The Morality of Government

I don't have to write a criticism of the Ryan budget plan, thank God.  In the past week, it's been critiqued in dozens of places (by liberals and moderates who think it robs from the poor and gives to the rich and by conservatives who think the budget cuts are too slow to take effect, it doesn't cut Social Security, and it doesn't allocate enough money for guns).  Suffice to say, the Ryan plan's most controversial elements have been exposed, as has the Social Darwinism that lies at the heart of his political philosophy.  Also during that time, President Obama has offered an alternative to the Ryan plan.  If you want to see the plans compared, Reuters has a brief sketch here.  The Reuters comparison does not offer substantive critiques of the realism of the two plans, and as we have seen in the last few days, our politicians often get their numbers wrong.  Take it all with a dose of salt--don't believe a word either plan says.  And in fairness, there is a third budget proposal out there, being called "The People's budget," and it's reviewed by the Economic Policy Institute here.

Now that there are contrasting budget proposals out, any person who takes time to patiently look at the numbers and trace out the implications can see the broad moral issues facing our government.  Here are the issues I'll be watching:

• Is health care a right for US citizens?  Or, does society have a responsibility to poor, sick, suffering people--and if so, how do we show it?  In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, 45% percent of Americans over sixty-five had NO hospital insurance. Today almost all elderly Americans have hospital insurance through Medicare.  In 1965, 29 percent of elderly Americans lived in poverty; by 1998, that had fallen to less than 11 percent, thanks to Medicare and Medicaid.  If the Ryan plan goes through, we might expect to return to pre-1965 levels.  The church that employs me does care about poor, sick, suffering people (ostensibly, because our savior Jesus did).  As a church, we would certainly have a lot more work to do under the Ryan plan.  If we are going to debate health care, the real debate was not the one we had last summer,  but it's a debate to nationalize health care (ie, Medicare for All, or a "single-payer system").  Private insurance is a terrible way of providing good quality, affordable health care.  Doubt it?  Read last year's feature from the Atlantic, "How American Health Care Killed My Father."  In one way or another, the government has got to cut the growth of medical costs in this country.  Relying on private insurance to provide sufficient care for the costliest cases (ie, the old and the sick) is not going to happen on its own.
• Who pays for government?  Or, can America's richest citizens keep buying off politicians from both parties in order to get out of the burden of paying for its poorest?  How are we going to pay for our collective needs?  I'm hoping that the government keeps individual tax rates at progressive levels that leave the highest tax brackets at somewhere between 40 and 50% (historically a modest amount).  There is an incredible amount of work to be done to reform the tax code and eliminate loopholes, as both parties have discussed (fitting, because both parties have opened the loopholes in the first place).  But paying for government cannot only consider raising tax rates or cutting entitlement programs.  We need to continue vital conversation about how to encourage economic growth.  I am compelled that the government should decrease corporate tax rates (again, a point on which Obama and Ryan agree) in order to to stimulate economic growth and increase employment and overall tax revenues. 
• Thirdly, what government expenditures and/or actions will nurture conditions for future prosperity?  As the previous bullet suggests, I think one role of government is to try and stimulate conditions that will lead to future prosperity (or, on the flip side, mitigate future problems).  As I take stock of my own blessings in life, the things that have most benefited me personally are a) a good education; b) good health and c) personal safety.  I am able to make a living today because I was provided with extraordinary educational resources and an environment in which my physical body was safe, cared for, and could thrive.  In this way of thinking, creating a prosperous country is about creating prosperous citizens--which comes back to caring for citizens--providing individuals the opportunity to grow, to thrive.  I believe that the most important "budget" conversations going on today are conversations about education reform, public health, and global security through diplomacy and development.  Can we make public schools work?  Can we find ways to limit our intake of the three things that cause the vast majority of our health problems--alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar, and can we increase our level of physical activity?  Can we create a foreign policy that doesn't depend on war-making?  A moral government addresses the well-being of its citizens by extending a network of care that allows for human flourishing.

It's an interesting time to be a citizen of the United States, isn't it?  Lots at stake.  And perhaps most importantly, the most is at stake for our poorest neighbors--the people least well-positioned to get the government to address their needs.  That puts extra pressure on advantaged people like me--and perhaps you?--to be educated and involved.