Stated Clerk pushes higher taxes as deficit solution
By Alan F.H. Wisdom, The Layman, December 19, 2012
“We must have new federal revenues to address our long-term deficits—new revenue that must be raised through a more progressive tax code.” This was the solution to the “fiscal cliff” crisis propounded in the name of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by its Stated Clerk, the Rev. Gradye Parsons. The stated clerk’s December 11 statement promised that this “new revenue” would “both reduce our federal deficit and ensure adequate resources to make necessary investments for future generations.”
Parsons was employing poll-tested euphemisms. By “new revenue,” he meant higher taxes. By “a more progressive tax code,” he meant that these higher taxes should be extracted principally from the wealthy. By “necessary investments,” he was suggesting spending still more on a variety of federal programs. The PCUSA official’s championing of increased taxes and spending aligned him and his denomination with liberal Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration.
Parsons insisted, “It is clear that we cannot achieve comprehensive, just deficit reduction only by cutting spending.” The stated clerk ruled out significant cuts in entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which account for 60 percent of all federal spending. Speaking on behalf of the PCUSA General Assembly, he “challenge[d] the notion that entitlement reform must contribute to deficit reduction.”
Parsons conceded that changes to make entitlement programs more efficient and sustainable might save some money. He asserted, however, that “these programs are not the primary contributors to the deficit, nor should they be primary sources for deficit reduction.”
The stated clerk named only one target for spending cuts: the Defense Department. He described “re-envisioning our military priorities” as “essential,” while recognizing that “it will not be enough” to eliminate the deficit. White House figures show a 2012 defense budget of $682 billion. Completely shutting down the Pentagon and disarming America would cover barely half of the estimated deficit of $1.2 trillion.
Parsons cited a 2008 General Assembly resolution that warned, “[F]ederal government practices and policies that create ever-increasing debt and unfunded or underfunded obligations for future generations of Americans are a grave moral concern as well as a clear danger to the republic.” The resolution asked Presbyterians to “study the policies and practices that have created this grave moral and economic crisis, to repent of the sins of greed and of stealing from future generations who cannot defend themselves, and to call upon our citizens and national leaders to make the sacrifices necessary to begin to solve this problem before it is too late.”
The 2008 assembly did not endorse specific policies for closing the deficit. On the contrary, it sought to avoid any partisan posturing: “[W]e do not propose that the church at this time have a monolithic policy recommendation.” But Parsons, in the name of the assembly, did offer partisan prescriptions: higher taxes on the wealthy, large cuts only in defense spending, minimal reductions in entitlement programs, and more spending “for future generations.”
Presbyterians seeking an alternative perspective might consult a set of charts from the conservative Heritage Foundation. According to the charts, long-term federal deficits are not due to a shortage of revenue. Tax receipts have kept pace with the U.S. economy, averaging about 18 percent of gross domestic product. Under almost any scenario, they will take a bigger bite in coming years.
The Heritage charts portray skyrocketing spending as the factor driving long-term deficits. By far the fastest growing sector of spending is entitlements. Unless entitlement spending is curbed, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would consume all federal tax dollars by 2045. Federal spending would reach 40 percent of gross domestic product by 2050. Taxes would have to be almost doubled to pay for this burgeoning spending. Nor would soaking the rich be sufficient to pay the bill. Even if the federal government confiscated all the income of everyone in the top two tax brackets, it would not be enough to cover the coming deficits.
There is a radical disjunction between this sober Heritage analysis and the tax-and-spend urgings of the stated clerk. Presbyterians will have to decide which is the wiser course. Which approach is more likely to fulfill the 2008 assembly’s call challenging church members and citizens to “make the sacrifices necessary to begin to solve this problem [of deficits] before it is too late”?