Get E-Mail Updates

This is Not Fiscal Conservatism. It's Just Politics.

The current budget and deficit debate in America is now dominating the daily headlines. There is even talk of shutting down the government if the budget-cutters don't get their way. There is no doubt that excessive deficits are a moral issue and could leave our children and grandchildren with crushing debt. But what the politicians and pundits have yet to acknowledge is that how you reduce the deficit is also a moral issue. As Sojourners said in the last big budget debate in 2005, "A budget is a moral document." For a family, church, city, state, or nation, a budget reveals what your fundamental priorities are: who is important and who is not; what is important and what is not. It's time to bring that slogan back, and build a coalition and campaign around it.

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. 

The governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, says he only really cares about his budget deficit; however, it now appears that he proudly sees himself as the first domino in a new strategy for Republican governors to break their public employee unions. (We are already seeing similar actions in Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey.) Governor Walker's proposed bill is really more about his ideological commitments and conservative politics -- which favor business over labor -- than about his concern for Wisconsin's financial health. Thousands of working-class Americans are now protesting in the streets of Madison and have made this a national debate. Even protesters in Egypt are sending messages of hope (and pizzas) to the Wisconsin demonstrators.

The Republican governors' counter parts in the U.S. House of Representatives are also not cutting spending where the real money is, such as in military spending, corporate tax cuts and loop holes, and long term health-care costs. Instead, they are cutting programs for the poorest people at home and around the world. This is also just political and not genuine fiscal conservatism. It is a direct attack on programs that help the poor and an all-out defense of the largesse handed out to big corporations and military contractors. If a budget is a moral document, these budget-cutters show that their priorities are to protect the richest Americans and abandon the poorest -- and this is an ideological and moral choice. The proposed House cuts, which were just sent to the Senate, are full of disproportionate cuts to initiatives that have proven to save children's lives and overcome poverty, while leaving untouched the most corrupt and wasteful spending of all American tax dollars -- the Pentagon entitlement program. This is not fiscal integrity; this is hypocrisy.

U.S. military spending is now 56 percent of the world's military expenditures and is more than the military budgets of the next 20 countries in the world combined. To believe all that money is necessary for genuine American security is simply no longer credible. To say it is more important than bed nets that prevent malaria, vaccines that prevent deadly diseases, or child health and family nutrition for low-income families is simply immoral. Again, these are ideological choices, not smart fiscal ones. To prioritize endless military spending over critical, life-saving programs for the poor is to reverse the biblical instruction to beat our swords into plowshares. The proposed budget cuts would beat plowshares into more swords. These priorities are not only immoral, they are unbiblical.

Now some members of Congress seem to want to force a government showdown over all this. They are saying there will be no shared sacrifice for the rich, only sacrifices from the poor and middle-class, or we will shut down the government. The only people whose lives have returned to normal in America are the ones who precipitated our financial and economic crisis in the first place. They have all returned to record profits, while many others are still struggling with unemployment, stagnant wages, loss of benefits, home foreclosures, and more. These representatives are claiming that we should restore fiscal integrity by protecting all the soaring billionaires, while forcing the already-squeezed to make more and more concessions.

Let me offer a word to those who see this critique as partisan. I've had good friendships with Republican members of Congress, but not the kind who get elected by their party anymore. But let's be clear, when politicians attack the poor, it is not partisan to challenge them; it is a Christian responsibility.

This is wrong, this is unjust, this is vile, and this must not stand. Next week, thanks to your support, look for a full-page ad in Politico signed by faith leaders and organizations across the country that asks Congress a probing question: "What would Jesus cut?" These proposed budget cuts are backwards, and I don't see how people of faith can accept them. And we won't.

portrait-jim-wallis

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO ofSojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.


+Click here to get email updates from Jim Wallis

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

by: Patricia

02-25-2011 @ 6:11am

And, I guess you could call betting that the derivitives you aggressively sold knowing they were unsound would tank so you could still make money off them...well, I don't know what you would call that, but neither dumb mistake nor mispriced risk seems to fit the bill.

by: MikeSw

02-25-2011 @ 1:32am

My point was that even if you restore those cuts, even if you take them higher, you still have a huge hole.

by: Stein

02-25-2011 @ 10:21pm

Social Security should NOT be part of the budget. It was not created as part of the budget (as I recall it as Bush who started listing it as part of the budget to make the percentage of red-ink seem to be less). Let SS stand or fall on its own merits. It may need reform, but that is a SEPARATE ISSUE.

