Nancy Petrey
Nancy Petrey is the author of Energion title Jewish Roots Journey. You can learn more about her via her author page. Her book is on sale via Energion Direct for just $15.00 (free shipping in the U. S.), or $2.99 off the regular price. God loves unity! “And the two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). God modeled unity in the Garden of Eden with the marriage of the first man and woman. The Apostle Paul quoted this verse to teach that Jesus and the Church were like husband and wife, united in one flesh (Eph. 5:22-32). The greatest demonstration of love the world has ever known was when the Bridegroom laid down His life for the Bride. And the greatest love the Bride can show for the Bridegroom is to submit her life totally to Him. Unity is all about love. Unity is the essence of the God we believe in. “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4)! God proclaims the unity of the Godhead, so, of course, He expects unity in His covenant people. That word, “one,” is echad in Hebrew. It is a compound word. Christians can see the Trinity in that word. Jesus made the bold claim, “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30). Paul ends his second letter to the Corinthians with this benediction, affirming the Trinity, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen” (II Cor. 13:14). Yes, amen! Jesus wants His followers to be in unity. He prayed to the Father right before His arrest and crucifixion that those who believe in Him would be one just as He and His Father are one. He prayed that His followers would be included in the divine oneness. That marvelous witness of unity would be what the world longs to see!(John 17: 20-23). Who could resist the allure of a Church who truly loves its own enough to die for them? That is the divine strategy for winning the lost – unity! The Church today needs to understand just who Jesus was referring to in His high priestly prayer for unity. The average Christian who reads John 17 most likely thinks of divisions he is familiar with, such as racial, ethnic, parent-child, husband-wife, employer-employee, political, religious, educational, or economic divisions. Those types of division are real and touch everyone on the planet. No doubt Jesus grieves over these divisions, but the division he most longs to see healed is that of Jew and Gentile. The original Church was totally Jewish for ten years, with Jewish bishops in Jerusalem. The first church split happened in the second century between Jewish and Gentile believers, and it resulted in a paganized kind of Christianity that forgot its Jewish origins. This led to anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews during the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Crusades, and right up to the Holocaust, all at the hands of the Church! This is documented history and very tragic. Most Christians don’t know a thing about it! And many in the Church do not even realize the Jewishness of the Head of the Church, Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ). Jesus made it clear at His first coming that His mission was primarily to His own people, the Jews, not the Gentiles. Jesus sent out His twelve disciples, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” After His death and resurrection that line of division was eliminated when He gave the “Great Commission” to His Jewish disciples – “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). It is significant that He named the Trinity in His command to bring all nations into His kingdom. The big heart of God is longing to bring everyone into His kingdom. He is not willing that anyone should perish! He invites all to be one with the Godhead! Incredible!
God does not show partiality, but He does have order in the way He operates, and the Jews come first. On the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit first came to 120 Jews and baptized them with “tongues of fire” on their heads and in their mouths! In Jerusalem the visiting Jews “from every nation under heaven” heard the gospel in their own language, and 3,000 believed! (Acts 2). No doubt they went back home and began discipling others, just as Jesus had commanded.
Paul kept the order Jesus initiated, saying that the gospel was for the Jew first, then the Greek or Gentile (Rom. 1:16). He always first visited the synagogue in every place he went, even after he said on two occasions that he was finished with the Jews and would go to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6).
The Church gained more and more Gentiles as Paul went on his missionary journeys. He taught them their Jewish roots, saying to the Ephesians that as Gentiles they “were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made bothone and has broken down the middle wall of separation, … so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity” (Eph. 2: 11-16).
In those days it was a curious thing that Gentiles could join the Jews as part of God’s covenant people. The Jews were in. The Gentiles were out. Paul called it a “mystery” that God had revealed to him, previously hidden in other ages, “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Eph. 3:3-6).
May Gentile Christians rejoice that we, as “wild branches,” have been “grafted into” the Jewish “olive tree.” We should not be conceited and “boast against the natural branches.” We, like the Ephesians, must respect the Jewish roots of the Church and remember “we do not support the root, but the root supports us” (Rom. 11:17-18).
Having this understanding of our Jewish roots, Christians should prayerfully and practically support the nation of Israel, love the Jewish people, and seek to bring them to a knowledge of their own Jewish Messiah. Jesus is longing to see One New Man in His Church!!
Bob LaRochelle is the pastor of 2nd Congregational Church (UCC) in Manchester, CT and is author of Part-Time Pastor, Full-Time Church (Pilgrim Press, 2010), Crossing the Street (Energion Publications, 2012) and So Much Older Then … (Energion Publications, 2013). He was an ordained deacon in the Catholic Church before becoming a United Church of Christ pastor. He is passionate about ecumenical dialogue.
The recent election of Francis I as the Roman Catholic Church’s new Pope has attracted great worldwide interest and justifiably so. First and most obvious is the fact that the election of a new Pope is a significant time of transition for Catholics. In light of many unfortunate occurrences, including well known scandals, within the Catholic community, this particular election carries with it a hope for a new beginning and some substantial changes.
