The Usual Suspects have sent a letter to Congress demanding that the parts of the federal budget that they like be exempt from fiscal reality:
Our witness as faith leaders is grounded in love for God and neighbor and all Creation. Accordingly, we are compelled to speak out against the proposed deep cuts in FY2011 discretionary domestic and poverty-focused foreign aid spending. Jesus challenged people to define themselves by the measure of their love for one another, with particular concern for those struggling in poverty and marginalized by society. His Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) transforms and broadens our definition of the neighbor and lifts up a model of relationship with our neighbors that should define and sustain our community, national and international life.
Let’s grant the theological and biblical points being made here. What the mainliners never, ever want to come to grips with is this: stating these beliefs says nothing–absolutely nothing–about the specific public policy proposals they make. They simply assume that loving neighbor means spending more federal dollars on him, a questionable assumption to say the least, especially since Jesus in the parable is talking about taking personal responsibility for the one in need, while the mainliners want to do their good deeds with other people’s money.
Love acknowledges our interdependence and our responsibility for the future. None of us can prosper and be secure while some of us live in misery and desperation. In an interdependent world, the security and prosperity of any nation is inseparable from that of even the most vulnerable both within and beyond their borders. Our churches remain fully committed to our anti-poverty ministries in the U.S. and around the world. But we also know from this hard-won experience that similarly, our nation must remain committed to providing attention to and opportunity for poor and vulnerable people.
If we are truly responsible for the future, then now is the time to get serious about a debt problem that could ruin this nation and make any provision for the poor impossible. And if they want the nation to provide “opportunity for poor and vulnerable people,” it is time they recognize that government support is not the way to do so, that private sector employment is the engine that can (and regularly does) lift poor people out of poverty.
Discretionary programs that serve the poor and vulnerable are a very small percentage of the budget, and they are not the drivers of the deficits. Unchecked increases in military spending combined with vast tax cuts helped create our country’s financial difficulties and restoring financial soundness requires addressing these root imbalances.
The first sentence here is correct, though it overlooks the fact that spending on those programs has increased tremendously in the last couple of years. There is a great deal of duplication and overlap among such federal programs, and if, as the General Accounting Office said this week, there is a lot of consolidation that can take place in this area, that by itself would bring about both better delivery of services to those who need them and savings in cost. The mainliners want to just dig in their heels and defend the status quo, but that’s neither fiscally possible nor even necessary to the mission of the programs they support.
The second sentence, however, is simply the product of a combination of fantasy and economic ignorance. If the entire defense budget were eliminated, this year’s deficit would still be over a trillion dollars. And the tax cuts to which they refer–the cuts of 2001 that were left in place for the next two years, meaning, in essence, that there have been no tax cuts in the last two years that would have had the effect the mainliners imagine–would not come close to making up the remainder if they were repealed tomorrow. That’s not to mention that doing so would significantly deepen the unemployment problem, since a lot of money that could be used on either investment or consumption would be sucked out of the private economy and put in the hands of the least efficient economic actor.
The primary causes for the explosion of debt is clear and undeniable: a combination of vast social spending increases (including the stimulus that was essentially a trillion dollars flushed down the drain), and entitlement spending that continues to grow rapidly. The mainliners can stick their heads in the sand, and pretend that it’s all the fault of warmongering generals and greedy rich people, but that’s not going to make a public debt that even the reality-challenged White House budget that predicts a near doubling of the debt over then next ten years go away.
We share your concerns over long-term deficits and urge you to find just solutions that will protect future generations both from a legacy of debt and a legacy of poverty and underinvestment. Cutting discretionary programs is not a just solution. These cuts will devastate those living in poverty, at home and around the world, cost jobs, and in the long run, will harm, not help, our fiscal situation. While “shared sacrifice” can be an appropriate banner, those who would be devastated by these cuts have nothing left to sacrifice.
“Underinvestment.” I wonder what book of political euphemisms they got that from. The reference to “cutting” discretionary programs is another. Inside the Beltway, that translates to, “not increasing spending as much as I want.” The funny–or pathetic–thing is that no one know whether a lot of this spending that the mainliners consider crucial to the future of Western civilization even does any good. From the Wall Street Journal story on the GAO report:
The report says there are 18 federal programs that spent a combined $62.5 billion in 2008 on food and nutrition assistance, but little is known about the effectiveness of 11 of these programs because they haven’t been well studied.