We can talk about cuts -- and I think we should start with the big ticket items (that only makes sense), but SS is not one of the big ticket items. Its not in the picture at all. Its just not part of the budget.

by: justintime

02-25-2011 @ 6:14am

Fraud comes to mind.

by: MikeSw

02-25-2011 @ 1:30am

Entitlements and labor costs are the biggest part of the budget.

by: squeaky

02-25-2011 @ 6:16am

"What's the connection ?"

Well, that, and as I have learned over the years on this blog, everything can be connected to abortion. It's like a political "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon."

by: squeaky

02-26-2011 @ 4:22pm

He did NOT say we should *completely* cut the military. Cutting back spending, being more efficient, evaluating what is and isn't need, and making appropriate cuts is not the same as completely cutting the military.

by: Patricia

02-25-2011 @ 1:34am

Facts and figures to back that up?

by: Patricia

02-25-2011 @ 10:25pm

There's a reason why no one wants to answer that question...and it's all about politics and ideology.

by: justintime

02-25-2011 @ 6:20am

If you're a conservative cornered by the facts, just say "abortion" and disappear into a puff of smoke.

by: Patricia

02-26-2011 @ 4:29pm

Big Budget Boys, if I remember correctly...

by: kansasmennonite

02-25-2011 @ 1:37am

Believe me, mediocrity happens in the private schools also. In my local high school we (the tax payers) have no problem removing problem people. It's be done a few times believe me!

by: Patricia

02-25-2011 @ 10:24pm

Here's the most recent information I have been able to find about GM, and the other bailouts as far as what happened, how much has been paid back so far, and what prospects are for full payback:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/b...

by: YatesC

02-25-2011 @ 6:19am

I advocate by my vote, by letters and every way I know how for a smaller government, that spends less and spends smarter. I am smart enough to read the budget and understand that defense, Medicare and Medicaid, along with interest on the national debt, are the biggest sources of spending by far.

Much of the federal spending on social programs has not been smart. We have not managed to make much of a dent at all in the intractable problems of poverty. I believe that is because the focus has been on only providing money. Without changing the lives of the people involved the problem will never be solved. And the only way to change their lives is to bring them to the saving grace of Jesus Christ. That is not something the government can or should do. No matter how much money is spent, so long as children are born into one parent families, poverty will endure. So long as young men and women look for solutions to their problems in drugs, sex, gangs, and other places, poverty will endure. So long as marriage is degraded by government, poverty will endure. Social conservatives are accused by progressives of harping on the issue of the marriage and the family, yet those are the instutions given to us by God around which we organize our lives and until we are willing to say to people you need to be married before you have children and you need to stay married poverty will endure.

For me, I am convinced that the breakdown of the family, first among black families and now among white and latino famiies is the most important cause of permanent, intractable poverty and no amount of money will change that.

Should there be a safety net? Yes there should be. But the only real help, life changing help, will come from the church and Christians. So instead of demanding more and more tax payer money, our focus should be on Christians meeting the needs of people, both physically and spiritually.

by: agnosticnomore

03-03-2011 @ 3:10pm

The definition of anarchy is; no hierarchy. So an honest anarchist must realize that if he wishes to be free of a hierarchy, then he must allow his neighbor the same privilege. Or be a hermit.

by: Stephanie Cloak-Sander

02-25-2011 @ 10:23pm

It is not ALL Business over Labor. Walker is for Certain Business over Labor. As a Cheesehead who is a small business owner, Walker hurts us small business as well. It is the Big Boys who Walker is in bed with.

by: YatesC

02-25-2011 @ 6:23am

As for the financial crisis, you are angry and uninformed about the causes.

by: Patricia

02-26-2011 @ 4:34pm

An excellent resource documenting how the financial meltdown happened is "All The Devils Are Here" by Bethany Mclean and Joe Nocera.

by: Cody Lonning

02-25-2011 @ 1:48am

@hatchet87
"sorry I am a constitutional law lawyer I know you are just blowing smoke."

Ha ha ha. Now that's pretty funny. Respect for that one. And I'm the parliamentarian of the Senate...

by: Patricia

02-25-2011 @ 10:26pm

Yes, those Koch brothers...waiting to pick up WIS state assets for, well not even a song...a couple of bars is more like it.

by: squeaky

02-25-2011 @ 6:26am

Yes, and again, with this very post, you are focussing on a part of our budget that is just small potatoes.

So I'll ask you directly:

Do you or do you not think that it would be more effective for us to first focus our budget cutting on those programs that cost the most to our national budget? Please answer this.