Of course, depending upon where individual Catholics might rest on the theological spectrum, there are significant differences over precisely which specific changes should occur. There is diversity of thought within Catholicism regarding such policy changes as allowing priests to marry and ordaining women priests, just to name but two examples among many. One’s position on policy changes is connected to something far deeper. Policy flows from theology and theological differences have and continue to exist within the Catholic Church. They flare up in discussions on the topics mentioned above, as well as homosexuality, contraception, the relationship of church doctrine and public law, and many others.
Any Papal election is significant because the Pope is a world leader and has the potential to serve as a bridge builder between and among cultures, religious perspectives and nations.
Any Papal election is significant because the Pope is a world leader and has the potential to serve as a bridge builder between and among cultures, religious perspectives and nations. What is quite interesting is that etymologically the term Pontifex associated with the ministry of the Pope literally means ‘bridge builder’. In addition to the capacity a Pope has to influence world events, he can be a great source for the unification of all Christians, be they Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. In my view John XXIII and his successor Paul VI were significant catalysts in the way Vatican II expressed the Church’s understanding of ecumenical relationships.
In my book Crossing the Street(Energion Publications, 2012), I contend that Catholics and Protestants, two Christian groupings that have had a checkered relational history, have much to gain in learning from and engaging in dialogue with one another. Despite some different interpretations, oftentimes flowing from different understandings of church authority, there is a true ecumenical center binding Roman Catholics and Protestants together. In his role as the most recognized Christian religious leader in the world, the Pope can do what others have done before him. He can be an influential leader in the necessary cause of Christian unity.
All of which brings us to the election of this man who will go by the title Pope Francis I. As I note in my book, Roman Catholicism is not monolithic. It is comprised of a pluralism and diversity of spiritualities, theological perspectives, starting points and devotional practices. With this in mind, it is thus important to look at the shape of this new Pope’s particular practice of Catholicism with an eye as to how that might influence his leadership. In this vein, I find the following facts about his life to be quite telling and illuminative:
Pope Francis I is a Jesuit. As a member of the Society of Jesus, founded by Ignatius of Loyola, he is part of a religious community that takes the notion of religious community itself most seriously. The Jesuit tradition has made major contributions to the Catholic Church and the Christian world in these significant ways:
The church’s intellectual tradition. No community of priests as a whole receives a broader and deeper education than those who belong to the Jesuit community. This integration of faith and reason has had a profound impact on the world. We Americans can readily identify many truly outstanding universities (Georgetown, Holy Cross, Boston College, to name but a few) that are run to this day by the Society of Jesus. On a personal note, I am so grateful that I have received degrees from two of these simply wonderful educational institutions.
The church’s spiritual tradition. Pope Francis is grounded in the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, one of the most profound prayer experiences constructed by a mere mortal! Those who enter the Jesuit priesthood have undergone a period of training in which a 230 day retreat centered on these exercises is a necessary component.
Jesuit spirituality is intrinsically linked to its relationship to social justice. The Jesuit community has a global vision, rooted in the church’s stated preferential option for the poor. It is clear that Pope Francis’ compassion for the poor is a hallmark of his approach to pastoral leadership. Some would sound a cautionary note here, one that is worth watching as his Papacy unfolds: There is a chasm between those who embrace ‘liberation theology’[1] and others who express concerns about it. It appears that the new Pope has been among those in the latter category, especially in events that took place in Argentina over thirty years ago. It remains to be seen what this bodes for the future.
He chose the name Francis, in deference and respect to Francis of Assisi. It seems clear from all indications that this Pope eschews a pompous lifestyle and favors simplicity and access to the people whom he pastors. There are those, including myself, who would contend that, regardless of specific policy changes or lack thereof, a Pope could make an incredible impact by changing the image of the Vatican. My early sense is that there is something of Pope John XXIII’s warmth and informality in Pope Francis, somewhat akin to that fictional Pope depicted in Morris West’s classic The Shoes of the Fisherman. The power of that witness could truly make for an incredible effect.
Finally, there was a less than subtle theological/ecclesiological emphasis in the Pope’s opening remarks from the balcony of St. Peter’s. In referring to himself as Bishop of Rome, he issued a reminder that is often lost on many in the Christian world, including a good number of Catholics. Historically, the Petrine ministry, that which Catholics situate in the Pope, rested in the unique role Rome’s bishop played among those other bishops with whom he governed the church. It could be stated that Rome’s bishop is a ‘first among equals.’
There are those, including myself, who would contend that, regardless of specific policy changes or lack thereof, a Pope could make an incredible impact by changing the image of the Vatican.