And that’s no doubt the case with lots of other federal programs, without which the sky would allegedly fall.
At the end, the letter writers rachet up the rhetoric, almost calling down fire-and-brimstone on the would be budget-cutters:
The unprecedented and dangerous cuts to discretionary domestic programs and poverty-focused foreign assistance will jeopardize the lives and well-being of millions now and into the future. These deep and unwise spending cuts are a betrayal of our call to love our neighbor.
Geez, why don’t you just come out and call John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Kent Conrad heathens. In fact, the mainliners know nothing about what the effect of proposed cuts would be on anyone. They cite no evidence, they mention no facts, they just spout the political line of the day, a line that has been the same–no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the specifics–for decades. For the NCC and denominational bureaucrats who wrote this, theology and ethics may change with the winds, but the old political verities are eternal.
March 3, 2011 at 11:11 am
I have to say, I was very disappointed yesterday when I got an email from World Vision saying I should be opposed to these measures. The American people are not first and foremost supposed to be the caretakers of the world’s poor. The church is! When they said, “These deep and unwise spending cuts are a betrayal of our call to love our neighbor,” the first thing I thought was, “Hmm, you mean you really DO want a theocracy???”
March 4, 2011 at 7:57 am
That’s trillion? With a T???
March 4, 2011 at 8:12 am
With a “t.” The current US federal debt is about $14 trillion. The Obama budget projects it to be about $26 trillion in ten years. I always wanted to visit Greece, but didn’t expect it to come to me!
March 5, 2011 at 12:37 am
You could always come plant a church up here….
March 5, 2011 at 5:02 pm
The subject of the percentage of the budget that goes to defense is an interesting one. I looked online and found much disagreement. Some include social security, others do not, and that makes a big difference. What is the source of your numbers? I know I am asking for a shortcut for somethihng that to understand correctly probably involved reading 10,000 pages of numbers, but the source of your numbers would be a good starting place for this portion of the debate. Thank you.
Jason, it is a fair debate about what the civil government’s responsibility to care for the poor. I think a good case from the Bible can be made that the society in general, perhaps even the government, and not just the church, has a responsibility to care for the poor. The debate then centers on can and should the government do more, or because of cost should they, or do they have to pull back. The same questions can be asked of the church in general, and of individual churches and Christians. You can’t give what you don’t have, though if you can print money like the government can and does, it is a lot earier to give. However, I would be arrested if I tried to print money.
March 5, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Doug, I’m a bit confused by what numbers you’re asking about. I don’t mention the percentage of the budget that is taken up by defense. If you’re referring to the debt figures, those come from the recent Obama budget proposal.
March 6, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Given the continued confusion of the separation of Church and State that mainline Christian leaders are always applauding, how is it that they are always calling the Government to be responsive to references to Scripture when and only when it fits into their political ideology? It has also always puzzled me about how any Government that is called to be silent in their reference to a Deity of any kind, can be seen as morally trustworthy to be responsible with more money that is intended then to be charitable – especially when it has such a poor historical record of seeing that those funds get to the poor and are not swallowed up into that “black hole” known as bureaucracy. The main line leadership continues to live in the same old tired rhetoric that has killed and is killing their denominations. They lead a dwindling few and have neither the sense nor the sensitivity of faith to learn a better song.
March 6, 2011 at 11:02 pm
I find the attack on mainline churches to be very sad. While many argue that the Bible does not say the government should help the poor or sick, it is apparent that Christians are not helping their neighbors enough or people would not be dying because they have no health insurance. Health insurance companies going from non-profit to profit in the 1990s resulted in consolidation of companies that have had soaring profits on our backs. There are also other things that add to the cost, but there are not enough members of Congress that will vote against the big health companies that make huge donations.
Why not expend the energy on government programs that are socialism for the wealthy, rather than snide remarks about mainline churches.
