Faith-based budgeting
If the governor of your state called you into his or her office and asked you how to address a massive budget shortfall, what would you suggest? Would you cut spending, raise taxes, or try to find new sources of revenue? Your answer, like those in elected office, will be a faith-based solution.
California has a gaping $11 billion budget deficit and lawmakers there recently voted down spending cuts to balance their budget. Pennsylvania’s governor just completed a bus tour promoting a 16 percent personal income tax increase to help with its $3.2 billion shortfall. To his credit, a few days after the bus tour he proposed $500 million in budget cuts. Some of the commonwealth’s legislators want to allow poker and craps tables at Keystone State casinos, in addition to the 61,000 slot machines they approved, to increase state tax revenue. Clearly, legislators in California and Pennsylvania legislators have faith in big government.
“Many thinkers throughout the ages have noted that we face a choice between holding a robust faith in God or putting faith in man and institutions such as the state,” said the Rev. Robert Sirico of the Michigan-based Acton Institute last May.
When referring to “man,” Sirico was talking about government officials and central planners.
Continuing his message, Sirico cited Nobel laureate economist Friedrich Hayek, who was gravely concerned about politicians who believe they can gather enough information to manage complex structures like state and national economies. Think about it: Is it possible for legislators and bureaucrats to gather, and accurately process and analyze, the information behind the billions of economic decisions that individuals in a state or nation make every day?
- Is it time to buy a new vehicle or fix the old one?
- Hybrid, diesel, or gasoline engine?
- Which box of cereal should I buy?
- Chablis or cabernet?
- Which detergent works best for my family?
- Which replacement windows are best for my home?
- Cable TV or a digital antenna?
- Should I invest in real estate, stocks, bonds annuities, or commodities?
- Remodel the bathroom, build a deck, or save for a rainy day?
- Take on a part-time job to make ends meet or go to school in the evening?
- Buy or rent office space?
Faith in government to manage economies well seems misplaced, doesn’t it?
If the governor of your state called you into his or her office, would you suggest more taxes or trimming the budget in areas where the private sector has a better track record? Would you place your faith in citizens to spend and invest their money based on their knowledge of what is best for them, thereby generating real wealth and . . . increased tax receipts for their governments?
I know that I’m stating this simplistically. Government does have a proper and moral role in society, which is to enforce the rule of law thereby promoting societal order. And yes, this costs money.
But governments like those in Washington, D.C., and in California and Pennsylvania go way beyond their area of expertise when they try to manage and stimulate economies. And we misplace our faith in them when we expect them to do a good job.
So where does God figure in all of this as the Rev. Sirico suggests? If you believe in God, you’re likely to believe that God created mankind in His image. And you’ll recall that God gave mankind dominion over the earth and charged us to be fruitful and multiply. Government’s role from an economic perspective is to use its power, given to it by its people, to create and enforce laws so that individuals can use their talents to the fullest to create a thriving society. Do you have enough faith in God to believe this is the best plan?
Take another look at Washington, D.C., California, and Pennsylvania before you respond to the governor.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top9 Comments to “Faith-based budgeting”
Is God a cosmic Madoff?
Report comment to moderator
Cable TV or digital antenna, paper or plastic, stocks or bonds, pickup or car, Ginger or MaryAnn.. life is filled with choices you would never entrust politicians to make!
Report comment to moderator
Spending our own money is difficult. Spending other people’s money doesn’t take near the effort. There just is not the incentive to be frugal. That is even more true, the further the source of the income from the spenders. It is the most true of the federal government simply because everyone wants their piece of the pie, with someone else paying more than them. It becomes the reality that there is simply no incentive to not spend, when you know someone else will take that same money and use it.
Report comment to moderator
First, there was a Theocracy. Then, because the people pretty much demanded it, He gave them a monarchy. We are told several times to submit to kings and “those in authority.” Much as I like free-market capitalism, I’ve never seen it as THE Biblically mandated societal model.
Report comment to moderator
Well, in NJ, the place to start is with the politicians and their pension plans. The characters here get a pension for each one of their little part-time positions. The taxpayers pay some of them well over a $100,000. Our legislators have OTHER jobs that are giving them pensions. It’s despicable. They’re a lot like Congress.
So, my answer is the “thou shalt not steal” approach.
Report comment to moderator
California did not vote down spending cuts. They voted down a fake ’spending cap’ that would have extended for two extra years a tax hike that was the largest tax increase in the history of the state.
The whole of the government of California is corrupt. Democrats spending all the money they can giving it to friends and cronies. Republicans saying they are against raising taxes that then voting to raise them. A governor who is a consummate “Marie Antoinette.”
For California the solution is simple. Fire most of the government. Adopt the Texas model of having the legislature only meet for a short time each year. And then fire all of the school employees. Principals, teachers, ‘administrators’ and janitors. Sell all of the schools. And then let people home school their kids. The parents faced with the horrible agony of teaching their own kids would quickly find free markets solutions.
Report comment to moderator
All budget grumpiness aside, some of the budget situations are the result of previous choices, not only about spending but also about taxation. Sometimes governments and voters make choices that later on leave the State hamstrung in how it must deal with a budget crisis.
I would point out, that for many states the decisions are not about ceding areas that private business can handle better, but rather meeting the present needs: who pays for prisons? for the schools? for the medicare? pensions? There are a obligations that a State can only walk away from with great difficulty. What is more, the pressure to balance the budget can lead to short term decision making at the expense of long-term savings (so one underfunds preventive care thereby increasing demand for emergency care; or refuse to raise taxes on gasoline and thereby prevent the state from tapping available money for road repairs).
At the state level, these are more the decisions you face. In this, the Hayek quote, useful as it is, can be misleading because of the limited autonomy of state governments.
Report comment to moderator
Harris I think I agree 100 per cent. As I see it :
Scissors cut paper; Paper covers rock; Rock crushes lizard
Lizard poisons Spock; Spock smashes scissors; Scissors decapitate Lizard ; Lizard eats paper; Paper disproves Spock ; Spock vaporizes Rock and as it usually does Rock crushes scissors. Have I got that right?
Report comment to moderator
Government’s role from an economic perspective is to use its power, given to it by its people, to create and enforce laws so that individuals can use their talents to the fullest to create a thriving society.
yes, it’s simplistic.
The Constitution vests in Congress the power:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States . . .To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce . . .
Post offices and roads are only the begining. The Constitution grants the power:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The Constiution grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The jewel in the crown, the ribbon on the fasces, of progressive government is the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the people all powers not prohibiited to them, and thereby guarantees their right to government of the people by the people and for the people.
In other words, the proper role of government is pretty much whatever the people say.
What’s Obama’s .6% stake in publicly traded equities? Government at various times owned 99% of the land mass.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!