I would contend that in referring himself in this way, we learn something about an approach to church governance that is most conversant with the historical growth of the Catholic Church and takes its first few centuries as highly informative, not limited its perspective to the medieval model that has wielded great influence in the church for so long. Where this Pope stands in relation to the kinds of questions that dominated Vatican I and other periods of debate over church authority cannot be easily gleaned from these remarks, but the remarks themselves might just scratch the surface of something the implications of which are most profound.
With all of this being said, I believe that this Papacy will be a significant period in the life of the universal church, a church that thrives as the gifts of varied traditions within it are cherished and become resources for our deepened relationship with God.
May all of God’s children thus turn to our God as we pray for Pope Francis’ health, well being and a deeply prophetic ministry to us and with us, in this, God’s most needy world!
AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM![2]
[1] This emerged in many nations in Central and South America and was a powerful force in the tensions between governments and religious leaders within the Roman Catholic Church. If ever possible, see the film Romero as a powerful expression of this.
[2] ‘To the greater glory of God’. This is the motto of the Society of Jesus (The Jesuits). It is typical to find the letters A.M.D.G in the cornerstone of buildings at Jesuit colleges, retreat centers and other settings.
We had three wonderful sets of answers to the questions posed in our interview about transforming mainline congregations. The entries were:
Bruce Epperly – If the message isn’t relevant, it isn’t the gospel!
Bob LaRochelle – Renewal should be rooted in good theology.
Bob Cornwall – Taking up a missional identity places the focus on what God is doing in the world and joining with God in that work.
There is still much that could be said about this topic. I invite you to comment on this post or blog about this on your own blog and then add the link. We’ll be happy to provide a central point to list all the responses to this topic.
I’d also like to make a couple of notes about the our three interviewees.
Bob LaRochelle just released his latest book from Energion Publications, So Much Older Then … In this book he models an interactive form of preaching with congregational dialog. In doing so, he addresses some of the most difficult questions a pastor will hear in ministry.
The Question.
Henry (your moderator):
One of the things Elgin, Joel, and I have discussed regularly over the last few weeks is how to make this discussion work well, be informative, and also be interesting. This discussion in e-mail started producing some interesting comments. So at the suggestion of Joel and Elgin, I’m going to add a post taken from the e-mail exchange. I’ve left the discussion of how to accomplish this as part of this post to set the context.
We already have the text of a third set of replies to post next Thursday (March 14), and we still plan a fourth set, but if e-mail exchanges continue to sizzle, we may replace some of the formal discussion with this more informal material.
As always, feel free to comment here, on social media, on the authors’ web sites, or on your own blog. If you join this discussion on your own blog, please leave a comment with a link, or just email your link to pubs@energion.com including the words “Debate Link” in the subject line.
Joel:
So I would like to take the final reply, and instead of getting dragged more into philosophical discussions, talk about our agreements, such as what to get rid of. This is my thinking –
Regardless of philosophies at this point, if we cut/gut the Dept. of Education, then we achieve essentially the same thing. Less tax payer dollars, etc… Regardless of philosophy.
Elgin:
This sounds good to me though your post was such a target rich environment and it would be hard not to address some of your distortions of my views (e.g. see page 149 of Preserving Democracy), perhaps Henry could ask a question for us to focus on.
One issue is that I am not real clear where we agree apart for the places you mentioned. But we certainly could do a post were we discuss the outline of concrete actions we think should be taken.
Another issue is that I believe that the next post on the 21st would be our answers to the third question. Thus the options are 1) no 4th reply and move on to the next question 2) delay the next question 1 week, 3) do both the 4th reply and the next question on the 21st. I like 2 or 3 but I see it as Henry’s call, unless of course we stage a revolt and gang up on him!!! BTW, if we do have a forth reply, will we be dealing with entitlements? I think a total solution must. On the other hand perhaps this should be postpone for another question.
An argument in favor of postponing this until after the next two questions [These questions will involve the role of government (March) and income inequality (April)] is that one issue I have is that that I often do not agree with the starting premises of so many of these issues, thus the tendency to go off into “philosophy.” I think that the next two questions will get to the heart of a lot of this, making it easier move forward. Also, I think I will reflect back on the exchanges for this question and will write up some thoughts as to how we might be able to improve this discussion.
BTW, I was in error in my post. It seems that Obama still had not release his budget. The one that is on line is last years. Frankly I see this as yet another confirmation that ideology aside, he really is not up to the job, and is a significant factor in the current dysfunction in Washington. It is really tough to have discussions about the current state of the budget, when the executive branch cannot even do the basics of getting of the necessary information out. How can anyone work through the differences in positions when one side refuses to take a an actual position?
Joel:
Let’s just list 5 areas /departments we would cut. For instance, we agree the DoE should be cut. Great. Let’s say that and say why. List four more. This may be a final post to show that we can agree on a few things.