The referenced link about the General Accounting Office (GAO) link did not include the part about the large amount of money going to corporation farms. The report discusses several members of a family owning an interest in a farm, which allows each member to collect about $200,000 per years. The payments were automatic and were not determined by how much the farm made during the year. The outlandish payments to not small farmer has been going on for decades, but Congress has not made any effort to rein in the corporate welfare.
March 7, 2011 at 9:51 am
Linda: I’m afraid you’ve got some facts wrong:
1) No one dies because they don’t have health insurance. Hospitals are required to treat people even without insurance. The on (highly publicized) study that seemed to say what you are saying turned out to be a piece of statistically manipulated political propaganda.
2) Health insurance as a whole has never been non-profit. You’re thinking, I’m sure, of Blue Cross/Blue Shield. But it was never the whole of the health insurance industry.
3) Health insurance companies do not make “soaring profits.” In fact, the typical profit margin in health insurance is less than 3%, considerably lower than many other industries.
4) I have no use for “socialism for the wealthy,” but my focus in this blog is not politics or public policy in general. I don’t merely make snide remarks about the mainline churches, by the way; I demonstrate both their political biases and lobbying efforts (undertaken without the consent of their membership) and the ways in which they foolishly assume that their theological or ethical beliefs translate into specific policy.
5) The GAO report was specifically about duplicative federal programming. I’ve advocated in this blog the elimination of agricultural subsidy programs in general, and completely agree that those whose funding goes to corporation farms should be the first to go. In that regard, I believe I am of one mind with the leadership of the mainline denominations (I never said they were wrong about everything).
March 7, 2011 at 4:23 pm
David,
You are the one that is wrong. Do you have any support for your statements. I can provide pages and pages of support for my statements. While health insurance companies and others in the health industry are making outlandish profits, they are greatly increasing the deficit, costing individuals many times more, increasing bankruptcies, and killing people. Do some research, including the huge amount health care lobbyist spend and the huge salaries lobbyist make.
Hospitals will treat people in the emergency room, but they do not treat people with ongoing illnesses, such as cancer. We all pay considerably more for the emergency room treatment.
Kaiser Family Foundation is a well respected non-profit good source for health insurance research and reports. They are no longer affiliated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.
http://www.kff.org/
There are dozens or hundreds of reports that support the huge increase in health insurance companies. At the same time insurance premiums have gone up multiple fold while paying less for medical treatment.
CNN Money
Wellpoint profit increase from 2004 – 156.6%
There are links to the other major health insurance companies to check profit increases.
http://tinyurl.com/4cos2dy
The record profits
1999 – For Profit More Concerned with Profit
Study: Nonprofit HMOs are superior; For-profit HMOs offer lower quality of care
http://tinyurl.com/4lmq3bt
Timeline WellPoint Profits History
http://tinyurl.com/4haxh3y
(MarketWatch) 2006 — Consolidation among health insurers is creating near-monopolies in virtually all reaches of the U.S. – with the most dominant firms grabbing more market share by several percentage points a year – according to a study released Monday. [good links to research, especially to Kaiser Family Foundation]
http://tinyurl.com/48eujy8
Health plans make more, spend less in 2005
Insurers’ medical-cost ratios are lower than ever.
http://tinyurl.com/4k4ukas [part of the new health care law]
Oct. 15, 2004
LOS ANGELES (CBS.MW) — Despite a weak economy and soaring medical costs, U.S. health insurers have raked in earnings at a far greater pace than the rest of corporate America, with annual profits and margins doubling in the last four years.
As U.S. companies struggled with leaner profits amid double-digit increases in employee-health premiums, insurers spent less on medical costs but ate up more of America’s health-care dollars in profits and claims processing.
http://tinyurl.com/4lkzfjj
Insurance Companies Experience Record Profits
The following link contains many sources
http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-1-125.html
From 2000 to 2007, Seven Years, Publicly-Traded Health Insurance Companies’ Profits ROSE 428 Percent.
