General
A Small Beginning Of Fiscal Courage?
Nothing’s small when you’re talking about 38.5 billion dollars. But when it’s in the context of 3.6 trillion budget, it’s just one week’s worth of spending–or slightly over one half of 1%.
That’s the essence of the recent budget deal reached between The Republican House and Democratic- controlled Senate and White House that was hammered out before midnight on April 9.
They agreed to cut last year’s “missing” budget by 38.5 billion dollars or less than one percent.
Big deal.
Does it take much courage to whittle less than 1% from your personal or family budget?
I don’t think so.
On the other hand, for the first time in recent memory some courageous leaders took on the government behemoth and actually shrunk its voracious appetite. Is this truly a beginning of some necessary fiscal courage that we desperate need in the United States of America?
Before we answer that question, let’s analyze who might have won the recent budgetary prize-fight.
Carl Cameron. leading political reporter for Fox News, in an article entitled “Who Won the Shutdown Showdown? It Wasn’t Even Close” had this analysis:
“While Republicans wanted to cut more spending in Saturday’s early morning compromise to keep the government open, they think they got the better of the deal.”
“Here’s why: HR1 [the House budget bill] was originally to seek spending cuts of $32 billion until Tea Party conservatives insisted on more than $ 60 billion. House Speaker John Boehner won more cuts than he originally sought and got the Senate to agree to votes to defund the health care reform law and groups like the nation’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood – votes Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said he’d ever allow to come to the floor. Back on February 3, Reid called $32 billion in cuts ‘extreme’ and ‘draconian.'”
“The history of offers on this bill goes something like this. Democrats first offered no cuts, then $4 billion, then $6.5 billion, then $33 billion, then settled at $38.5 billion. Boehner made numerous adjustments to his offer in recent days too, but started at $32 billion, then with a Tea Party push went to $62 billion, then dropped to $40 billion, then $38.5 billion.”
“Democrats claimed they met Republicans halfway after the $10 billion in cuts that already passed this year were approved. They settled late Friday night at three and a half times more. Boehner came in $8.5 billion higher than the halfway point between his high offer of $61 billion in cuts and the Democrats opening bid of zero cuts.”
“It was not a totally lopsided bargain. Dems have some silver linings. There were no votes on defunding the EPA or PBS and NPR. Democrats fought for and won a $2 billion cut from the Department of Defense, knocking the military appropriation for the rest of the year down to $513 billion. But the GOP had to be able to see this as a win in the end, because it is puny compared to what they want to do next.”
“House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget resolution proposes cuts of $5 TRILLION in the next 10 yrs. But the resolution is a non-binding roadmap for the committees to use as they approve tax and spending bills for next year, the resolution will never be signed into law by the president.”
“The next battle with consequences begins in a matter of two short weeks when the accumulated U.S. debt will be nearing it’s $14 trillion legal limit. So Congress will have to vote to raise the ceiling so Uncle Sam can borrow still more money. The administration has said it will need to be raised between April 15 and May 31 or the U.S. could default and create a new fiscal crisis of unknowable magnitude. Fiscal hawks plan to demand strict, enforceable spending caps, triggers for across the board cuts, and austerity measures in exchange for raising the debt limit.”
“This short-term agreement was just a beginning.”
Amen–but an important one.
I agree with Cameron. John Boehner definitely won a clear decision over the Barack Obama-Harry Reid Tag team. In fact, I’d grade the fiscal prize fight this way:
- John Boehner – B+. He deserves a lot of credit for his bargaining skills, but only 60-100 billion would have eaned him an A.
- Barack Obama – D. He was clearly disengaged from the budget process and exercised little leadership. What he claims are “historic budget reductions” are only true because he raised the spending bar by 20% over the past two years–making the reductions a phony trophy to claim.
- Harry Reid – F. Undoubtedly, the worst Senate Majority leader in U.S. history. No wisdom–no guts–no leadership.
- Nancy Pelosi – F. She’s no longer leading the House of Representatives, but her failure to produce a timely budget last year clearly marks her as the worst Speaker of the House of all-time.
- Tea Party leaders-and-newly-elected officials – B+. Most of them stood firm on their pledge to cut the budget by sixty billion. Some did not–hence the B+. Still, their electoral success and pressure has temporarily halted the bloated growth of government.