(And btw--not all programs that help the poor are ineffective. WIC being one of them. Yet it's on the chopping block.)

by: justintime

02-26-2011 @ 4:33pm

I fell asleep last night in front of the tv. . . Never done that before. . . Good morning.

by: MikeSw

02-25-2011 @ 1:51am

Medicare and social security are entitlements so there you go.

by: YatesC

02-25-2011 @ 6:26am

Abortion surfaces here again and again because it stands alone as the greatest national sin.

by: Patricia

02-26-2011 @ 4:33pm

I agree Joel - Congress DEFINITELY needs to change the taxing policies! They need to end the Bush-era tax cuts IMMEDIATELY to start attending to the revenue side of the equation as they take food out of the mouths of poor women and children to "address" the "spending" side of the equation!

by: squeaky

02-25-2011 @ 1:50am

TJWB

I think you misunderstand the point. The point isn't jealousy of rich people. The point is the sacrifices are being asked of those who can least afford it, while those who have the most aren't asked to make any sacrifices. Job-killing tax cuts, I call them.

I see you have also appealed to the "the poor in this country aren't really poor" argument. Certainly, the poor in our country by and large seem to be better off than the poor in 3rd world nations. But, have you factored in the cost of living? And it doesnt' mean that there aren't some who definitely suffer from poverty in this nation, not being able to feed their children nutritious food in the early developmental stages in their lives. Yes, I wonder why, in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we tolerate poverty with a shrug of the shoulder and a "eh. They aren't that bad off" dismissal.

by: liberalinlove

02-25-2011 @ 10:30pm

You may want to go back to Obama's original speech and policy on cut and spending. Everything that is added is paid for by something else that is cut.

I believe he has consistently talked of line-item cutting. Things that were not productive, were no longer necessary, or never have been.

by: squeaky

02-25-2011 @ 6:28am

Why is it that we only care about children until they crown? After that point, they are on their own. Then their mothers are characterized as welfare queens.

by: Patricia

02-26-2011 @ 4:35pm

The Bible does NOT say we CANNOT use government as a tool to assist those people, either.

by: SamHamilton

02-25-2011 @ 1:50am

Isn't that what they've been doing, since practically the moment of his election?

Come on Patricia. No one has occupied the Capitol or White House by force. Let's get back to reality.

by: squeaky

02-25-2011 @ 6:30am

Umm...the causes were very well-publicized and very well articulated by my fellow posters. What do you think the causes are, then?

by: Patricia

02-26-2011 @ 4:38pm

Well, considering that the top 1% own around 2/3 of the wealth, I would say they need to increase their tax burden to be commensurate with the amount of wealth they own.

by: liberalinlove

02-25-2011 @ 10:37pm

Okay, now what do you have on subsidizing oil, agriculture etc.?
How much does that cost us and how does that figure into the "free market" capitalism our conservative brothers are talking about?

by: justintime

02-25-2011 @ 6:30am

Yates, what do you think we pull out of Afghanistan . . . save $120 billion per year ? . . .
Terminate Bush's tax cuts for the rich ? . . .save $700 billion per year ?

by: Patricia

02-26-2011 @ 4:37pm

So, where did Mr Wallis say we should cut all military spending?

How do you get that from "to believe ALL (emphasis mine) that money is necessary..."?

Really, Joel, hyperbole and distortion do not contribute to the conversation at all.

by: squeaky

02-25-2011 @ 1:52am

hatchet87

"Jesus said we are to have the poor always with us."

If I had a nickel for every time I have heard someone use this as a justification to cut spending for the poor, I could make every poor person rich.

by: justintime

02-25-2011 @ 10:41pm

I'm a democrat, Mike.
I proposed big cuts right here on this thread.
Obama not only has proposed cuts, he has already made cuts.
Lots of democrats in Congress have proposed cuts.
Haven't you been listening?
I guess not.

by: Patricia

03-02-2011 @ 9:07pm

What do you consider "get along just fine"?

by: justintime

02-25-2011 @ 6:32am

I am informed about the cause of the economic collapse.
That's why I'm angry.

by: squeaky

02-26-2011 @ 4:46pm

Thing is, Mick, I find it rather concerning that many of the same people who would try to end abortion also want to cut funds for WIC. All while preserving money for a war machine that is much larger than necessary. Is there not a disconnect between these efforts and the Kingdom of God?

