A (Slightly) Wiser Witness in Washington

The following originally appeared in a recent Presbyterian Action Weekly e-newsletter. If you would like to receive our weekly e-newsletter, register as an IRD User today.

We in Presbyterian Action try to follow the PCUSA’s Washington Office. It is the voice by which the denomination gives its witness to the political institutions in DC. The Washington Office is located prominently on Capitol Hill, right across from the Supreme Court building and barely a mile from a much lesser landmark, our IRD/Presbyterian Action office.

Over the years Presbyterian Action has been dissatisfied with the Washington Office. We have challenged its political pronouncements that seem unauthorized, unaccountable, unbalanced, and partisan. We believe there is a better way: a witness that is centered on basic biblical teachings; that conveys General Assembly political resolutions while noting that they do not bind the consciences of church members; that describes accurately the current political situation, acknowledging and respecting differing judgments of that situation that fall within the Reformed tradition; and that takes no official position that goes beyond biblical teaching or General Assembly policy.

The Washington Office is in the midst of transition, undergoing a study of its mission (on which Presbyterian Action has commented) and awaiting a new director. So we are watching for possible signs that the office might be moving in a better direction. We could not fail to notice the commentary on the federal budget in the office’s most recent “Witness in Washington Weekly,” dated March 24.

In previous years the Washington Office took a very partisan position on the budget, invariably condemning the proposals of the Bush administration and siding with the Democrats in Congress. But this year this office is at least a bit more balanced. It does not directly endorse the Obama budget proposal. Instead it asks Presbyterians to “[t]ell your members of Congress to be sure that the Budget Resolution includes funding for: health care reform, energy infrastructure reform/climate change legislation, education, social safety net, foreign assistance for our vulnerable neighbors while ensuring that each borrowed dollar be spent in order to build up a future of life and wholeness.”

Of course, that instruction does not yield much clarity. Any budget resolution is going to include funding for health care, energy, education, and so forth. The unanswered question is how limited funds should be allocated among those competing priorities. And, given the nature of politics, how much “pork” and other misguided and wasteful spending do we have to tolerate in order to secure money for more worthy purposes? These are political judgment calls, and the Washington Office wisely refrains from making those calls. It leaves the judgment to individual Presbyterians and their members of Congress. That kind of political restraint represents progress, from our point of view in Presbyterian Action.

The Washington Office commentary still tilts toward the liberal Democratic perspective. “The [Obama] spending plan … represents a significant funding increase for education, health care, environment, social safety net, diplomacy and other programs for which the PC(USA) has advocated. These increases are badly needed, both to reform broken systems and also to make up for years of under-funding of many programs.” The reasoning seems simplistic: General Assembly resolutions have highlighted the importance of education, health care, etc. Therefore, according to the Washington Office, every increase in spending for such programs is “badly needed.”

How much would be enough? Is $1 trillion for the “social safety net” enough? Would it take $2 trillion or $3 trillion? The office gives no criteria for making such discernments, other than the apparent assumption that more is always better. The office is sure that all these programs are currently “under-funded.” Again, no definition of the phrase is offered. As a seasoned Washington observer, I would suggest that “under-funded” means that a program is not spending as much as its most ardent champions would like. By that definition, every program that the federal government operates will be perpetually “under-funded,” because the appetite for spending is never sated.

Yet we must credit the Washington Office for noting at least one possible defect of the Obama budget proposal: that it projects massive deficits far into the future. The office quotes a 2008 General Assembly resolution that “declare[d] that federal government practices and policies that create ever-increasing debt and unfunded or underfunded obligations for future generations of Americans are a grave moral concern as well as a clear danger to the republic.” The office insists, “It is imperative, for the health of the U.S. economy and the livelihoods of our children, that the practice of borrowing from the future be curtailed.”

But the Washington Office seems to justify huge deficits today, because “the economic crisis and the need caused by rising unemployment and poverty must be addressed.” As long as “federal budget-makers work to reduce the long-term deficit,” then short-term deficits appear acceptable to our PCUSA office. In other words, politicians can go on an unprecedented spending binge today because they promise—cross their hearts and hope to die—that they will sober up tomorrow.

The Washington Office commentary does not mention any other potential criticisms of the Obama budget: that it expands the power and scope of the federal government in ways that call into question our American tradition of “limited government”; that it raises taxes and raises trade barriers at a moment when the economy is already delicate; that it would curtail the tax deduction for charitable giving at precisely the time when the ministries of churches and other nonprofit groups are most needed.

So the Washington Office is far from reaching a state of political balance, with equal respect for the various political convictions held by faithful Presbyterians. But it has taken a step back from blatant partisanship by abstaining from an explicit position on the Obama budget. For that small change we can be thankful.