CEOs for above companies made an average of $11.9 million each in 2007
Health Insurance Premiums More Than Doubled in Nine Years; That’s a Rate Three Times Faster Than Wage Increases. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in the past nine years employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have more than doubled. That rate is three times faster than cumulative wage increases. “Employer Health Benefits 2008 Annual Survey,” Kaiser Family Foundation, 2008;
Health Care Companies Increased Lobbying Efforts to the Tune of $133 Million in the Second Quarter of 2009. While the overall lobbying declined in the second quarter, the Wall Street Journal reported that the health care industry “boosted” their efforts. “Overall, the health-care sector reported a five percent increase in lobbying expenditures to $133 million, making it the single largest spender on lobbying of the 10 major industry sectors tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics. Health-insurance companies increased lobbying activity by 11 percent to $7.8 million, according to the data.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/3/2009]
Top Health Insurance Lobbyist Makes $1.6 Million a Year. According to the New York Times, Karen M. Ignagni “chief executive of the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans” and “the industry’s chief lobbyist” made “$1.6 million in 2007…” [New York Times, 8/5/2009]
Health Insurers Post Record Profits
Insurance Firms Rake in Profits as They Cut Patients (ABC News)
In the midst of a deep economic recession, America’s health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage.
The nation’s five largest for-profit insurers closed 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion, according to a report by the advocacy group Health Care for American Now (HCAN).
Among the report’s findings on specific insurance companies:
Wellpoint increased profits 91 percent from 2008 while it chopped 3.9 percent of its total enrollment.
United Health’s profit increased 28 percent from 2008, while enrollment dropped by 3.4 percent.
Cigna’s profit increased 346 percent and enrollment dropped 5.5 percent.
Humana’s profit increased by 61 percent while enrollment decreased by 1.7 percent.
Aetna was the only company with a drop in profit and a gain in enrollment. The company’s profit declined by 8 percent from 2008, and enrollment grew by 7 percent.
http://tinyurl.com/yahm7vy
March 7, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Linda: Since the only one of my five points that you actually dispute is #3, that’s the one I’ll provide evidence for.
1) As of 2009 health insurance was ranked 86th in terms of profit margins. I will grant that I had the wrong figure–the profit margin in health insurance at that point was 3.3%, not under 3%. See this chart via University of Michigan economist Mark Perry
2) By way of contrast, U.S. News Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman reports that the profit margin for Google in 2008 was 20.6%, MIcrosoft was 24.9%, and Exxon was 9%. Newman goes on to point out;
3) None of what you cite actually contradicts my point, which was that health insurance companies have very low profit margins. Rather, your citations amount to comparing apples and oranges. Percentages of growth in profits, as well as absolute figures for profits, say nothing about profit margins, which are the crucial factor in determining the extent to which a given industry is healthy. Another way to put that is that the vast majority of the revenues received by insurance companies go to paying claims, along with the typical costs of operating a business (salaries, taxes, etc.).
There’s a legitimate point to be made regarding companies dropping people, or refusing to insure those with pre-existing conditions. But even there, considerations involved in running a business can’t be simply shrugged off.
March 7, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Ideology Revealed in Economist Petitions
“The economists most active in signing liberal petitions include Vernon L. Smith, David R. Henderson and Mark J. Perry. ”
http://econjwatch.org/articles/economist-petitions-who-is-signing-what
Arguing that the profits of health insurance companies is less than other companies is an ideology that does not address a solution to the health insurance crisis for millions of Americans.
Ideology in your argument for the deficit also ignores the “real” people that you dismiss. I see nothing about the huge income gap that has occurred during the last 30 years. Myself and 82% of recently polled people say raise the taxes on the wealthiest by eliminating the Bush tax cuts.
There is a major differences between Google, Microsoft, and Exxon
The first three produce a product. Health insurance companies are a pass through – they take our money and give it to someone else.
People do not have to purchase Google, Microsoft, and Exxon. They do not have to purchase health insurance, but the consequences can severely impact the individual and others that have to pay there medical care in emergency rooms. Health care expenses has been the biggest cause of bankruptcy for years.
Why should health insurance company executives make multiple millions per year, while doctors make far less? What value did the approximate $11 million per year per CEO bring besides making the company more profitable by rejecting claims as preexisting conditions or refusing to insure individuals that may have a higher use of the insurance.