This is the picture I have seen of so-called compassionate conservativism since they have taken the reigns. I've seen a push to change the definition of the word rape so that there are no funds to pay for abortions for women who have been raped or young girls who have suffered incest (and that is the only abortions federal funds pay for, by the way). I'm pro-life, but if a woman has suffered the violence of rape or incest, I'm sorry, that is her choice whether she wants to further suffer through an unwanted pregnancy. Such attempts at legislation completely denigrate the experience a woman goes through who experiences such violence. Men who do such things should be locked away, and our legislatures instead decide "oh, because it wasn't forcible, it isn't really rape."

The same people turn around and try to cut funds for WIC, a *successful* program for Women, Infants, and Children that provides nutrition in the vital stages of early childhood development.
I applaud efforts to help individual by individual, but that is in no way going to replace the help WIC already and successfully provides. Is the church prepared to take on that sudden burden?

I understand your issues with Planned Parenthood because it is seen as an abortion clinic. But it is mostly a clinic that provides low income women with breast and cervical cancer screening, pre and post natal pregnancy care, and education. So, yet another example of cutting health care for poor women. Late discovery of cancer is, by the way, a death sentence.

A US congresswoman called this a war on women. I agree with her.

The same people who try to change the definition of rape also complain that poor women have all those babies so they can so they can get more welfare money out of the government. So, here's the message:

The same people who say "the fetus has no choice" blame the child once he or she is born into circumstances outside his or her control, and then blame that child for making poor choices as they grow up when they have no idea what a good choice looks like.

You can't have it both ways. You can't be pro-life for a fetus and pro-choice for a child. And cutting funds for a program that works is not being po-child.

by: duhsciple

03-01-2011 @ 7:09pm

I do not agree in any, way, shape or form with the birther movement. I do not get their "logic" at all.

I do believe that there are many (your percentages might very well be accurate) who oppose the president because he is black.

Your post had substantive content we must deal with and confront. And... I think it is important to abide by the "code of conduct" for making comments here.

I write as one who agrees with your content, but not with the tone of your post. Christ demonstrates that the way you defeat your "enemy" is by loving them. Dr. King was someone who in my lifetime embodied this path.

I am trying to follow the "more excellent way" (1 Cor. 13). I think there is a way to be both firm and gracious. I also think that we are more likely to convert others (e.g. birthers) by loving them over against calling them "idiots". Perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree over how we live out the "comment code".

Peace to you, friend (from my side you are "friend"), Duh

by: squeaky

02-25-2011 @ 2:02am

judithod--the reason they weren't able to state their case persuasively is that the governor tried to ram the bill through WITHOUT debate or discussion.

If they were my representatives, I would be cheering them on as heroes for standing up for me.

by: squeaky

02-26-2011 @ 4:51pm

leart2--I knew people would conveniently forget those little facts once Obama took office.

by: justintime

02-25-2011 @ 6:52am

A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy - $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs).

Yates, do you think we should legalize drugs and save $44 billion in law enforcement costs and gain $32.7 billion in tax revenue ?
To say nothing of the cost of incarcerating millions of petty drug offenders . . . The annual cost of incarcerating one inmate is more than sending him to Harvard.

by: squeaky

02-25-2011 @ 2:04am

hatchet--if by thugs you mean the protestors, we DO have the right to protest in this country.

by: liberalinlove

02-25-2011 @ 11:14pm

True entitlement would mean a chicken in every roasting pan.

by: Barryb64

03-01-2011 @ 11:06am

If the conversation should ever arise again and I do recall your request then I'll endeavor source it. I am not to anxious to go digging through a ton of conversation. One question though, who I was talking with?

Secular conservatives, Secular progressives and Christian progresives or Christian conservatives are not the same thing.

by: SamHamilton

02-25-2011 @ 9:40am

I agree, Patricia, my viewpoint on public sector unions and their relationship with their benefactors in legislatures is cynical. I come by it honestly though, by looking at the way public sector unions donate their time and money to the political campaigns of those who, once elected, turn around and reward them with overly-generous benefits.

Of course the demands made by public sector unions aren't just rubber stamped in a collective bargaining negotiation, but if Wisconsin is any example (also see the Richard Cohen op-ed below), they are still far too generous. The problem lies in the fact that, as an AFSCME union leader once bragged "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss." The negotiations are between union reps and legislators who've been the recipient of AFSCME campaign contributions. Removing the ability of public sector unions to bargain with their political allies for better benefits removes this conflict of interest.

Obviously, the unions see collective bargaining for benefits as a huge win for them, otherwise they wouldn't be going to the mattresses for it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

by: YatesC

02-25-2011 @ 2:03am

kansasmennonite

As citizens we live under a constitution that charges the government with the responsibility to provide for a common defense. What that means is open to debate but I suspect we would find some common ground.

