The recent U.S. debt limit deal between the U.S. Congress and President Obama is problematic but not as bad as it could have been, according to a liberal interfaith advocacy group that counts the Mainline denominations among its membership.
“The failures of this bill outweigh the successes,” assessed Leslie Woods, Representative for Domestic and Environmental Issues in the PC(USA) Washington office.
Woods spoke in an online seminar given August 3 by the Interreligious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs (DHN), in which church officials criticized aspects of the debt agreement such as a lack of tax increases, took solace in cuts to military spending and explained their efforts in the coming months to prevent restrictions on the growth of federal programs that they argue serve to alleviate poverty.
Facilitated by the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, the online seminar featured analysis by advocacy organization Bread for the World in addition to the Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office. DHN counts the Episcopal Church Office of Government Relations, the Mennonite Central Committee, United Church of Christ Justice & Peace Ministries, and the National Council of Churches (NCC), several Jewish groups and liberal Catholic orders among its endorsing organizations.
Evaluating the Debt Agreement
Presenters were downcast about much of the debt limit agreement. A poll of 61 seminar participants showed 48 held a generally or very negative view of the agreement, while only a handful were generally positive or neutral about it. But the presenters did find a silver lining in how the language of their arguments was received.
“I think this is a victory for the faith community,” said Leslie Woods. “A few months ago, members of Congress weren’t talking about the poor and vulnerable.”
Daily prayers in front of the Capitol Hill United Methodist Building and an act of civil disobedience resulting in the arrest by Capitol Police of some United Methodist, Presbyterian and NCC officials were cited as examples of the group’s advocacy.
Woods was also positive that several programs aiming to serve low-income people would be exempt from cuts, that significant defense reductions were included in the deal, and that a joint committee would have the authority to consider raising taxes. Woods said that involvement by religious groups moved conversation forward, “if only slightly.”
The Presbyterian official was sharply critical of the rest of the legislation, however, complaining that it did not raise taxes and relied entirely upon spending cuts in order to arrive at debt reductions. Woods also fretted that a required vote on a balanced budget amendment might move such a policy towards ratification by the states – an acknowledged long shot, but one that still concerned her.
Seminar facilitators lamented the debt limit controversy as a “manufactured crisis” that they said shifted lawmakers’ focus “from a growing economy to debt reduction,” specifically “a singular focus on cutting government spending.”
Citing high unemployment rate and the slow economy, facilitators bemoaned that instead of a jobs agenda or further stimulus package, Congress had focused on spending cuts. Unnamed economists were cited for saying that a near-term stimulus was needed along with a long-term plan “to bring spending and revenue more in line”.
Facilitators shared a chart from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that blamed the economic downturn, Bush-era tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as root causes of a growing U.S. budget deficit.
The group outlined three goals for which it had lobbied during the debt limit negotiations. Among them were avoiding spending caps that it argued would undermine meeting the needs of low-income individuals and families. The group also advocated increased taxes and military spending cuts, plus exempting programs serving low-income people from any budget cuts enforcement mechanism.
Upcoming Efforts
While the overall spending reduction numbers are in place, decisions on which individual programs will be cut has not yet been made – and that is where DHN argues it can make a difference in concert with allied organizations.
“We have tremendous work ahead of us,” warned Amelia Kegan, a policy analyst with Bread for the World. “It is our job to influence how this all plays out.”
Kegan identified areas where supporters could apply pressure, asking them to meet with their representatives during the August congressional recess and to attend town hall meetings. The analyst emphasized a 50-50 split in defense/non-defense cuts if an appointed “super committee” could not reach agreement on where the forthcoming cuts would originate from. But she fretted that such a fallback could “doubly hit” social spending, as some programs were already under caps.
The Bread for the World staffer specifically singled out the agreement for a congressional vote on a balanced budget amendment as something to oppose.
“The balanced budget amendment is very dangerous thing for the programs we care about,” Kegan warned. Saying that such an amendment would prevent the Federal government from responding to emergencies and spikes in need, Kegan suggested that unbalanced budgets were a necessity during economic downturns.
“Given these spending cap levels, really important programs are in danger of cuts,” warned Woods. “Advocates need to be on our toes and ready for the next three rounds.”
No comments yet
Leave a Reply