobs.

by: SamHamilton

02-04-2010 @ 11:25pm

I understand that some people here generally think throwing money out the door at random projects regardless of their value or worth and calling it "stimulus" is a good idea, but we shouldn't be spending taxpayer dollars simply because it creates jobs.

by: SamHamilton

02-04-2010 @ 11:27pm

Good point. Something tells me that if Barney Frank had a military base or major weapons contractor in his district he'd be arguing right now that this base is vital(!) to national security and that only other bases/projects should be closed.

by: SamHamilton

02-04-2010 @ 11:27pm

Good point. Something tells me that if Barney Frank had a military base or major weapons contractor in his district he'd be arguing right now that this base is vital(!) to national security and that only other bases/projects should be closed.

by: John Mulholland

02-04-2010 @ 11:55pm

Hmm, I would say that TARP has been pretty ineffective, what with the 10%+ unemployment and all.

by: John Mulholland

02-04-2010 @ 11:55pm

Hmm, I would say that TARP has been pretty ineffective, what with the 10%+ unemployment and all.

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 9:26am

NF, you do understand that Jim Wallis has a superior ability and understanding as to the type of jobs that should be created, don't you? /sarc

You can cut spending, but the real decisions have to be made at the level of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These will bankrupt us, have bankrupted us.

Cut military spending all you want, but you will put people out of work.

Much better to spend money on things that will never be used and never provide security like rail programs. I can hardly wait for the day when I, instead of getting in my car and getting from Columbus to Cleveland in about two hours (or less), drive 20 minutes to the train station, pay to park my car, wait for the train, take the 3 hour 45 minute train to Cleveland, get there, arrange for transportation, go to my one hour meeting or court hearing, then check into the hotel for an overnight stay at which time, I get to spend almost five hours getting back to Columbus.

It's this kind of moronic thinking that this is somehow better, more efficient, that has many of us scratching our heads at the lack of wisdom of those who propose it.

I do agree that we could do as well with less money in the Pentagon budget. It's filled with pork. Make some real decisions on how to spend it, but recognize that entitlement spending and age demographics are the real problem.

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 9:26am

NF, you do understand that Jim Wallis has a superior ability and understanding as to the type of jobs that should be created, don't you? /sarc

You can cut spending, but the real decisions have to be made at the level of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These will bankrupt us, have bankrupted us.

Cut military spending all you want, but you will put people out of work.

Much better to spend money on things that will never be used and never provide security like rail programs. I can hardly wait for the day when I, instead of getting in my car and getting from Columbus to Cleveland in about two hours (or less), drive 20 minutes to the train station, pay to park my car, wait for the train, take the 3 hour 45 minute train to Cleveland, get there, arrange for transportation, go to my one hour meeting or court hearing, then check into the hotel for an overnight stay at which time, I get to spend almost five hours getting back to Columbus.

It's this kind of moronic thinking that this is somehow better, more efficient, that has many of us scratching our heads at the lack of wisdom of those who propose it.

I do agree that we could do as well with less money in the Pentagon budget. It's filled with pork. Make some real decisions on how to spend it, but recognize that entitlement spending and age demographics are the real problem.

by: ckgmail

02-05-2010 @ 1:26pm

Remember, TARP was originated under the previous administration. It was scaled down considerably from what the then Secretary of the Treasury asked for. And we do not know what would have happened if the banks had not been rescued. Perhaps unemployment would be 20% or greater. We don't know.

by: ckgmail

02-05-2010 @ 1:26pm

Remember, TARP was originated under the previous administration. It was scaled down considerably from what the then Secretary of the Treasury asked for. And we do not know what would have happened if the banks had not been rescued. Perhaps unemployment would be 20% or greater. We don't know.

by: ckgmail

02-05-2010 @ 1:32pm

Further amend it to the "military industrial medical prison complex." Lobbyists for the medical insurance companies were able to gut the proposed health reform act. And believe me the prison industry has taken the place of agricultural field workers in many rural agricultural areas. Many displaced farmers work as prison guards. The PC term is correctional officers. And displaced field hands, or their offspring, are the prisoners.

by: ckgmail

02-05-2010 @ 1:32pm

Further amend it to the "military industrial medical prison complex." Lobbyists for the medical insurance companies were able to gut the proposed health reform act. And believe me the prison industry has taken the place of agricultural field workers in many rural agricultural areas. Many displaced farmers work as prison guards. The PC term is correctional officers. And displaced field hands, or their offspring, are the prisoners.

by: ford49

02-07-2010 @ 4:08am

Fundamentalist I agree on this one!

by: ford49

02-07-2010 @ 4:08am

Fundamentalist I agree on this one!

by: ford49

02-07-2010 @ 4:18am

Your compassion is completely underwhelming. I hope and pray life never afflicts you with events that puts you in a position to eat those words.

As for radical Islam, I think saying they are on the ropes is premature; we will be dealing with this matter for decades or longer. We in the West are reaping a bit of what we have sowed in that part of the world for a century or more.

by: ford49

02-07-2010 @ 4:18am

Your compassion is completely underwhelming. I hope and pray life never afflicts you with events that puts you in a position to eat those words.

As for radical Islam, I think saying they are on the ropes is premature; we will be dealing with this matter for decades or longer. We in the West are reaping a bit of what we have sowed in that part of the world for a century or more.