As Christian, though, I don't want my tax dollars laundered through the hands of government to pay for abortions, sexual promiscuity, additictions, and other evils that progressives think are worthy. I want to keep my money to use individually and through my church to help the poor, the needy, children, and the sick. I do not want to pour money into the pockets of ACORN, the eugenicists at Planned Parenthood and other frankly evil groups that feed at the public trough. I just ask government to get out of the way and only do what others can't.

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

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 8:08pm

I don't know what it's going to take to get our "representatives" to tackle the REAL issues.

Part of the problem is that the fantasy of lazy poor people sucking us dry is so attractive to so many of us. The insistence upon clinging to that false fantasy in the face of objective mathematical fact says a lot about us as a people and a nation...and as Christians. We simply do not demand shared sacrifice - we only demand the poor and vulnerable sacrifice more and more.

We are as much to blame for the situation as our politicians are.

Despite the clear lack of biblical instruction to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful, and the clear presence of the biblical instruction to protect the poor and the vulnerable, so many American Christians cannot seem to free themselves from the worship of mammon, and mammon's prophets, and mammon's "chosen ones." So many of us desire the blessings of mammon over the blessings of God.

We are well on our way to becoming a third-world society, where the rich enjoy their bounty at the inhumane expense of the poor. And I think a lot of us are going to be very surprised and disappointed to find out the group in which we end up being members.

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 8:08pm

I don't know what it's going to take to get our "representatives" to tackle the REAL issues.

Part of the problem is that the fantasy of lazy poor people sucking us dry is so attractive to so many of us. The insistence upon clinging to that false fantasy in the face of objective mathematical fact says a lot about us as a people and a nation...and as Christians. We simply do not demand shared sacrifice - we only demand the poor and vulnerable sacrifice more and more.

We are as much to blame for the situation as our politicians are.

Despite the clear lack of biblical instruction to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful, and the clear presence of the biblical instruction to protect the poor and the vulnerable, so many American Christians cannot seem to free themselves from the worship of mammon, and mammon's prophets, and mammon's "chosen ones." So many of us desire the blessings of mammon over the blessings of God.

We are well on our way to becoming a third-world society, where the rich enjoy their bounty at the inhumane expense of the poor. And I think a lot of us are going to be very surprised and disappointed to find out the group in which we end up being members.

by: BillSamuel

02-24-2011 @ 8:55pm

This is true, but a bit overly partisan. Remember that President Obama is proposing cuts in human needs programs while increasing military spending. What he proposes is not as extreme, but shows similar misguided priorities.

We need a prophetic witness that is willing to challenge the establishment near consensus that is morally wrong, not just an attack on one wing of the establishment.

by: BillSamuel

02-24-2011 @ 8:55pm

This is true, but a bit overly partisan. Remember that President Obama is proposing cuts in human needs programs while increasing military spending. What he proposes is not as extreme, but shows similar misguided priorities.

We need a prophetic witness that is willing to challenge the establishment near consensus that is morally wrong, not just an attack on one wing of the establishment.

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:01pm

How does refusing to allow the democratic process to go forward by illegally blocking a vote, help anyone? Many on this site complained at the mere threat of republicans using the filibuster in the Senate (which they actually never used), but praise the democrats in these state legislatures for essentially doing the same thing but outside the law! A state making the exact same cuts gets praised if a democrat is governor and criticized if a republican is! The hypocrisy is glaring. Stop being ao partisan and address real issues!

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:01pm

How does refusing to allow the democratic process to go forward by illegally blocking a vote, help anyone? Many on this site complained at the mere threat of republicans using the filibuster in the Senate (which they actually never used), but praise the democrats in these state legislatures for essentially doing the same thing but outside the law! A state making the exact same cuts gets praised if a democrat is governor and criticized if a republican is! The hypocrisy is glaring. Stop being ao partisan and address real issues!

by: DJ9791

02-24-2011 @ 9:08pm

I agree BillSamuel...there's already too much partisanship in this debate. Having said that, let's put all the chips on the table. There ARE some social programs which don't work, and need to be removed. There DOES need to be reform in Medicare and Social Security, although everything I read says that these reforms can be minor and not damaging to those who need them most. And if the Health Care Act needs fixing, then do so! But throwing it out only exacerbates the problem of health care costs instead of addressing the problem directly. Of course, those who want to throw it out already have health care for life.