People can have an ideological/political view that making huge profits and paying huge salaries to a small number of individuals is acceptable, but I strongly disagree because of the impact on “all” of the people. It is moving us toward a Third World Country. The profit margins go along with the huge gap in wealth that started during the 1970s and continue to today. At the same time the US is dropping on many measurable items, such as the quality of health care,
Others think other measures are better than profit, such as return on invested capital (ROIC). ROIC measures how much money it takes to set up and run an insurance company, versus how much profit it brings in.
http://tinyurl.com/lzp8j
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522ttmd.html
Evidence Linking Health Insurance and Mortality
Includes links to other sources
http://tinyurl.com/ykvmuef
From reading some of your other blogs, I know anything I write is a waste of time.
I continued to be shocked by the negative and attacking words in articles that do not follow the teachings of Christ. You severely attack Diana Butler Bass, “that must mean that he, and the religious tradition that she assumes is formative for his political views, must be simply stupid, and certainly worthy of empty name-calling.”
The above sounds like your attacks on mainline Protestant, Catholics, etc., which are snide remarks or worse. I have yet to see an article written by someone from a mainline, Catholic, or other Protestant against the beliefs of Reformed beliefs. I am sure there are some out there but they could not be very prominent or I would have probably seen them. I have seen a very large number that go in the opposite direction, such as Mark Tooley that you referenced in another blog.
“The primary causes for the explosion of debt is clear and undeniable: a combination of vast social spending increases (including the stimulus that was essentially a trillion dollars flushed down the drain), and entitlement spending that continues to grow rapidly. The mainliners can stick their heads in the sand, and pretend that it’s all the fault of warmongering generals and greedy rich people,”
There are many people that will disagree and agree with your above statement, but that does not mean either side is completely right or completely wrong. The wars, tax cuts heavily weighed for benefiting the wealthy (trickle down did not happen), the trillions in Wall Street gambling with unregulated derivatives were a major factor in the deficit and resulting economic crisis. The Wall Street immoral actions caused many people to lose everything they owned, harmed states that were invested in derivatives, including pension plans, and etc. The gamblers walked away with billions in profit, while we will pay the price for a very long time. To ignore these facts will result in ignoring the results greed can have. The US has a long history of greed that taxpayers are still paying for, such as the Savings & Loans in the 90s, Enron, etc. Sadly for some people, ideology is more important than reality.
March 7, 2011 at 8:51 pm
At this point, Linda, I’m not sure you’re even thinking about what you’re writing, but simply repeating liberal talking points. If health insurance isn’t a product–if it is, as you say, just a “pass through”–then why do people need it? Why not just pay for their own health care? We both know the reason–because what health insurance companies do is provide a service involving pooled risk. You can say that’s not a substantial good, but then why do you care whether people have it or not? Can’t they take care of themselves?
You cite Mark Perry as a signer of liberal petitions, but in pointing out that health insurance companies aren’t necessarily the villains they are portrayed as by liberals, he’s running against type. Doesn’t that give him more credibility, rather than less. And didn’t you get a lot of your information from Health Care for America Now, which doesn’t do economic research, but is instead a political organization set up to politic for ObamaCare?
We disagree about the health insurance situation, and the solution to it, but the truth is that that’s no big deal. As for the rest of it, please take it up under the particular post.
March 7, 2011 at 9:43 pm
I don’t think you thought that one through. Hospitals are required to treat – but GPs aren’t. What about the person who puts off going to the doctor until they are very ill,(because they can’t afford to pay for it),goes to the hospital, and then dies. Isn’t that a case of “dieing because they don’t have health insurance”? Can you be sure that that doesn’t happen? What about the people who don’t get regular checkups, so early cancer symptoms are missed? Or the woman with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who doesn’t get regular mamorgams because she can’t afford them?
March 7, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Yuk. Obviously I have a problem making nouns and verbs agree when I am tired….
March 8, 2011 at 12:20 am
“but then why do you care whether people have it or not? Can’t they take care of themselves?”
I care because Jesus told me to care. There are many people that cannot get affordable insurance, especially during the last three years of high unemployment.
I will not say anything else because the Bible is very clear about the words we use. I know some of these people. They are not dead beats. I could tell many stories about the struggles of real people, but your above statement demonstrates no compassion.
The profits of insurance companies and the amount of money executives make is contained in required financial statement filings with the SEC, which are available online. The Obama administration and all the other links did not create the figures from thin air.