Gary North

In your October 6, 2005 article, BUDGETS ARE MORAL DOCUMENTS: Drawing a line in the sand," you indicate that "we" must draw a line in the sand.

Who are "we," and why should anyone notice what "we" have just done?

I keep asking this. You keep refusing to answer.

So, Jim, I am drawing a line in the sand. You must respond to me -- just as you think Congress must respond to you.

We will both continue to be disappointed.

There are moments in every generation when a society must decide what its real moral principles are. In the aftermath of the hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, this is one of those moments in history.

It sure sounds as though you are trying to use a pair of disasters to promote your political agenda.

In a few months, this "moment," like the hurricanes, will have blown over. Congress will be interested in other priorities. You will stop writing about the hurricanes. You will be off to some other turning point in our generation. Because if you don't move on, you will be forgotten -- rather like a pre-hurricane line in post-hurricane sand.

My prediction: if Congress ignores your line drawn in the sand (and it will), you will just draw another line.

After all, it's sand. It's easy to draw a line in. It's also easily blown away or washed away. And it will be.

Yet, while the nation is still stunned by the pictures we saw of thousands of people wandering homeless and hungry on roads and railroad tracks, cowering on rooftops, wading through waste-deep water, or camping in stadiums turned into shelters, leading politicians in Washington are oblivious to everything but their ideological blinders.

So, what else is new? You have tried to get Congress to change its ways for 25 years. Congress pays no attention to you or your agenda. Why do you think drawing this line in the sand will change anything?

Or are you announcing this sandy manifesto for the sake of your donors? Is fund-raising what this latest line in the sand is really all about? "Rally the troops!" It sure looks that way to me.

We must proclaim that budgets are moral documents -- and current proposals fall short.

They always do, right?

As we recover from these natural disasters, with the nation at war and deficits rising at record rates, Congress is still planning $35 billion in cuts for Medicaid and Food Stamps, low-income health care and nutrition programs, and more -- plus $70 billion in new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Just this week, President Bush asked Congress to increase its social program cuts from $35 billion to $85 billion.

Budgets are indeed moral documents. Government budgets are documents that say, "Fork over your money, or we will shoot you for your immorality." Every special-interest voting bloc wants the government to act on its behalf. Yours in no exception. Every special-interest group wants budget cuts in the other special-interest group's share of the Federal budget -- never its own.

You are no different. You want the tax man to point a gun in the taxpayer's belly and say, "Jim Wallis has drawn a line in the sand. Fork over your money."

We must draw a line in the sand now against these unjust budget priorities.

Indeed, we must. But who is to decide what is moral? You? "We"? "Them"? On what moral basis? Using whose guidelines for morality? Ignoring whose rival moral guidelines?

I understand that you seek power. I understand that you say you are doing all this as a modern-day prophet. (God's Politics, p. 268.) But the prophets of the Old Testament always went to the the details of the Mosaic law to justify their demands for moral and political reform. You don't.

Why is that? Could it be that the Mosaic law does not justify your agenda? Could it be that it actually opposes your agenda? I have written over 8,000 pages of exegesis to prove that it does.

Your witness is needed at this crucial time to urge a better moral and political logic for our nation -- toward a vision for a new America. In the name of social conscience, fiscal responsibility, equality of opportunity, protection of communities, and the very idea of a common good, it is time for the moral center of American public opinion to stand up and say, "Enough!"

That is what I am saying, too. Enough! Enough wealth distribution at the barrel of a gun. Enough theft by majority vote. No, let me raise the ante. Too much!

In this moment of history, we need politicians and policies who serve the needs of our country rather than increasing the wealth of a few.

Again, who are "we," and why should Congress pay any attention?

How is it that democracy produced a Congress that does not "serve the needs of our country"? And how will your line in the sand reverse 200 years of gun-barrel pork?

We must also put forth a vision for the future that restores values and priorities to strengthen the common good, and lifts up solutions to poverty that honor the best of our humanity and hope. This is a teachable moment, but it requires good teachers. The religious community must offer leadership this week and month -- and in coming years.

And when "the religious community" ignores you one more time, what then?

Sojourners and Call to Renewal are honoring this vision by launching a "Covenant for a New America," based on two basic principles:

The critical needs of poor families must become the top priority of our government. The blatant inequalities of race and poverty in America -- especially in the critical areas of education, jobs, health care, and housing -- that have come to the surface must now be addressed. How we help families build assets and take responsibility for their futures must be central to the discussion.

There it is again: "we." "We" must help the poor. How must "we" do that? Your answer never changes: by getting Congress to send out tax collectors in "our" name.

Include me out.

The "Covenant for a New America" is a commitment to teach and lead; to change perspectives and priorities; and to find common ground for the common good.

Ah, yes: the common good. Every special-interest voting group that wants to get its hands into the voters' wallets by means of the government coercion claims to represent the common good. It is easy to claim this. It is difficult to prove it. And most difficult of all, to get Congress to pay any attention.

By the way, making a covenant always involves taking a formal oath to God. At least Newt Gingrich called his ill-fated, dead-on-arrival 1994 political platform Contract With America. I wish you were as theologically precise.