The cuts the GOP is pushing are clearly aimed at the most vulnerable populations, as well as programs which they just don't like, regardless whether or not they work. Strongly influenced by the Tea Party, they want to turn back the clock to a time when white, wealthy males dominated everything in our society, and working class people remained third class citizens.

We as Americans and Christians need to demand that our representatives stop the posturing and start working for ALL of us. And by the way, where are the cuts in the bloated Congressional staffs, wages and benefits? Fiscal responsibility must start at home with Congress just as it does with every American. When John Boehmer says that he'll cut his pay and health care benefits to set an example, I'll start to listen to what he offers.

When President Obama stands up to GOP pressure and refuses to cut programs which are needed most, then I'll applaud him.

Until then, we can only continue to lobby for morality in our government, and follow Him who holds all governments in His hands!

Pray For Peace And Dare To Act!

by: DJ9791

02-24-2011 @ 9:08pm

I agree BillSamuel...there's already too much partisanship in this debate. Having said that, let's put all the chips on the table. There ARE some social programs which don't work, and need to be removed. There DOES need to be reform in Medicare and Social Security, although everything I read says that these reforms can be minor and not damaging to those who need them most. And if the Health Care Act needs fixing, then do so! But throwing it out only exacerbates the problem of health care costs instead of addressing the problem directly. Of course, those who want to throw it out already have health care for life.

The cuts the GOP is pushing are clearly aimed at the most vulnerable populations, as well as programs which they just don't like, regardless whether or not they work. Strongly influenced by the Tea Party, they want to turn back the clock to a time when white, wealthy males dominated everything in our society, and working class people remained third class citizens.

We as Americans and Christians need to demand that our representatives stop the posturing and start working for ALL of us. And by the way, where are the cuts in the bloated Congressional staffs, wages and benefits? Fiscal responsibility must start at home with Congress just as it does with every American. When John Boehmer says that he'll cut his pay and health care benefits to set an example, I'll start to listen to what he offers.

When President Obama stands up to GOP pressure and refuses to cut programs which are needed most, then I'll applaud him.

Until then, we can only continue to lobby for morality in our government, and follow Him who holds all governments in His hands!

Pray For Peace And Dare To Act!

by: jbcracker

02-24-2011 @ 9:09pm

Sad to say it. The the attitude seems to be "we really don't care if you are right or wrong, we have the votes."

by: jbcracker

02-24-2011 @ 9:09pm

Sad to say it. The the attitude seems to be "we really don't care if you are right or wrong, we have the votes."

by: 22044

02-24-2011 @ 9:12pm

Mr. Wallis,
Would you consider reaching out to some of the new Republicans in Congress? They are fairly elected by their constituents, whether you like their politics or not (or even if you think God is for you & against them). If you really want to communicate your message effectively - that would be a recommended course of action.

by: 22044

02-24-2011 @ 9:12pm

Mr. Wallis,
Would you consider reaching out to some of the new Republicans in Congress? They are fairly elected by their constituents, whether you like their politics or not (or even if you think God is for you & against them). If you really want to communicate your message effectively - that would be a recommended course of action.

by: sschlichter

02-24-2011 @ 9:19pm

"But let's be clear, when politicians attack the poor, it is not partisan to challenge them; it is a Christian responsibility."

Who is the poor being attacked here?

by: sschlichter

02-24-2011 @ 9:19pm

"But let's be clear, when politicians attack the poor, it is not partisan to challenge them; it is a Christian responsibility."

Who is the poor being attacked here?

by: sschlichter

02-24-2011 @ 9:20pm

"Type your comment here.But let's be clear, when politicians attack the poor, it is not partisan to challenge them; it is a Christian responsibility."

Who are the poor being attacked here?

by: sschlichter

02-24-2011 @ 9:20pm

"Type your comment here.But let's be clear, when politicians attack the poor, it is not partisan to challenge them; it is a Christian responsibility."

Who are the poor being attacked here?

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:26pm

There isn't any state I know of with a Democratic governor that is attempting to strip public employees of their bargaining rights.

Can you provide an equivalent example, please?

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:26pm

There isn't any state I know of with a Democratic governor that is attempting to strip public employees of their bargaining rights.

Can you provide an equivalent example, please?

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:31pm

Poor pregnant women

Poor children

Health care block grants for poor women and children

Community Police programs (which are mostly targeted at poorer communities)

Legal Aid for the poor.

http://www.majorityrules.org/2...

Do you see any cuts to defense, agribusiness, petroleum corporations, or any other corporate entities in this plan?

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:31pm

Poor pregnant women

Poor children

Health care block grants for poor women and children

Community Police programs (which are mostly targeted at poorer communities)

Legal Aid for the poor.

http://www.majorityrules.org/2...

