Time and time again, since the beginning of the current economic crisis, politicians and commentators have told us that “a budget is a moral document.” Just last week Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners asserted in a blog post that we are missing a simple religious principle in our budget debates: budget cuts should effect the wealthy, not those in need. Rev. Brian McLaren has called budget cuts that affect the impoverished “morally unacceptable.” We hear it so often because the phrase conveniently works for both sides of the debate. Conservatives argue that it is immoral for the government to continue spending so much money, and end up foisting an ever-growing public debt onto the next generation of Americans. Those on the Left argue that we have a moral responsibility to care for those in poverty, to help them both with basic living necessities and to improve their economic situation.
The question the two sides disagree over is, where does the larger moral imperative lie: with the next generation, or with the current poor? The liberal solution to both the current economic downturn, and the problem of poverty in general, is increased government involvement and spending to “stimulate the economy.” Given the near complete lack of success of the 2008 stimulus package, one hardly needs to wonder why conservatives aren’t exactly on board with a Stimulus 2.0. The alternative those on the Right offer is an extensive plan of government spending and program cuts that would place the U.S. on the path to putting our nearly $16 trillion debt and suffering economy in the rear-view mirror.
Read Full Article »