One who did stand her ground was Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, a rising GOP star from the state of Minnesota. Here’s her vote report:
“Early this morning, I joined with 27 other Republicans in opposition to the continuing resolution brokered by President Obama and Congressional leaders. While millions of Americans expect Congress to make significant efforts to address our nation’s fiscal problems, the deal that was made leaves us with a paltry $36 billion in cuts and fails to defund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. This continuing resolution is a disappointment and ignores the mandate given to us by voters in November. Keeping in line with my promises, I will continue to oppose any continuing resolution or budget plan that does not defund Obamacare or make significant cuts in government spending, and I will not yield in this effort.”
“Who won the budget negotiations of 2011? That’s a question people will be debating for some time. For conservatives, the bill is a mixed bag. On one hand, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) negotiated Democrats into the largest dollar-for-dollar spending cut in American history. After pushing the President and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to bite on the GOP’s initial plan–$ 33 billion in cuts–the Speaker upped the ante at the last minute and got them to agree to $5 billion more. By night’s end, the Left had accepted $38 billion in spending cuts.”
“But, as Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) pointed out, that’s a far cry from the $100 billion voters wanted. ‘Relative to the size of the problem,’ he said, ‘it’s not even a rounding error. In that case, we probably all deserve to be tarred and feathered.'”
Congresswoman Bachmann gets it. That’s probably why she’s a leading presidential contender for 2012.
The Heritage Foundation also has it right. They believe we need some courageous leaders who will change the culture of Washington, D.C. Here’s their take:
“This Congress was sent to Washington with a simple mandate from the American people: cut federal spending and get government under control. Friday night’s budget compromise to avert a government shutdown embraced these principles, but also left plenty of work to be done. Congress has finally started cutting spending instead of running up the tab on future generations, and we hope the budget deal changed the culture of Washington. No longer should budgets be railroaded through Washington that increase spending and grow government. From here on out, the question should be: What can be cut?”
“One good thing to have come out of this process is that the debate has clearly shifted. Though the details of the compromise remain murky, what’s clear is that the national mood is for cutting, and all the reformist ideas are coming from one side only. The liberal approach to the debate over the 2011 budget spoke volumes. Liberal Members of Congress foolishly said Republicans were trying to “kill women” and end cancer screenings. The pitch of their tirade showed how desperate they were to maintain the status quo spending environment. It didn’t work, and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) was in the end able to deliver a compromise deal that amounted to the largest spending cut in history.”
In reality, even one of the biggest spending cuts in history is merely a drop in the bucket. A handful of days of deficit spending. A rounding error. But this should merely demonstrate how much there is left to accomplish. America is still on a dangerous fiscal path. A cut of $38.5 billion will not change that. A larger one of $61 billion would not have changed that. Even one of $100 billion would not have changed that. The moral victories of the past are now merely small steps on the road to true Washington reform. The future fights over entitlement and budget reform will need to be measured in the trillions, not billions. And that debate begins today.”
April 9 was a small beginning of fiscal courage in America. But we need a citizenry who are willing to give up their addiction to entitlements and some truly courageous leaders to stop all deficit spending and enact a bold plan to pay off the fourteen trillion dollars of debt.
We can do it. We’re Americans.
But it will take a national spiritual awakening, much prayer, and some very courageous leadership to turn a small beginning into a hopeful ending of our national financial nightmare.
Balance the Budget! No More Excuses.
It’s been amazing to watch the budget debate on Capitol Hill over the past weeks. Republicans want to trim 61 billion dollars this year from the annual 1.5 trillion dollar US debt. The Democrats have been stopping them in the Senate, forcing an endless cycle of CR’s (Continuing Resolutions) that has lopped off six billion dollars here and there.
Unfortunately, the whole things is a farce. Sixty-billion dollars is not peanuts, but it is compared to 1.5 trillion. It doesn’t make a dent. Six billion in savings is simply the interest on the debt for a week.
So we’re playing games with America’s future–and the entire nation could crash if the games aren’t halted.
There’s only one answer for our tepid politicians: A Balanced Budget Amendment.
To see this need in the clearest terms, click here and watch a short video. It will put things in perspective for you.
There are some politicians that get it and have some guts. Newly elected Senator Mike Lee of Utah is one of them. Here’s a report from the Heritage Foundation on his efforts:
“Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) says he’s hopeful the ratification of a balanced budget amendment is realistic in today’s political climate — and touted the features of his proposal for such an amendment as well-suited to curb Congress’ spending addiction.”