Do you see any cuts to defense, agribusiness, petroleum corporations, or any other corporate entities in this plan?

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:33pm

No Patricia, some democratic run states already did that years ago. now we have thugs refusing to allow votes to take place. Unions have become organized criminals.

Everyone complained that people we4r subverting the democratic process when they complained about the president's health care plan saying those elected should be allowed to vote. Now people are saying those elected should not be allowed to vote because "I" disagree with them.

The unions shutting down these states have better benefits than 99% of the rest of us int he US. They are not the poor and oppressed, they are the power hungry using FORCE to shut down democracy.

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:33pm

No Patricia, some democratic run states already did that years ago. now we have thugs refusing to allow votes to take place. Unions have become organized criminals.

Everyone complained that people we4r subverting the democratic process when they complained about the president's health care plan saying those elected should be allowed to vote. Now people are saying those elected should not be allowed to vote because "I" disagree with them.

The unions shutting down these states have better benefits than 99% of the rest of us int he US. They are not the poor and oppressed, they are the power hungry using FORCE to shut down democracy.

by: Pete315

02-24-2011 @ 9:36pm

Jim: You say "(We are already seeing similar actions in Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey.) Governor Walker's proposed bill is really more about his ideological commitments and conservative politics - which favor business over labor - than about his concern for Wisconsin's financial health.)

These Governors & Representatives have a responsibility to all of the residents in their states. The issue is the "Public Sector Unions" You imply this is a pro business union busting effort. I am afraid that you are missing the real question of can we afford the salaries & benefits that have been given during the last 20 years to these folks.

"The Bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

by: Pete315

02-24-2011 @ 9:36pm

Jim: You say "(We are already seeing similar actions in Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey.) Governor Walker's proposed bill is really more about his ideological commitments and conservative politics - which favor business over labor - than about his concern for Wisconsin's financial health.)

These Governors & Representatives have a responsibility to all of the residents in their states. The issue is the "Public Sector Unions" You imply this is a pro business union busting effort. I am afraid that you are missing the real question of can we afford the salaries & benefits that have been given during the last 20 years to these folks.

"The Bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:36pm

Tell me the specific States, please.

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:36pm

Tell me the specific States, please.

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:42pm

"The Bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

A meaningless cliche.

Again, the public sector unions in WI gave in to ALL the salary and benefit demands made by the governor. This is about unjon-busting, pure and simple.

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:42pm

"The Bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

A meaningless cliche.

Again, the public sector unions in WI gave in to ALL the salary and benefit demands made by the governor. This is about unjon-busting, pure and simple.

by: rtbball

02-24-2011 @ 9:42pm

I believe the most fundamental question of all is "what is the purpose of government?" This question has become so skewed by politics and budgets that we have forgotten what the original intent and purpose of government should be. In many ways, I believe we want the government to be what the church ought to be. We live in a day and an age where government's influence and power has reached to far into our lives. We have let government dictate and even takeover what are fundamentally basic moral questions of life. If we truly loved God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength and loved our neighbor as ourselves, would we really be in the mess we are in? With great freedom comes great responsibility, personally and corporately. Unfortunately, we see that violated on all fronts daily. But is more government influence and interference the answer?

by: rtbball

02-24-2011 @ 9:42pm

I believe the most fundamental question of all is "what is the purpose of government?" This question has become so skewed by politics and budgets that we have forgotten what the original intent and purpose of government should be. In many ways, I believe we want the government to be what the church ought to be. We live in a day and an age where government's influence and power has reached to far into our lives. We have let government dictate and even takeover what are fundamentally basic moral questions of life. If we truly loved God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength and loved our neighbor as ourselves, would we really be in the mess we are in? With great freedom comes great responsibility, personally and corporately. Unfortunately, we see that violated on all fronts daily. But is more government influence and interference the answer?

by: duhsciple

02-24-2011 @ 9:44pm

Mr. 22044,

I have reached out to newly elected members of Congress from the Republican side, expressing my views and my openness for conversation.

Of course, I speak from my open bias. 40% of the anti-AIDs and anti-malaria budget has been cut. The programs being funded have saved millions of lives.

Talking with others has been my regular course of action. I always request a response, what my legislators think of my ideas. I am pleased that they are always "civil" even though there is often vigorous disagreement.

by: duhsciple

02-24-2011 @ 9:44pm

Mr. 22044,

I have reached out to newly elected members of Congress from the Republican side, expressing my views and my openness for conversation.

