Eric LeMasters
April 27, 2011
Mere days after Sojourners’ Jim Wallis and company ended their Lenten fast to protest bipartisan budget “cuts” in 2011 federal budget, a wider religious coalition regrouped on April 27 to announce a continuation of their “spiritual battle.” This time, they will target the 2012 federal budget, forming a “circle of protection” around favorite social programs.
This new coalition includes officials from National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sojourners, Evangelicals for Social Action, the Salvation Army, and most Mainline Protestant churches, including the United Methodist Board of Church and Society.
The Lenten “fast before God” urged Congress to keep its hands off poverty programs. Members of the new coalition were not all agreed on which programs should evade scrutiny, but some general categories – including low-income tax-credits, food assistance programs and Medicaid spending – were broadly identified on the campaign’s website.
Wallis announced the coalition’s plans to visit the White House on April 28, but planners would not disclose when or what would be discussed.
National Council of Churches President Peg Chemberlin invoked scripture to substantiate the state’s role as an extension of the church.
“Join us in reclaiming Christ’s call to be a moral nation, just as Isaiah did to the King,” she said. “Despite the economic setbacks of the last five years, we continue to live in an age of abundance – and we pray today for those who will lead us to a moral budget.”
Though Wallis implicitly reserved most of his ire for Republican leadership, he insisted that the campaign was “not primarily a political issue.” “We’re frankly challenging leadership on both sides of the aisle on this one,” he said.
“If you’re going to come after the poor, you have to go through us first,” Wallis warned.
When asked whether government is encroaching on the role of the church as a mechanism for wealth redistribution, David Beckmann countered that the needs of the poor are simply too great for the church to handle on its own.
“If the government is AWOL, churches and charities cannot do it all,” Beckmann admitted. “The God of the Bible is the God of history who holds nations accountable; who holds kings accountable; and who requires laws that be just and sensitive to people in need,” he said. “Some preachers don’t get it. I don’t know what Bible they’re reading.”
Alternative Budget Proposals Absent
In a phone interview after the teleconference, Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, further clarified that the role of the “circle of protection” was not to recommend an alternative budget. “It’s not our role to have detailed proposals on other spending,” he said, explaining that is the coalition’s focus on the “twenty percent” of federal anti-poverty initiatives that makes the “circle of protection” campaign distinctive.
Though Beckmann expressed some satisfaction with Obama’s efforts at reducing poverty in his first years of office, he noted others in the coalition, Wallis in particular, have not been as happy with the President’s performance. He still insisted that “the President needs to speak about the poor and vulnerable people in a clear way.”
Beckmann was especially critical of Wisconsin Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, sections of which he characterized as “sinful” – including restructuring Medicaid spending into block-grants for states, a hallmark of Ryan’s long-term deficit reduction strategy. Medicaid and food stamps, he said, are needs-based programs that have been exceptionally successful in alleviating the effects of poverty among low-income Americans. Ryan’s budget would unjustly put those programs “on the chopping block,” he claimed. The restructuring would in fact not reduce Medicaid spending, but merely mitigate its nearly ten percent year-over-year growth.
Beckmann was unwilling to disclose details about the planned White House meeting on Thursday, but said the talks would most likely encourage the administration to incorporate more anti-poverty language into the budget discussion.
Related articles at IRD:
No comments yet
Leave a Reply