Jim Wallis is concerned about the federal deficit, as well he should be. In a column at Sojourners today, he takes a whack at solving what has become the single biggest political conundrum in Washington: how to make a serious dent in the deficit without causing increased unemployment among congresscritters. Unfortunately, his “solution” only demonstrates that he doesn’t really think the deficit is a serious problem after all:
The good news is that in three easy steps, we can head much closer to a balanced budget and quickly reduce the deficit to a more sustainable level. There is an added bonus: We can also significantly reduce extreme poverty.
First, it’s time to cut needless military spending….Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul came up with a plan that they say would leave our country just as safe but save us $960 billion by 2020!
That amounts to $96 billion a year over the next ten years. So what’s next?
Second, return tax rates for the wealthy back to Clinton-era levels of 39.6 percent from the Bush top level of 35 percent.
OK. There’s debate over the effect that would have on an economy that needs investment, but let’s go with it. This is the famous $700 billion that various folks claimed the feds couldn’t forgo without unleashing the wrath of God, or something like that. But that figure is shorthand for “$700 billion over the next ten years.” So again, we’re talking about a much smaller amount–$70 billion–that could be used to reduce the deficit each year. Finally, there’s this:
Third, eliminate farm subsidies….Simply eliminating these subsidies would save taxpayers the equivalent of getting rid of every last earmark from our budget.
I happen to agree with Wallis here–most farm subsidies go to agribusiness that doesn’t need them. There’s just one problem: they only total about $20 billion.
So, add together Wallis’ three “easy steps” to a “more sustainable” deficit, and you’ve only got about $186 billion a year in savings. That might be a start, but it doesn’t even begin to bring a deficit of over $1.4 trillion under control.
The fact is that there’s no way to do so unless the matter of entitlements is engaged. At the least, I think it is time to means-test both Social Security and Medicare and raise the retirement age. I can’t find figures on what those two moves will save, but I can’t help but think that it would dwarf what you’d get from eliminating farm subsidies. If Wallis is ready to discuss entitlements, then I’ll change the title on this post.
November 21, 2010 at 10:48 pm
It’s your blog, so of course, do what you want, but what do entitlements have to do with the gospel of Christ? I agree with you on most of what you write, but opinions like this make you seem like just another party line conservative. If you are, that’s fine, but I would love to hear if and how you connect these politics to the gospel.
Thanks. And keep up the good work. I’ve been reading for at least a year and have enjoyed myself.
November 22, 2010 at 6:27 am
I thought the point of US medicare was that it was available to people in poverty. How can that be done without means testing?
Personally, I think it is well past time to make medical care available to all US citizens with no means testing at all….
November 22, 2010 at 9:52 am
David: Thanks so much for the affirmation, and for reading. I appreciate it!
The reason I took this on is the source. You’re right, normally I don’t get into stuff like this, which appears purely secular (if indeed there is such a thing). Wallis, however, has a way turning his public policy preferences into gospel mandates, or at least ways to write “Christian morality” (the content of which is always assumed, not argued) into legislation. In this instance, we get this:
That last point gets ignored in the rest of the piece, except for a brief reassertion. In fact, none of his proposals for reducing the budget deficit have anything to do with “reducing extreme poverty,” but that’s the moral point on which everything hinges, so he has to make it in order not to sound like he’s just making political points.
My point, then, is not to argue with his ideas (all three of which may be perfectly valid for the purpose of deficit reduction), but to point out that he doesn’t actually achieve what he thinks he does, even as he is making what amounts to a purely prudential argument. Unfortunately, Wallis has gained a lot of influence in the evangelical community, and I think that when he is doing nothing more than plumping for his preferred policy, his lack of understanding of the issues involved needs to be pointed out.
By the way, I’m not a down-the-line conservative, by any means, as I’ll demonstrate in just a moment.
Kate: In the U.S., Medicaid is the program for the poor, and you’re right, it already is means-tested. Medicare, on the other hand, is strictly for senior citizens, many of which live very comfortably in retirement, and could easily afford to take care of their own health care needs.
On the other hand, I think that a serious case can be made for a single-payer system that would cover all Americans. It would make a great deal more sense than the mess that was passed last year. There are also aspects of American culture and politics that would have to change to make it viable, the most important of which would be to transform our government culture so that it is no longer dominated by people who think they have a divine right (by virtue of their ability to discern what is good for the rest of us so much better than we are) to control the lives of the citizenry. I don’t know that much about the Canadian system, but what I do know strikes as being predicated on the foundation of providing universal health care, rather than controlling aspects of people’s lives (what they eat or drink, etc.). There’s still the problem of scarce resources, but I’d like to think there’s a way to deal with that that doesn’t lead to a form, however benign, of rationing. But the control issue would have to be dealt with.
November 22, 2010 at 11:31 am
We have a single payer system. The doctors are independent contractors, and they get paid by the procedure according to a set rate. I go for a checkup, my doctor bills the provincial government for it. What some people call “rationing” is really “triage”. If resources are limited, the sickest people get them first. This is more of an issue in rural areas than in the larger centres.
Would this work: The Feds tell the State Governments that if the State wants to set up a single payer system, the Feds will help pay for it. If one or two States took them up on it, and it worked, people would be clamouring for their states to do it too, don’t you think?
My niece had twin boys who were born very early and had catastrophically expensive medical needs, and they qualified for some sort of financial assistance. I thought it was medicare, but maybe it would have been medicaid? Fortunately, the boys have been accepted as patients by the Shriners, so they don’t have to worry about medical bills.