Elgin:
I agree the DoE should be cut (frankly I would argue it should be abolished.) EPA and Commerce should not only both be cut but should be radically reformed. Frankly I believe every agency could be cut and many eliminated. I think that even the DoD might be cut, and definitely reformed. I would like to see salaries and benefits tied to the private sector. I am 57 myself and not having had a vacation in a year and no idea if I will have one this year. So it is really annoying having to struggle to pay taxes and then run into former government employees who have retired at 55, and talk about going up North to their summer cabin. I am hoping to be able to retire by age 70, but that is far from certain. Ultimately there are lots of way this could be fixed, whether it is the penny plan (i.e., cut 1% each year for the next ten years) the Ryan Plan, or other plans. But for me the key is that we must actually address spending for once.
Joel:
Cough, cough … I’m a government worker!
Here’s what I’m trying to get at. You and I have different philosophies about taxing and spending — yet you and I can agree on some wasteful government spending. First, I think ALL government agencies, departments, and offices need a radical reformation. We need to focus on making the Government smaller in the most literal sense. We must replace, where we can, people with technology. As heartless, or illiberal, as it seems for me to say that, Government is a job-creator only in the sense it is an opportunity leveler. If we can replace workers with technology that makes the work of the government more efficient, I’m all for that.
For the most part, the departments of the Executive Branch should have at their heart the responsibility to set guidelines and to have some weighs to see those guidelines enforced. For instance, let’s not do away with the Department of Education, but let’s make the DoE a smaller organization that establishes only guidelines and maybe some special programs. EPA should set guidelines as well. Both groups should handle more grants for research than they do enforcement.
And, again, get rid of Homeland Security, merging the appropriate parts with Defense.
As far as vacation and retirement, Elgin, I hate to say this, but this has nothing to do with the Government. Unions have fought for this right for civilian employees as well as government workers too. While I support appropriate salaries for Federal workers, tying them directly to the private sector may actually inhibit private sector growth. I do think, however, all Federal Government workers (including elected officials) should see their benefits package run through some sort of actuary table. My philosophy here is rather romantic, I guess, but I do not think working for our Government should be a get-rich scheme. To allow for Government workers to in any way set the tax rates is to be rather undemocratic. But, even this only barely touches the current deficit. Nor, is the example you gave the standard for every government employee.
In regards to the Federal Government, one of the things I would like to see done is to make the operation of it completely non-partisan. Instead of seeing these things talked about every two years or so, we need a non-partisan commission that will consistently seek to reorganize the workforce of the Federal Government to make it more efficient.
Once we focus on what parts of the Federal Government can either be dispensed with or cut, we will achieve spending cuts. Our philosophies here are different, but our results, sometimes, will be the same.
Elgin:
I have no problem with Government workers. Government unions, but not government workers. The real problem I see is that a two tier system is developing, where government workers receive pay and benefits private workers can only dream about. Government unions are a problem because in places like CA they are a significant if not dominant force in electing the people they will be negotiating with. This is why they have $500 Billion in unfunded pension liability and are going bankrupt.
As for Government it seems we do have some agreement. As you may know I recently moved from California to Wisconsin. While Wisconsin has high taxes (though not as high as CA) they at least pay for a Government that works. I see the schools here as gold plated, but they give a good education (except for Milwaukee). Frankly I see taxes as high, but my major concern is regulation which I see as little if any good, but causing a great deal of harm. This is why Central California is been put into an artificial drought, causing some of the highest unemployment in the country, because of a smelt. This is because the EPA only considers the effect on species, not the impact on people.
I believe that non-partisan commissions are a myth, but that would take us into some of the core difference between Liberal and Conservatives.
I agree that you and I could probably reach some significant agreement. I believe most Republicans and Democrats could, even in Washington. They did under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc. But I believe that Obama is a big part of the problem. I do not remember which earlier budget crisis it was, but it went nowhere, until Reid and Boehner ignored Obama and within a day or so came up with an agreement. I simply do not believe Obama has the skill set or perhaps even the temperament to negotiate these issues. He is a community organizer who spent a couple of years in the state senate, and a couple of months in the US Senate before running for President, and his lack of experience shows. With all the criticism of Palin’s inexperience, she at least had executive experience and a record of getting things done even if it was limited. Obama had none and does not seem to have learned much in office.
Finally, I do not see your perspective in the leadership of the current Democratic party. Again Republicans are putting out budgets and plans. This year’s Budget being finalized in the House will balance the budget in 10 years and begin paying down the debt. So what is the Democratic plan? Where is Obama’s budget? Where is the Senate’s budget?
Joel:
I would maintain that if private workers organized as well as some public sector workers have, they wouldn’t have to dream. Of course, this gets us into another subject better saved for another time — unions.
I’m not going to disagree with you about a too-long Republican controlled California being badly managed.
