The U. S. Congress has been hard at work this week trying to find places to cut the budget to help offset at least a portion of the record breaking deficit created by four straight years of tax cuts for the wealthy.
The U. S. House of Representatives believes it can save $50 billion over the next decade by "tightening up" on Medicaid, by providing the states much more latitude for making further cuts to various human services benefits and programs and by applying sharp cuts to Food Stamps ($1 billion) and to programs that benefit the elderly.
The editorial page of The New York Times reported earlier this week (October 26, 2005) that $4 billion would be cut from child support enforcement efforts, a program that returns $4 for every $1 spent on enforcement to protect and secure women and children.
Thankfully, the U. S. Senate version of the work so far is not so extreme, but based on a similar philosophy.
What is amazing is the fact that the motivation for this entire belt-tightening effort is to find a way to pass along another $70 billion in upper-bracket tax cuts.
Let's see now.
Costly foreign war with no end in sight.
Natural disaster upon natural disaster at home and abroad.
Record national deficit.
The ranks of the poor swelling to the tune of over one million annually.
Further tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Hmmm.
9 comments:
Guilt motivates a lot of philanthropy.
- Chris
Does it really matter what motivates people to be charitable? As for me, I am thankful people open up their wallets for the right causes, regardless of their motives.
c hand, what do you propose we do to lift people out of the poverty into which they were born? is maintaining the riches of those who were born into wealth really the best way to move forward?
Before you reply with some false claim that the poor should "work hard, pull themselves up by their boot-straps..."
The reality is that the American Dream -- working hard and getting rich -- is really the American Myth: it is not a reality for the majority of Americans. How can someone making minimum wage -- $5.25 an hour, or $210 per 40-hour week -- lift themselves out of poverty when they are paying at least half of that in rent?
All Christians should realize the truth of what Jim Wallis says: Budgets are moral documents. The things in which we invest show our values as people. Advocating for tax breaks on the backs of the poor is advocating against the call of Christ, who called us to give up our wealth and lift up the least among us.
You may call it an entitlement. Yes, I believe that the poor are ENTITLED to as much of God's bounty as I am, if not more. Let us never forget: we own nothing . . . we are but stewards of His Kingdom.
c hand, the Deut. 15 provision in the LAW GOD GAVE to Moses, COMMANDED--doesn't seem to be optional in the mind of the Almighty here--the people to loan generously when asked and not to calculate the time until the year of release from debt.
In a constitutional democracy we have the right to set things up as we the people decide. I for one vote that we provide better lives for every American who works hard or who is disabled or too young or weak to do so.
Part of the problem is a matter of philosophy as to whom the resources belong in the first place. You would really like the LAW on Jubilee--see Lev. 25, especially verses 23-24. Every 50 years in Israel the land was to be returned to its original owners so that everyone would understand who really owned things--i.e. God.
Somehow such values need to be factored into our discussions about wealth, poverty and a reasonable theology of government.
c hand, however you look at it, the system in place was designed to keep the playing field more even and to eliminate injustice and unfair advantage over time.
Larry has you on this one--the principle here is clear. . .
c hand,
Isn't that God's spiritual model? Grace/eternal life/love/compassion freely given, with no marker of what's gone before, only where the person is or is trying to get to at this moment?
If God can give away the things that really matter with no accounts receivable, no "but"s, why should we be any stingier with mere material possessions that don't belong to us in a permanent sense anyway?
You say it's really the government that owns things. What about you? Do you own your money/house/food, or are you a steward of what God's blessed you with? If you think you're a steward, show me how God says in scripture or any other media to do anything with money and goods but help people and enact his will. If you think you're an owner, then yes, I can see how none of this would apply.
And yes, c hand, I would send you $50 if you asked. But you'd have to tell me your name so I could make the check out. :-)
Charles
c hand, your last comment gets at why there is continuing debate on this matter.
First, the passage puts forward a principle about how national life can be ordered to insure a measure of fairness for those at the bottom.
Your statement, "But are food stamp recipiants ever expected to repay a "debt"? It does look to me like America provides a basic level of gifting without an offsetting recievables accounting entry."
Those who receive Food Stamps or houosing benefits or educational grants are by definition--established by the requirements to receive these benefits--people at the bottom who work but who don't have the skills in this current economy to command a wage that will allow them to provide for their families. The return to the general public currently is a very, very cheap labor force made up of people who do things you don't want to do for very little pay. The "redemption" here is in a few benefits that would not be necessary if the pay scales or values assigned to certain jobs were different. Of course, children and the elderly or disabled fit into a different category.
It is also obvious that these benefits act as currency in the economy and are spent and circulate again and again. The actual return to America is likely much greater for every dollar spent/invested at the bottom than at the top, where it tends to be hoarded (contrary to the canons of so called supply-side economics).
These are the kinds of things a civil society asks its government to accomplish for the common good.
Make sense?
Stan U.
Faith-based programs do a lot of good. NONE of them can do the work of government. Cutting programs that support people -- or cutting taxes that support those programs -- will immeasurably damage our world.
Churches and NGOs can never replace government in terms of capacity to address the issues Larry brings up.
Also, when you are talking about "liberal" economics, do not bundle it with liberal cultural items like the prom dresses. The two are unrelated. One can have a liberal approach to taxes and economics without supporting a liberal culture or lifestyle.
This is a distracting tactic, a cheap ploy to bolster the credibility of a conservative agenda (similar to your previous comments about gay marriage).
c hand,
God wants our gratitude and our love, absolutely. He wants us to make the right choices, to do the right thing, to do His will. But does He withhold his blessings if we don't give the right reply? Or are they always offered, hoping we'll learn from His example?
Charles
Post a Comment