“’It’s going to be an uphill battle,” Lee said on a Thursday conference call. “But public sentiment among voters makes this right for our time.’”
“The senator will need every ounce of that public support. The threshold to pass a constitutional amendment is high. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress must pass it, then three-quarters of states must ratify the amendment to make it law.”
“Lee has been working for weeks to generate support for his amendment among fellow Republicans. In the very near future, he’ll also reach across the aisle.”
“’At this point, I’m working almost entirely within the Republican caucus to garner support for this,” Lee said. “There will of course come a time when we will work aggressively to get bipartisan support. … That time will soon be coming.’”
“The debt ceiling debate might be that time. Senate Tea Party Caucus members — including Lee — have already said they’ll harness that debate to earn Democratic support for a balanced budget amendment, according to a Jan. 31 article on TheHill.com.”
“’The only scenario in which I can imagine not using the filibuster [during the debt ceiling debate] is if the leadership of both parties agree that as a condition of that they would first pass out a balanced budget amendment,’” Lee said in the article.
“As Lee sees it, a balanced budget amendment is the only way to lock the vault.”
“’I’ve come to believe it’s going to be difficult or impossible to get back to constitutional spending until we stop giving Congress unlimited money from which to draw,’ he said.”
“Lee’s amendment would require that Congress develop a budget each year in which outlays do not exceed revenues — and it would also restrict spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product. Congress could not circumvent the limitations of the amendment without the support of a two-thirds supermajority in both houses.”
We desperately need a balanced budget amendment to rescue us from ourselves. One blogger stated it very clearly.
It comes down to the biggest financial choice of our lifetime.
“Freedom is a choice. Often it is a tough choice and involves hardship. Americans have always been willing to make tough choices and endure hardships to live in freedom. Still living is the generation that made the tough choice to defeat tyranny in all its forms. That choice involved hardships, but America won World War II. We have a generation that paid with their treasure and blood in Korea and Vietnam, financed the victory in the Cold War, and the resultant fall of the Berlin wall. Those were tough choices and there were hardships.”
“But we made the tough choice and endured the hardships. We have a generation that is willing to finance America’s security in an age of uncertainty and terrorism and yes, pay the price in their blood. A tough choice, a choice that has already and will undoubtedly bring more hardships. But we are willing. Why? Read the history of this country, your country. Americans of all generations have always been willing to make tough choices and endure hardships to live in freedom. For the benefit of our children, the generations to come. You are the recipient of the blessings of the tough choices and hardships your parents and their parents made.”
“It is once again time to make the hard choice, and accept hardships. For freedom. For our children. It is time to support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
“We now confront many crises: joblessness; healthcare; education; two wars; immigration; decaying infrastructure. The list goes on. All are important. The Federal government tells us it has the answers. Currently the Federal government takes in about 2 trillion dollars a year, but claims it is not enough. To solve the nation’s problems, it spends about 4 trillion dollars a year. But even that is not enough. Our nation is going broke. We are going into debt to foreign powers who want to see us diminished. Yet, the Federal government continues to borrow and spend with no control. We are told we have to allow the Federal government to borrow and spend even more. We are told we have to accept more foreign money and borrow more from our children. We know that if this continues, we are or will become bankrupt. A sense of inevitability spreads. We begin to feel we and our country are helpless.”
“We are not helpless. America is not helpless. It is time to support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Republicans have not been able to stop it. The Democrats have not been able to stop it. Both had the best intentions. In fact neither had the political power to stop it. The politics of spending is too powerful for one leader, even one political party to defeat alone. Only we, the people, have the required political power. In America, it is we the people who give our political leaders power. Our Constitution defines what power we have given to our leaders. Only our Constitution can give our political leaders the power they need to defeat the politics of borrowing and spending.”
“It’s time to give our leaders the power to defeat the politics of borrow and spend. It is time to support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
“Leadership is not marked by championing every cause that is momentarily popular with no thought to its cost. Leadership is not displayed passing the buck to the next generation of politicians and citizens. When the government’s budget has to be balanced, our leaders will have to make tough choices about how to spend our resources. Not the resources we borrow from our foreign competitors, nor the resources of our children. Our resources. They will have to explain to us why one cause is more beneficial than another. They will have to explain why one crisis demands more resources than another. They will have to deliver a true accounting of their stewardship of our resources. But in so doing, they will become true leaders once again. “
“A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States will give our political leaders the ability to stand against the interests that want a return to the politics of borrowing and spending, and force them to begin a true discussion, a true debate of what our national priorities should be. Our leaders, from both parties, will have to make tough choices and explain to us, the voters, what the benefits of their choices are and why the hardship of paying for it is worth enduring. In the act of giving leaders the power to stand against the politics of spending, we also are requiring a return to true leadership. We will require true leadership to exercise the power we have given.”
