Why Don't You Have the Moral Courage to Identify Which Programs Must Be Cut to Balance The Budget?
Nov. 11, 2010
Here is what Jim Wallis wrote today:
We need to construct a new "moral center" in American politics. Yes, the rising deficit is a moral issue, but dealing with it in a moral way is also important. We cannot cut the deficit using methods that would hurt our most vulnerable and least powerful people. Yes, defeating terrorism is also a noble cause, but being willing to challenge the enormous human and financial costs of failed military solutions is also a just cause. And the faith community will always be lifting up the biblical priority of the poor, the weak, the sick, the oppressed, the left out and left behind, and always the children; and we will look for allies on both sides of the political aisle wherever we can find them.
It is clear that the Democrats did not solve Bush's deficits. On the contrary, th annual deficit is worse now than in 2008.
We all know what is going to happen. It's on Wikipedia.
Let us see this from the point if view of estimated GDP
When must we slash these budgets? Wallis is clear: "Later!" In short, "Not on my watch!" That is what Congressmen say, too.
To roll back these deficits will take major spending cuts. Tax increases don't increase revenues. Even if they did, the increased revenue would be borrowed against by the government. With interest rates at the lowest point in post-World War II era, Congress borrows. So, only spending cuts will work.
Wallis is no different from the gutless wonders in Congress. He refuses to say which budgets must be cut, by what percentages, and how soon.
At least 75% of the spending is automatic. Which of these programs must be cut? Military spending. Anything else? No. Notice what percentage of spending is military spending.
Will he ever quit mumbling and say what must be done? At age 62, isn't it time for him to start getting specific? He is eligible for early retirement under Social Security. It's time for him to get specific.
He won't. Old dogs do not learn new tricks.
Getting specific alienates groups of donors the same way it alienates groups of voters. So, Wallis imitates politicians. He calls for Big Reforms without specific steps to implement them. So, the donors keep sending in checks. He gets "re-elected."
I say impose an emergency cut of 35% on the entire Federal budget, beginning next year, in every department. Let even one program escape, and there will be no cuts. "Our program deserves to be saved. It is too important." They all must be cut if any are to be cut.
None will be. He knows that. I know that. You know that. Congress knows that. The voters know that. So, the deficit will overwhelm us. There will be a Great Default.
If not by 35%. then by what percentage? He should be specific. No more waffling.
But he waffles. He mumbles. He talks a good line on The Big Picture, but he is silent on the specifics. He never comes to grips with what the Federal government has done.
I say this: "If a man won't say how the nation must get from here to deliverance, step by step, then he is just another politician, verbally bloviating for donations rather than votes."