The idea that the President is the problem is a right-wing talking point based on one thing — he looks different. The fact is, is that Republican leadership has said repeatedly that they will not deal with the President, so much so that even their own members do not realize just how close some of their positions are, as evidenced by the conversations at the dinner the other night. The President has plenty of skill, but you can be the best arbitrator, however, if one side refuses to come to the table in good faith, then the process is doomed to fail. This is actually legal arbitrator language — good faith, because a party can come to the table with the premise that nothing will satisfy them, period. This is the case with the Republicans in Congress. They have since the very beginning said they will not work with the President — even before he was sworn in.
You seem stuck on the budget not getting out there. How about if the GOP controlled House put forth a budget that compromised with the Democrats? Until this happens, I see no reason why waste time on preparing a budget when (1) you aren’t in charge of the budge and (2) your time is best spent defending against immoral budgets.
The question.
I must have hit a cord with my answer, as Watts initial reaction was to launch into an ad hominem attack claiming I was “unable to see the better times for the dour.” He claimed “all right numbers are in place. Layoffs are decreasing, job numbers are increasing, and even Wall Street is reaching record highs.” But then there is the minor fact that GDP has been dismal, and was actually negative last quarter. If it is negative this quarter we will officially be back in recession.
Watts also questioned my claim that the Senate is in violation of the law because they have not done a budget. Yet the article cited by Watts said, ”While the Senate is legally required to pass a budget, there is no penalty for not doing so.” Absent of a penalty does not change the law.
The law in question is the 1974 Budget Control Act section 300 which specifies the budget calendar. It is from the budget that the appropriation bills are then written. Democrats claim they can ignore this schedule. Even if true, is at best only a partial answer, though the 1974 Budget Act remains the law.
The article also said that “Appropriations bills are where spending is allocated.” True, but the Senate has failed here as well. The House has been doing its part of the job, passing a budget and most of the appropriation bills each year and sending them to the Senate. The Senate has not, and last year not a single appropriation bill even made it to the floor of the Senate much less passed and was sent to the House. Instead, it would seem the Senate counts on the need for continuing resolutions, after continuing resolution, after continuing resolution. After all, why follow the law, when you can have a budget crisis to blame on the other party?
Another point made in the article was that the Senate has not passed a budget, because the “Democrats don’t want the blame.” And once you get pass all the rhetoric and excuses, this may be the real reason. It is always easier to criticize those who put forth solutions than to come up with solutions of your own.
Watts goes on to claim “such a budget from the Senate would not be welcomed in the House.” So what? It is very clear that the House budgets and appropriation bills are not welcome in the Senate, but at least they follow the law and do them. Normally the first part of a negotiation is for each side lays out what it wants, and then the discussion is over how the differences can be reconciled.
As for implying that this was the President’s fault, I didn’t because that is not my view. Obama has plenty of faults of his own without having to bear those of the Democratic Senate. But this is a problem for the left which continually gives the Senate a pass for failing to do its job, as Watts has done.
As for relying on one source, that is at best silly. After all does Watts really believe that there is only one economist that holds such views? Space does not permit an analysis of all of Watts’ sources (One of the reason I do not give multiple sources in this type of discussion) but I will consider his first one.
Chad Stone claims “Tax Increases to Reduce Deficit Will Help, Not Hurt, Growth” by citing growth in the 1990s compared to 2000s. Unfortunately Stone neglects a number of key factors. The first couple of years following the tax increase were marked by a lackluster economy. When the Republicans won the house in 1994 they did pass tax cuts, in particular in capital gains taxes.
In addition, and probably more importantly, the late 1990s was unique in that it was marked by the internet boom, which was driven by changes in technology rather than government policy. Thus Stone, by putting the dividing line in 2000, puts the growth from the Internet Bubble as part of his growth in the 1990s but the resulting crash and recession gets counted against the 2000s. On the other hand there are numerous examples of tax increases depressing the economy and bringing in less money, some of which I cite in my book, Preserving Democracy.(e,g., pg 39,40)
As for my second “single” source, Gilder’s book can only be a single source if you ignore all of the numerous sources and studies cited in his book.
Watts says the budget “must be set with priorities given education and the good of the people, requiring those with much to give more than those who have little.” Ok, as to the latter, that is already the case, as I document in Preserving Democracy, the top 1% pay 37% of all Federal Income taxes, while the those at the lowest income brackets, because of credits, receive more back in refunds than they even paid in taxes. Nor is anyone I know against “those with much” having more taken from them, but as Ross Perot said, the devil is in the details.
And in the details there is a moral issue. If I want some money for a noble purpose, I do not have the right to take it from someone else by force. That is theft. Getting more people to help me forcibly take the money does not change the nature of the act, regardless of how many I get to help me.
We tend to ignore this problem when it comes to government and taxes, but the problem does not really go away. It is one thing for the people in a democracy to choose to impose upon themselves taxes so as to pay for the government they want. Those who take money by force, can then at least justify it by claiming that it is a burden shared by all. It is quite another thing when it ceases to be a shared burden and is just imposed on others. Morally this is much closer to theft than it is to a shared burden. There are other problems, but this reply is already long.
So for my budget priorities, the bottom line for me is that Government is causing far more problems than it is solving. Thus, except for defense (and to some extent even in defense, as a lot of thing in the defense budget are not really defense) the federal government should be massively transformed. Departments like Education should be abolished, areas like the EPA radically transformed.
This is going to happen. The only question is will we do now when we can plan it out over many years and thus minimize the pain, or will we wait for us to become like Greece and have those changes forced on us by economic reality thereby maximizing the pain. I prefer the former, but I suspect we will get the latter.
The question.
My good friend cannot deal well with the facts or advance good recommendations, it seems, without attempting to cast blame away from his preferred party. I have dealt with the “in violation of the law” and the “blame the Democrats” spill in my reply, so to save time, I will refer only to that reply and simply say that he is wrong and is instead too enamored with the Talking-but-not-Thinking Right.
He points out, correctly, that current Congresses cannot bind future Congresses. Of course, this is enshrined in law. I would propose a statute and a Constitutional change to require a certain amount of bondage over future Congresses. We must plan ahead and allow that such plans are imperfect, but should at the very least remain above the partisan fry instituted by the Tea Party these last few years.
I am unsure as to why my friend is upset with the proposed budget cuts to the Defense Department. A focus on defense does not mean that our military must be prepared to foster globalization, act as the world’s police department, or be ready to engage in every action or “hot spot” in the world. Let me bring this one out just a bit further.
What I see my friend suggesting is a continued world dominance by military might, something we simply cannot afford. But the economics of this is only one argument. I would propose that the drawdown of U.S. forces and the shrinking of the military is a moral argument and obligation to our neighbors and our future. We have for too long sought to coerce too many with threats of American forces. While a small military may in fact mean a different world order, I welcome this as the current one we have – where we steadily make more enemies, new frontiers in war are opened, and where even our alliances are strained – does not seem to work. But, this, I’m afraid, is a topic for another time.
I would disagree that high tax rates kill economies, as evidenced by the high tax rates under Ike and the higher tax rates under Clinton. High taxes rates would force Congress to act, but in the end, if they did not, I would think that high tax rates on the wealthiest individuals would actually aid our economic depression as it would pay off the debt.
My friend’s suggestion that private charity is the first line of care for the poor is rather a poorly thought out argument, dismissing logic, charitable concerns in various faiths, and the first hallmark of this country. When Jefferson borrowed Locke’s words in crafting our Declaration of Independence, the idea that we should all have a pursuit of happiness was not about individualism but about the idea the goal of the community is to benefit all. A government which can see to this is a government that is truly by the people and for the people. This is why the welfare of the people through these poorly named entitlements (a propagandist conception) should not be cut, but expanded.
I welcome further discussions.
The Question
My first concern with my friend Elgin is that he is too filled with Conservative media’s information that he is unable to see the better times for the dour, an unfounded picture of what is actually taking place. If we do not have a basis of fact I our discussion, how will we proceed?
While I do not seek to undermine the tough times faced by those seeking to work, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that all of the right numbers are in place. Layoffs are decreasing, job numbers are increasing, and even Wall Street is reaching record highs.
Let me also contend with his rather bold statement that passing a budget is a matter of law. I would doubt such an issue based, once more, on facts. Further, let us consider that such a budget from the Senate would not be welcomed in the House which has, thus far, acted only a temper-tantrum throwing toddler. Somehow, my friend Elgin seems to imply that this is the President’s fault and as such, the President could somehow force the Senate to create a budget. This is not only well outside the realm of likelihood, but so too the Constitution.
But, to my friend’s suggestions.
I believe we would both agree on ruling out Government induced hyperinflation.
However, I do not think his reaction and discarding of taxes is altogether sound. One does not simply quote one economist, but must rely on a preponderance of data. Further, my friend falsely attributes (following the lead of the Conservative media) to Christina Romer a conclusion she does not support. What do we actually know? That those to whom much is given, much is required. While I do not support retreating to the tax rates under President Eisenhower, a Republican, I do support higher tax rates on those who can afford it.
Unfortunately, instead of a balanced view, my partner in these discussions, suggests cutting spending. In the same study he uses to suggest, wrongly, that more taxes hurt, Romer suggests spending cuts hurt. And she continues this theme as well with her follow-up article. While he quotes a conservative icon, Gilder, he again simply chooses to remain with only source, rather than numerous sources, such as Romer, who state with proof that spending cuts will not help an economy.
I am unsure how these things aid in the discussion of the budget. I would hasten my friend back to the conversation. The budget must be set with priorities given education and the good of the people, requiring those with much to given more than those who have little. As the Senator from Massachusetts said, no one in the United States stands where they are without someone else.
If Mr Hushbeck means to explore austerity, this is a train-wreck waiting to happen. If he means to suggest that lowering taxes and cutting spending is the best possible way forward, this is a fantasy that leads to fateful junctures in history. No, a budget relying on austerity will not rescue us from our current economic troubles.
A budget that raises revenue by closing loopholes, raising taxes, cutting defense spending and other government spending, while increasing spending on social progress programs.
The Question
While Watts and I both seem dissatisfied with the current budget process, I found his suggestions at best unrealistic. He suggests that budgets be done “several years in advance.” Of course one of the current problems is that the Democrats in the Senate have, in violation of the law, refused to even do a budget in nearly 4 years. The President submits budgets that are late and so unrealistic that some have not gotten a single vote even from members of his own party.
Currently budgets are done for 10 years. This actually is one of the problems for it allows all kinds of games to be played. While taxes, either cuts or increases, seem to start in the current budget year, “cuts” are almost always in “the out years.” As such these cuts can function as offsets to balance out other changes over the 10 year budget cycle. The problems is that while this may all looks good on paper, the cuts often never happen, because the current Congress cannot bind future Congresses.
For example, On Jan 1 this year both the House and the Senate passed a law preventing a 26% cut in the payments for Medicare, and a 2% cut in Medicare payments to doctors. Why such bi-partisan action? Because there is no way politicians in either party are going to let such cuts happen. But if this is true, why were these cuts in the law to begin with so that they needed to be overridden?
The answer is that these “cuts” were part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. They were supposed to cap spending to a “Sustainable Growth Rate” each year. But each year when the caps are about to take place, Congress votes to override them. But note that Congress does not vote to overturn the law, just that year’s cuts. This is because they need the “cuts” in the out years, or the budget would seem even more out of balance then all the games they play make it appear. This is part of the issue with the unfunded liabilities mentioned in my initial answer and why the games they are playing cannot go on too much longer.
But this is not the only problem. Another problem is that because of baseline budgeting these projections in future years are taken as the starting place. Thus if a program is projected to get a 10% increase in a future year, but when that year come it only gets a 5% increase, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth over the “massive cuts.” It is because of games such as these that even after the sequester, with all of its massive “cuts,” ultimately the Federal government will still be spending $15 billion more than last year.
About the only place this is not true is with defense spending, for the defense department seems to be the only branch of the federal branch that actually has any cuts as opposed to reductions in the rate of increase. According to the President’s budget, over the last several years the Defense department’s small increases have not kept up with inflation, and starting this year will see real reductions. Even before the sequester, defense spending will go from $716B in 2012 to $701B in 2013 and down to $587B in 2017. When adjusted for inflation (using 2005 as the base) this becomes $610B in 2012 to $587B in 2013 and down to $460B in 2017.
Now one could argue that this will be like the Medicare “cuts” and be repealed every year. However, history, both long and short term, argues against this. When adjusted for inflation, defense spending peaked in 2010, and has been decreasing since. In addition the 1990s were a period of decline which saw defense spending go from $303B in 1989 down to $268B ten years later ($481B to $346B in Constant dollars).
What makes this worse is that the Defense department is not like a doctor. If for some reason Congress did not rescind the cuts, a doctor could just stop seeing Medicare patients when that happened. The defense department, however, must and does plan over many years. For example, building a new fighter or a carriers is a many year process. If the money is not in the budget, it cannot be done.
Consider the Navy for example, The Quadrennial Defense Review said that we should have 346 ships to do the mission the nation has given the Navy. The Navy, realizing the situation, said they could get by with 313, which has recently been reduced yet again to 300. Yet we only have about 287 and we look headed to 250. As Robert Kaplan put it, “There is a big difference between a 346-ship US navy and a 250-ship navy – the difference between one kind of world order and another.”
To make matters even worse, because of recent cut backs the Navy does not even have enough money to run the ships that it has. Thus, for example, it is keeping the USS Harry S. Truman in dock instead of sending it to the Persian Gulf. All branches are cutting back on training and one thing is clear from history, less training means more lives lost when the military is needed. So while I agree with Watts that “First, [the budget] must focus on defense” that is hardly what the Democrats do, and sadly a growing number of Republicans as well.
Watts suggestion that tax rates be “set at relatively high levels” so that “Congress will have to act.” But it is far from clear why they would have to act, other than that this would kill the economy. Like an addict needing their next fix, Congress desperately needs money for they are addicted to spending. If given the promise of new monies from increased taxes, they will simply spend it. Then when the taxes depress the economy even further and the revenues do not come in, we will be in even a worse hole.
Finally, Watts argues that “welfare of the people must be included in the budget.” I would argue that the best thing for the welfare of the people is to have a strong and vibrant economy so that the people can take care of their own welfare. As for those who cannot take care of themselves, private charity, state and local government can best take care of them.
Link to question #2.
The 21st century has been marked by economic bubbles. It began with the collapse of the Internet bubble starting in the late spring of 2000 when venture capitalists pulled their money from many fledging internet companies. This sent shock waves throughout the economy during the summer and fall of that year as many big name companies collapsed, throwing the economy into recession.
With the resulting decline of the stock market, people were looking for a safer place to invest. Over the previous decade the federal government had been demanding that lenders offer more avoidable home loans. These new loans made housing seemingly a great place to invest.
As money moved into housing a second bubble developed, the housing bubble. By 2007 it too was collapsing. When this was combined with a depression era account rule, reinstated in November 2007, it caused the economic crisis that rippled through 2008 and into 2009 when the resulting recession ended.
But if the recession ended in the spring of 2009, why are things so bad now, four years later? The reason is that we are in yet another bubble. But unlike the Internet and Housing bubbles, this bubble is in government.
Washington D.C. is a boomtown, in which even the highly priced housing market in the surrounding areas are doing fine. But the growing government is stifling an already struggling private sector with taxes and new regulation. This only increases the need for government services, which causes government to grow even more, further stifling the private sector. This is a classic bubble.
Herbert Stein famously said, “that which cannot go on forever, won’t.” The simple fact is that the federal government cannot go on forever borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar it spends. To be sure, this is not a problem that started with Obama. The roots go back decades. But it is true that Obama has taken the problem to new levels never before reached.
While people complain about the seemingly never ending crisis after crisis in Washington over fiscal cliffs, continuing resolutions, and debt limits, the first step in fixing this is well known: Get a budget then stick to it. But Obama for the 3 straight year just missed another deadline. But at least he does finish his budget eventually, even if he is constantly late. The Democrats in the Senate have not produced a budget in nearly four years, even though required to do so by law.
But the real problem that is driving all of this is that government has made so many promises, that it is impossible for them to keep them all. This is why the politicians keep “kicking the can down the road.”
We focus on the deficit, i.e., how much money we will need to borrow this year to make ends meet, about $1 trillion; or the debt, how much money we have already borrowed and need to pay back, about $17 trillion. This is over 5 times the yearly budget and more than the total Gross National Product of the country. This put us very close to the territory of Greece and other economic basket cases out there.
Both of these are huge problems, but they pale in comparison to the unfunded liabilities, i.e., the promises that politicians have made, but have not bothers to pay for. This is about a staggering $90 trillion. It is no wonder politicians do not want to deal with this, for it means coming clean and admitting that there is just no way we and keep the promises they made. We simply will never be able to pay for it.
As Stein said, “that which cannot go on forever, won’t.” At some point this bubble will end. We can either change course to get our finances under control or it will, like all other bubbles, reach a point where it collapses. Exactly how this will happen cannot be predicted, we could see massive inflation in which our money become basically worthless (Note the 100 trillion dollar bill from Zimbabwe which is worth about $5). We could see a depression so deep that the last four year will seem like “the good times.” It will probably be some combination, but it will not be pretty.
Already we cannot find enough lenders to loan us the money we need to pay our bills each year. As a result the Federal Reserve has been effectively buying it by just printing money such that over the last few years we have tripled the money supply. If it was not for the economy being so bad, we would have already seen inflation, and in fact, we may be beginning to see it now.
There are only three ways to deal with this. One approach would be to encourage inflation. Cut the value of a dollar in half, and you effectively cut the amount we owe in half. This may be what is behind the increase in the money supply, though even if this were the case, I doubt, given the harmful effects of inflation, that any would openly admit it. This approach is deceptive in that the early stages of inflation look like economic growth and seem positive. But in the long run this is a horrible option.
A second approach would be to increase taxes. The problem here can be seen in a study by Christian Romer, former Chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, which showed that a tax rate above 33% brings in less, not more, money. I know those on the left often questions this, but it has numerous historical examples that have demonstrated it to be true. Given that just federal taxes on the upper income earners, those who pay the vast majority of the taxes, already exceed this, higher taxes will not work. While lower income earners are still below the 33% level, raising taxes on them is hardly likely in the current “tax the rich” environment.
That leaves cutting spending. This is not as onerous as it may at first seem. Studies cited by George Guilder in his book Wealth and Poverty, demonstrate that countries that have chosen this approach generate so much economic growth, that within a few years they actually have more money to spend than countries that tried to tax their way out of their financial problems.
Ideally, the best approach would be to focus the government, both tax system and regulation, towards economic growth, while cutting spending. However, in the current political climate that is not going to happen. Even if it did by some miracle, I believe our current problems are so severe that we can no longer avoid significant pain, we can only minimize it. Which given the inclination of politicians, means that the government bubble will be like all other bubbles, we will avoid the warning signs until it is too late, and economic realities take over.
Bob LaRochelle is the pastor of 2nd Congregational Church (UCC) in Manchester, CT and is author of Part-Time Pastor, Full-Time Church (Pilgrim Press, 2010), Crossing the Street (Energion Publications, 2012) and So Much Older Then … (Energion Publications, 2013). He was an ordained deacon in the Catholic Church before becoming a United Church of Christ pastor. He is passionate about ecumenical dialogue.
The question.
The question.