“It’s time to deserve and demand true leadership. It is time to support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
“Let us not fool ourselves. There will be sacrifice. As a result of decades of deficit spending, we now face a 14 trillion dollar national debt. The enactment of a Balanced Budget Amendment will not, of itself, repay that debt. It is an enormous first step, but there will still be tough choices to make and there will be disagreement among us as to what those choices should be. Let us not be blind to our responsibility. In order to form intelligent opinions, we will have to examine the issues and choose which are truly important to our nation and ourselves. “
“Then, we will have to vote to elect leaders whose vision of America we agree with, place our trust in them, and accept the sacrifice that is likely to be required. Because, at some point, we are going to have to ask ourselves, “what is the alternative?” Do we apathetically accept the politics of borrow and spend? Do we allow a foreign government to dictate our future? Do we spend our children into bankruptcy?”
Choice. Are we are ready to make the hard choice for our freedom and for our children’s freedom?
Then do all in your power to support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Egypt’s Choice – A Primer in Government 101
The “Lotus Revolution” in Egypt is both wonderful in its demand for increasing freedom for that ancient civilization and frightening in terms of how it will turn out. Who will rise to power? What kind of new government should be established? How will the new government affect the stability of the Middle East and of the entire world?
Because Egypt is now faced with a choice of new leadership, I thought it would be valuable to use this occasion for a primer on government.
As my friend Bill Burtness wisely points out below, there are really only three forms of civil government in our fallen world: 1) Anarchy – usually a transitional form of government, but in operation in places like Yemen and parts of Pakistan. 2) Tyranny – Egypt formerly had a secular-leaning dictatorship under Hosni Mubarak. It could get a religious one (radical Muslim) under groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. 3) Democratic Republic – this could be established, a la the American model, if the Coptic Church leads a spiritual/character awakening in the nation.
I hope you can guess which one would be a blessing to the people of Egypt and globally.
Bill Burtness teaches the biblical principles of civil government in the United States, the nation of Kosovo, and other countries of the world. He’s one of the smartest men I know on civil polity.
After you read his excellent digest (which I’ve slightly modified), you might consider buying his e-book and boning up on this vital subject.
Big changes are coming to our world. Let’s pray that the peoples yearning for freedom will choose their governments wisely. RB
GOVERNMENT 101
The Proper Functions and Boundaries of Civil Government
By Bill Burtness
Are there proper functions and boundaries for civil government? Can’t civil government just do whatever it wants? As we watch events unfolding around the world this week, we see stark examples of basic life principles concerning government that are clearly illustrated in the Bible. We can understand these events more clearly by analyzing them according to a philosophy of government.
VIEWS OF SOVEREIGNTY
To begin, we must point out that when talking about government, many of us immediately think about politicians and the special buildings in our nation’s capital. That, however, represents only one sphere of government – civil government. There are other spheres also – family government, church government, business government, self-government and others.
Everyone has a philosophy of government that guides their thinking and choosing. Our philosophy of government begins with our understanding of sovereignty. This is our view of who or what has top authority.
We can simplify our analysis by categorizing all philosophies and ideologies as resting upon one or the other of two ultimate presuppositions. Either 1) the personal, infinite God of the Bible exists, or 2) the personal, infinite God of the Bible does not exist. Both of these presuppositions cannot be true. They each define worldviews by which people live.
If God exists, we can see that He is the highest authority – He has ultimate sovereignty. If we believe that God does not exist, then there are two other possible answers to our question, “Who or what has ultimate authority?” Either the state has ultimate authority or the individual, in and of himself, has ultimate authority. These three are the foundational possibilities. Let’s quickly summarize each one.
The Sovereignty Grid – “Who is in Control?”