Of course, I speak from my open bias. 40% of the anti-AIDs and anti-malaria budget has been cut. The programs being funded have saved millions of lives.

Talking with others has been my regular course of action. I always request a response, what my legislators think of my ideas. I am pleased that they are always "civil" even though there is often vigorous disagreement.

by: clarkbp

02-24-2011 @ 9:44pm

This is a great article, and I appreciate the acknowledgement that We truly do need to reduce the deficit spending and, ultimately, need to reduce our national debt. It is a reality that we are creating a situation that could have catastrophic results, but there are some things that are more harmful to cut from the budget than are helpful. If we were being reasonable about the discussion, we would recognize that leaving children hungry and working parents with fewer options will not solve our budget woes.

Here is a good illustration:

http://thefiresidepost.com/201.../

by: clarkbp

02-24-2011 @ 9:44pm

This is a great article, and I appreciate the acknowledgement that We truly do need to reduce the deficit spending and, ultimately, need to reduce our national debt. It is a reality that we are creating a situation that could have catastrophic results, but there are some things that are more harmful to cut from the budget than are helpful. If we were being reasonable about the discussion, we would recognize that leaving children hungry and working parents with fewer options will not solve our budget woes.

Here is a good illustration:

http://thefiresidepost.com/201.../

by: duhsciple

02-24-2011 @ 9:46pm

To my conservative friends who have posted here, a question: what do you think of the concept of "collective bargaining"?

by: duhsciple

02-24-2011 @ 9:46pm

To my conservative friends who have posted here, a question: what do you think of the concept of "collective bargaining"?

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:47pm

And speaking of things we can't afford, we probably can't afford to keep subsidizing the Koch brothers, either:

http://exiledonline.com/a-peop.../

by: Patricia

02-24-2011 @ 9:47pm

And speaking of things we can't afford, we probably can't afford to keep subsidizing the Koch brothers, either:

http://exiledonline.com/a-peop.../

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:48pm

Collective bargaining is much different from using thugs to close off the democratic process and block and entire state from functioning just because you already have better benefits than every other worker in your state.

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:48pm

Collective bargaining is much different from using thugs to close off the democratic process and block and entire state from functioning just because you already have better benefits than every other worker in your state.

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:48pm

Interesting since that huge AIDS budget was provided by Bush and the Republicans!

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:48pm

Interesting since that huge AIDS budget was provided by Bush and the Republicans!

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:49pm

Good, unions have become nothing more than big business themselves, most have higher budgets than the companies their members work for!

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:49pm

Good, unions have become nothing more than big business themselves, most have higher budgets than the companies their members work for!

by: grazorblade

02-24-2011 @ 9:49pm

6082579248 to order a pizza for the protesters. So far 48 countries and all 50 states have donated

by: grazorblade

02-24-2011 @ 9:49pm

6082579248 to order a pizza for the protesters. So far 48 countries and all 50 states have donated

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:50pm

Arizona; Arkansas; Colorado; Kentucky; Louisiana; Mississippi; Missouri; New Mexico; Utah; West Virginia; Wyoming

Are you so uninformed about this whole topic that you are unaware that they only pay 5% of their retirement and 12% of their health care? That is much better than 99% of Americans.

by: hatchet87

02-24-2011 @ 9:50pm

Arizona; Arkansas; Colorado; Kentucky; Louisiana; Mississippi; Missouri; New Mexico; Utah; West Virginia; Wyoming

Are you so uninformed about this whole topic that you are unaware that they only pay 5% of their retirement and 12% of their health care? That is much better than 99% of Americans.

by: Mark Peake

02-24-2011 @ 9:51pm

I agree that it's not just to attack the poor. On the other hand, you'd be hard pressed to call most union members, especially in Wisconsin where they make on average just about 50 grand a year plus benefits and pension (bringing the number closer to 75 grand) poor.

We have a knee jerk reaction in this country to either be uncritically anti union or uncritically pro union. We need to get beyond that. God is not a teamster and so siding with labor is not by definition a Christian activity. It might be given certain circumstances, but it is not the default position.

by: Mark Peake

02-24-2011 @ 9:51pm

I agree that it's not just to attack the poor. On the other hand, you'd be hard pressed to call most union members, especially in Wisconsin where they make on average just about 50 grand a year plus benefits and pension (bringing the number closer to 75 grand) poor.

We have a knee jerk reaction in this country to either be uncritically anti union or uncritically pro union. We need to get beyond that. God is not a teamster and so siding with labor is not by definition a Christian activity. It might be given certain circumstances, but it is not the default position.