POSSIBILITY ONE – GOD IS SOVEREIGN
The Biblical View
God is sovereign
Liberty with law
Government by consent of the governed
Limited civil government
Individual character – the basis of a self-governing (democratic) republic under God
POSSIBILITY TWO – THE STATE IS SOVEREIGN
The Socialist view
The state is sovereign
Tyranny (no freedom)
Total civil control
Unlimited civil government
Individual character subservient to the state
POSSIBILITY THREE – THE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN
The Humanist view
Individual is sovereign
Anarchy (no law)
No civil control
No civil structure
Individual character is autonomous or rebellious
These are the three presuppositional philosophies of government – God is sovereign; the state is sovereign, the individual is sovereign. Let’s analyze them a little deeper.
GOD IS SOVEREIGN
The alternative to the world’s system of tyranny vs. anarchy is the recognition that God is sovereign – God is ultimately the top authority. This assumes that God exists and is active in the world today. God’s sovereignty means He has supreme authority over men and nations. This was the American founding father generation’s view.
In this view, the Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. He created us with the ability to govern our lives individually in our relationships with Him and with each other (Matt. 22:36-40). He told us how to do that by giving us in the Bible laws to which both men and the state should conform. This means that government is not derived from the opinions and passions of people, but is to rest on the wisdom of the Creator. His statutes take into account everything we do not know or understand and are motivated by His desire to secure love and the highest good. He says that these laws are not too difficult for us. The misery we see in the world is the simple result of individuals’ selfish choices and rebellion against God’s government of wisdom and love.
The Bible shows that civil government was given by God to man and has a proper purpose, which is to serve the individual by providing protection from force and fraud, not to control the individual. It is to secure the individual’s safety by protecting good and punishing evil (Romans 13:3-4). The state has a proper function to secure the ‘natural rights’ of the individual to life, liberty and property. Tyranny exists to the degree the state oversteps these proper boundaries.
To the degree that God’s sovereignty is recognized and honored by the people in any society or nation, there is freedom without chaos as the people individually control themselves under God according to His Law and ways. There is order without tyranny, because the Law is written on the hearts of the people. The result is peace and prosperity as the context of life. The individual is free to advance himself and his family as he sees fit.
THE STATE IS SOVEREIGN
If one does not believe that God exists, or does not know Him personally, then the biblical view really does not exist in his mind or experience. “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” Jesus told us. In this case, we look around and ask, “Where does top authority lie?” Many then suppose that the state is sovereign – that supreme authority rests in the civil government.
The extreme of this view believes that whatever the state decrees is absolute, right and by definition must be obeyed. The purpose of civil government is to control the individual’s life, not serve and protect the individual. The value of the individual is defined by his contribution to the state.
In other words–the state is God. In the extreme, the state decides who should live and who should not, what the individual can and cannot do, what his career will be, how many children he may have, what property he may have, how much of his earnings he may keep, what he may do with his property, what he may think and tell others, where he may travel, and what he may teach his children.
Here, the state gives rights to life, liberty and property as it wills and can take these rights away as it wills, to strengthen its control.
Employing the educational, media and political elites, the state’s purpose in this view is to control the lives of the people. This is tyranny – total civil control. This control can either take a secular or relgious form.
THE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN
There are individuals who rebel against this control, reasoning that, “The state is actually just people like me; what gives them the right to tell me what to do?”
If we believe that God does not exist and the state is not sovereign, then our only alternative is that the individual in and of himself must be sovereign. In this extreme each person is autonomous in his own life and chooses for himself what values will be his and what rules of conduct he will abide by.
This is anarchy – no civil control. Anarchy, however, is only a short transitional phase before tyranny. People need and want order and peace. In times of anarchy they look for a strong ruler on whom they can depend. This is what was happening in the Bible in Judges. The last verse tells us, “In those days there was no king in Israel, everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” They were free but God had faded in their hearts from being king. Soon, (I Sam. 8) they were demanding of Samuel a human king “to [rule us] and fight our battles.” Their dependent character would not be dissuaded so God ultimately gave them the king they desired.
IN SUMMARY
The alternative to the world’s struggle between anarchy and tyranny is the Biblical view that the civil government’s proper function is to serve and protect. This liberty is sustained only by a populace of strong, self-governed character under God. Every nation must choose between anarchy, tyranny, or bilblical freedom. Let’s pray that Egypt and America–and many other countries will experience spiritual awaking and corporate character enough to retain the new wine of civil liberty.
* Excerpts from Chapter 3 of the new resource, Philosophy of Freedom: Principles of American Self-government, by Bill Burtness– a layman’s analysis in simple terms of the Biblical ideas that formed the basis of the American founding documents and philosophy of government. It is a .pdf e-book on pre-publication Internet Sale – $10.00: