Economics

Chris Banescu: Bishop Savas is Wrong on Taxes on the Poor and the Rich

42 Comments

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Chris Banescu corrects some bad math and sloppy assertions.

Source: A Voice in the Wilderness | Chris Banescu

Bishop Savas (Zembillas), GOA’s Director of the Office of Church and Society, has launched into yet another missive against conservatives whom he frequently condemns of hating the poor and only protecting the rich. On his facebook page, the main venue where one can find the bishop’s real views and interests, he recently posted a blame Republicans editorial from The New York Times titled “The New Resentment of the Poor.” Apparently forgetting that envy is a sin and truth-telling a virtue, Bishop Savas highlights his class-warfare passions in several false claims he posted in the discussions related to the NYT article.

This is not the first time Bishop Savas has posted such biased hit pieces on his Facebook wall. He has a long history of supporting pro-Democrat and anti-Republican views via his many postings of overwhelmingly liberal and leftist-leaning commentary from NPR and The New York Times, his favorite sources of “balanced and objective” news and views. However, this latest editorial further showcases his superficial and misinformed thinking on taxation via several outlandish statements that distort the truth and advance a leftist/progressive agenda.

Falsehood #1 – Employee Social Security and Medicare Tax Rates
In the comments section below The New York Times editorial link, Bishop Savas makes this claim (emphasis mine):

“even those who don’t pay federal income tax pay 16% of their total income on taxes. A person making $30,000 pays around $5,000.”

What he calls “total income on taxes” are the combined Social Security and Medicare taxes that individuals must pay to the federal government (in addition to federal and state income taxes). These are taxes that are automatically deducted by employers from their employees’ payroll checks. Based on the numbers he cited, employed individuals would pay a 16.7% ($5,000 divided by $30,000) combined Social Security and Medicare tax rate on income. Unfortunately, the bishop’s assertion is wildly inaccurate. He’s not just wrong by a few percentage points, but off by more than 100%.

According to federal government guidelines, by law employees are required to pay a 6.2% Social Security tax and a 1.45% Medicare tax on their earnings. This means that employed individuals must pay a combined SS/Medicare tax of 7.65% on their income. The employer must also match those taxes and pay an additional 7.65% of the employee’s salary directly to the federal government. Those additional taxes are paid by the employer only and are not deducted from the employee’s earnings.

Relying on some simple web research and basic math, we arrive at $2,295 per year of Social Security and Medicare taxes that employees earning $30,000 per year actually pay (nowhere near the $5,000 alleged). The matching $2,295 in SS/Medicare taxes are paid solely by an employer from his own earnings, not the employee’s pocket. This means that Bishop Savas’ erroneous example exaggerates these taxes by nearly 218%, asserting a fictional 16.7% vs. an actual 7.65% tax rate; a percentage two times bigger than reality.

Falsehood #2 – Viacom CEO Salary for 2010
The second falsehood from Bishop Savas, in the same facebook section, focuses on the 2010 salary of Viacom’s CEO (emphasis mine):

“The CEO of Viacom made $754,000,000 last year – around $2,000,000 a day, give or take. What percentage do you think he owes in taxes?

Such an enormous salary, nearly 3/4 of a billion dollars, for just one year’s worth of work is indeed shocking. The problem is that it’s not true. The assertion is meant to scandalize the reader and justify resentment of the other. It’s an audacious condemnation in support of the same liberal/leftist bias seen in the NYT article posted on his facebook wall. Bishop Savas is shamelessly distorting the facts.

A quick search on Google reveals the truth regarding the actual compensation that Mr. Phillippe Dauman, the CEO of Viacom, was awarded last year. As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

“Viacom Inc. Chief Executive Philippe Dauman was awarded salary, stock and other benefits totaling $84.5 million during the nine months of 2010 that were covered in Viacom’s fiscal year.

That amount included one-time stock award worth $31.65 million — money that was not paid to Dauman in 2010 but will vest over the next five years if the company achieves certain performance goals. The grant was bestowed on Dauman as a signing bonus in April after he extended his employment contract six and a half years.”

Notice immediately that the 2010 “awarded salary, stock and other benefits” is orders of magnitude smaller than the bishop’s imaginary amount. It is only $84.5 million vs. $754 million. Notice also, that a large portion of that salary, $31.65 million in fact, is deemed as “one-time stock award”; it hasn’t been paid to Mr. Dauman yet. That amount will vest over the next five years if the company meets very specific performance guidelines. He will only receive that compensation in the future if he fulfills the goals identified in his 5-year contract with Viacom.

The money Mr. Dauman was actually paid in 2010 is probably closer to $52.85 million. That’s indeed a nice chunk of change. But, it’s a whopping 1,427% smaller than what Bishops Savas said it was. That’s quite a discrepancy! Yes, we’re still talking about large amounts of money, but why the need for such ludicrous embellishment?

Even assuming a very superficial reading of the LA Times piece and using the $84.5 million compensation number, still leaves us with a 892% exaggeration of the facts. Is the desire to justify a viewpoint and promote an agenda so powerful that accuracy and truth no longer matter?

Falsehood #3 – Total Income Tax Rates on the Rich
Bishop Savas also erroneously assumes that someone earning $754 million per year would only pay $250 million in taxes:

“The CEO of Viacom made $754,000,000 last year – around $2,000,000 a day, give or take. What percentage do you think he owes in taxes? Say, for the sake of argument, he pays back $250,000,000. That would leave him with only a little more than half a billion dollars. Who would have made the greater sacrifice, him or the guy who paid $5,000 out of his $30k? Who is likely to have felt it more?”

Using his numbers gives the impression that a rich CEO pays only 33.1% in income taxes, allowing him to keep 66.9% of what he earned. This is also not true.

First of all, the marginal Federal Income Tax rate is currently 35% for anyone earning more than $379,150 per year (cut-off was $373,650 in 2010). Right away, the bishop’s math is off by almost 2%. [NOTE – the federal tax rates are less for the first $379,150 earned, but for practical purposes when dealing with millions in income the effective rate approaches 35%.]

Second of all, Bishop Savas conveniently leaves out an additional 1.45% Medicare tax that the federal government imposes on all income earned. This raises the federal tax to 36.45%. And we’re not done yet. State incomes taxes must also be paid.

Assuming that Mr. Phillippe Dauman is a resident of New York (a fair assumption since the corporate headquarters of Viacom Inc. are in New York City), he must also pay state and local income taxes due each year. A brief overview of New York’s state tax laws by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation reveals a tax rate of 8.97% on all income over $500K per year. We’ll round that out to 8.9% for simplicity and to account for the slightly smaller tax rates bellow the half million dollar mark.

Adding the 8.9% NY state tax rate to the 36.45% Federal tax rate brings the Total Tax Rate to 45.35%, roughly 37% larger than Bishop Savas asserts. Had Mr. Dauman actually earned $754 million for 2010, the IRS and New York State authorities would have appropriated about $342 million of that money (almost half), not $250 million (only a third) as claimed.

The reality is that New York taxpayers in the highest income brackets keep just 54.65% of what they actually earn each year. This is significantly less than the fictional 66.9% asserted by Bishop Savas. Nearly half of what the rich earn is confiscated and redistributed by the government. What’s wrong with sticking with the facts?

Better Silence Than Foolishness
As Abraham Lincoln once observed, it is often “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” A little moderation would be wise before stepping into the public arena and proclaiming such whoppers. This is especially egregious given that the truth is just a few keystrokes away, discoverable via a few Google searches and some basic math.

It’s been said that economists should not do religion. Maybe religious figures should not do economics.

John Couretas: Protect the Poor, Not Poverty Programs

Jesse S. Cone: Fr. Leonid’s Culture War

8 Comments

Jesse S. Cone provides a compelling critique below of Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky’s signing of Jim Wallis’ “Circle of Protection” proclamation. The document was crafted by Wallis and signed mostly by left-leaning Christians ostensibly to protect the poor from draconian budget cuts.

Wallis is a 1960’s style liberal who still believes that government has the resources and tools to eradicate vexing social problems like poverty, poor education and so forth. He never takes into account how the government inflow of money into poorer areas exacerbated the decline of the nuclear family (in the 1950’s 70% of Black children in Harlem lived in intact two parent families, a trend that was increasing; 10 years after the Great Society that number dropped to 30%), contributed to the collapse of public education (the worst performing schools in America are in the inner cites of Democratically controlled cities) and created generational dependence on government welfare.

There’s a difference between supporting government programs that ostensibly care for the poor and actually doing constructive work for the poor. This distinction is hard for many people to make because “Christian Progressives” like Wallis appropriate the lexicon of the Christian moral tradition to lend moral weight to Progressive ideology. No one wants to be accused of selfishness but the Progressives argue you are selfish if you criticize their agenda.

By signing the document Fr. Kishkovsky added his voice to the chorus and aligned the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) with Wallis’ Progressive ideology. Is he equating Orthodox moral teaching with Progressive ideology? It sure looks like it.

Economic laws are like physical laws. You can cheat them for a time but in the end they always win out. Accrue debt and sooner or later you have to pay it back. Accrue too much debt and in the end the borrower owns you. America is perilously close to default and the nations who lent us the money (primarily China although many other nations) are more alarmed than many in Washington seem to be. They haven’t forgotten elementary economics.

For example, take a look at China’s (China!) two warnings to America last week (here and here). It’s not pleasant being reproached by China but who can argue with the reproach?

Progessivism is failing morally and fiscally as anyone who is not intimidated by the strident exhortations coming from Progressivist quarters already knows. Fr. Kishkovsky needs to examine the Wallis world view with greater sobriety. A lesson in economics wouldn’t hurt either.

Cone also mentions an organization I had a hand in organizing and am presently involved with called Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE). We agree with Wallis that budgets have a moral component but we believe encumbering the next generation with our debt is immoral. We do not believe that the Progressive vision is morally justifiable or economically sustainable.

One minor correction. CASE believes that government has a role in funding the social safety net. We also embrace the counsel of F. A. Hayek who cautioned that the transition from welfare dependency to a model of personal responsibility must be handled with great prudence and deliberation. Nevertheless, events are going to force these transitions upon us as last week’s budget imbroglio made clear. We need to do it well. Jesse S. Cone’s essay follows.

Source: OCATruth | August 3, 2o11 |By Jesse S. Cone

Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky

Amid heightened concerns that factions in the OCA want to follow in the footsteps of The Episcopal Church by catering to social trends, Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky, the OCA’s Director of External Affairs and Interchurch Relations, put his name and the OCA’s alongside The Episcopal Church USA’s Presiding Bishop, Katherine Schori, on the Circle of Protection. The Circle of Protection is an ecumenical statement attempting to support governmental social programs whose funding is being threatened by the current debt crisis. It is supported by the National Council of Churches, and receives a large part of its funding by the leftist billionaire George Soros. You can see Fr. Leonid’s name under that of the General Secretary of the NCC, Michael Kinnamon.

The Circle says that,

As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called “the least of these” (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources. The Christian community has an obligation to help them be heard, to join with others to insist that programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world are protected.

There is no disagreement among Christians that we should minister to the poor and needy, though there is plenty of disagreement about the Circle and Church’s role in the governmental programs it is supporting. On the basic level it is an issue of who should actually be doing the ministering: individual and organizations of Christians directly, or intermediaries; in this case the government. Should it be the Church that ministers to the fatherless and the widows, or should the Church support ministering programs? While these questions are not simply either/or, the polarities — and the consequent tensions – are real. Nevertheless it is ironic then that the Circle defends the government backed social programs they wish to protect by appealing to the signatories’ own experience of ministering directly to the poor and needy.

We know from our experience serving hungry and homeless people that these programs meet basic human needs and protect the lives and dignity of the most vulnerable. We believe that God is calling us to pray, fast, give alms, and to speak out for justice.

So what justice is the Circle of Protection crying out for, and what programs are they trying to protect? Programs like SNAP (formerly food stamps), Medicaid, Head Start, CHIP, as well as general support for areas of Low-Income Education and Training, Shelter and Homelessness, Peacekeeping, and Sustainable International Development Programs. While these programs may not espouse explicitly debatable agendas, this does seem to be part and parcel with the agenda of the NCC. That agenda has definite leftist leanings, as witnessed by George Soros’ contributions, which make explicit use for lobbying in Washington, especially in regards to his proposed Criminal Justice reform.

The Circle’s claim that budgets “are moral documents” is disturbing to traditional Christians who consider the moral significance of supporting Medicaid. Medicaid provides some funding for abortions in almost every state. What situations allow for Medicaid funds to be used to pay for abortion varies by state, but there 17 states in the Union that have 1/3 of their abortions paid for by Medicaid.

The Metropolitan, who took heat on Mark Stokoe’s website for his “unilateral” and “political” involvement in the March for Life and the Manhattan Declaration has now been outshone by Fr. Leonid. However political and right-leaning one views Metropolitan Jonah’s actions, Fr. Leonid’s provide a far more obvious move in the opposite direction. Acton Institute president and co-founder Fr. Robert Sirico called the Circle “hyper-political” in a piece for The National Review .

The actions of Wallis and the co-signers of the Circle of Protection are only understandable in light of political, not primarily religious, aims. Wallis, after all, has been serving as self-appointed chaplain to the Democratic National Committee and recently met with administration officials to help them craft faith-friendly talking points for the 2012 election. And when Wallis emerged from that White House meeting, he crowed that “almost every pulpit in America is linked to the Circle of Protection … so it would be a powerful thing if our pulpits could be linked to the bully pulpit here.”

Think about that for a moment. Imagine if a pastor had emerged from a meeting with President George W. Bush and made the same statement. I can just imagine the howls of “Theocracy!” and “Christian dominionism!” that would echo from the mobs of Birkenstock-shod, tie-dyed, and graying church activists who would immediately assemble at the White House fence to protest such a blurring of Church and State.

Once again it seems that the criticisms don’t always cut both ways, and not just in Washington but also in Syosset. This is not to say that the Circle’s statement that “budgets are moral documents” is without merit. Christians who share that view but do not support the financial stances of the Circle have formed a response to the Circle, Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE). Orthodox priest Fr. Hans Jacobse played a role in CASE’s creation, and he reports on CASE and offers a critique of the Circle of Protection uber-supporter Jim Wallis and his liberal Sojourners group. It appears that the budget morality the Circle espouses is not Orthodox, and may in fact be at odds with the Faith.

Regardless of where one stands politically – whether you are incensed by this or not — it is the case that Fr. Leonid’s signature on the Circle of Protection is a political action, and one he is taking for the OCA. Some members of the OCA were shocked to hear of Fr. Leonid’s action, though it is not yet known whether the Metropolitan or the Acting Chancellor were consulted or apprised of his action before it appeared publicly. It is doubtful he received such a blessing, considering his strong disagreement with the OCA’s involvement with the Manhattan Declaration. Indeed, the OCA’s very involvement with the NCC and the WCC is questionable, considering the Antiochians withdrawal from both bodies back in 2005.

Interestingly enough, the trigger for the Antiochian’s withdrawal was a controversy that’s recently been the subject of much talk in the OCA of recent. From the 2005 article,

Reasons given for the withdrawal include the general liberalism of the NCC, whose General Secretary, Bob Edgar, withdrew his signature from a statement defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

While I appreciate Fr. Leonid’s position in the OCA, I am curious to see how his participation profits the OCA’s relationships with the other Orthodox jurisdictions. It seems hard to believe that the Mother Churches are smiling blithely at what can easily be described as a unilateral political move in opposition to the Metropolitan’s public endorsements of traditional morality. I cannot state whether Fr. Leonid’s act was a conscious push-back against the Metropolitan, but the act is certainly a move in the opposite direction — and a move that is ostensibly without support. Those who lauded the Metropolitan’s involvement in the March for Life and Manhattan Declaration have already voiced their opposition to this progressive agenda, and those critical of the Metropolitan have called for non-involvement in such political hot-button affairs. Fr. Leonid’s actions do not correspond to either demographic.

I don’t believe, nor have I ever heard that the Office of External Affairs and Interchurch Relations exists to make statements about the federal budget and government programs. A case could be made for it, and I would look forward to being persuaded should the Holy Synod of bishops decide to present such a case. Till then, Fr. Leonid’s volunteering the OCA for such a tendentious initiative — especially considering our the current context – can be seen as an ill advised personal political endorsement at best; or a not-so-subtle act of rebellion against Metropolitan Jonah at worst.

Our reputation in the Orthodox world has suffered enough during the past year to keep Fr. Leonid busy, why add to the perception of the OCA’s establishment being a fractured group of in-fighters? One hopes our relationship within the Orthodox community matters more to us in the OCA than our status in the National Council of Churches.

Fr. Peter-Michael Preble: A Christian Response to the Ongoing Enslavement of America’s Poor

17 Comments

Source: Huffington Post | Fr. Peter-Michael Preble

Yesterday, President Obama signed a law that will raise the debt ceiling and continue to enslave the American people for another three or four years. It has reduced the national debit some but it seems to me at least that it has not gone far enough. Just so you know, your share of the national debit is about $42,500. It seems to me that the era of Big Government needs to end.

I am what one would call a “classical liberal.” Now, before you go crazy because I use the word liberal, please read on. I think you will be surprised.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th Century in Western Europe and the Americas and is a political philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and free markets. The sovereignty of individual private property rights is essential to individual freedom. The philosophy believes in an unfettered market with a very minimal role of government. In other words, small federal government, small state government, with decisions being made at the local level where the people have a direct voice in determining what is best for their community.

The 18th Century Scottish Philosopher Adam Smith believed that government (and by this I think he meant federal or national government) has only three functions:

Protection of the population from foreign invaders
Protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens
Building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide (roads, bridges, harbors, canals, railways, postal and other communication services)

Classical liberalism places emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual again with private property rights being essential to individual freedom. Classical liberals believe that individual rights are natural, inherent, inalienable and exist independently of the government. This is what Thomas Jefferson called the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are “hostile to the welfare state.” They do not have an interest in material equality but only in “equality before the law” (Alan Ryan, “Liberalism,” in “A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy”). Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.

I have written before that I believe the church is the social institution that should deal with the social ills of society. In the time of St. Basil the Great the Church was responsible for education and health care. The church has a long history of providing for those in need. When Jesus fed the 5,000, he did not turn to Caesar and say, “Hey, give me a grant so I can feed these people.” No, He just made it happen. In the Books of Acts, when the widows were being neglected, the church ordained deacons to care for them and they took up collections to support the work, not from the Roman government but from believers.

During the debate on the debt ceiling a group of very well meaning Christian leaders from across the religious spectrum, led by Jim Wallis of Sojourners, lobbied the President and leaders in Congress to pass a law that would protect the welfare state. They posit that there is biblical evidence that the government needs to care for the poor no matter what the consequences. As a classical liberal (and yes, as a Christian), I disagree whole heartedly with the aims of this group and I would submit that they do not speak for the majority of Christians in this country.

Recently, thanks to my friend Fr. Hans Jacobse, I have come to learn of another group of Christians that have come together to counter that argument of these so called “progressive Christians.” The group is called, “Christians for a Sustainable Economy,” and in their letter to President Obama they have this to say:

We believe the poor of this generation and generations to come are best served by policies that promote economic freedom and growth, that encourage productivity and creativity in every able person, and that wisely steward our common resources for generations to come. All Americans — especially the poor — are best served by sustainable economic policies for a free and flourishing society. When creativity and entrepreneurship are rewarded, the yield is an increase of productivity and generosity.

I submit that the present government programs do nothing but enslave the poor of this country to the programs and do nothing to break the cycle of poverty in this country. There is a growing gap between the haves and the have nots, and economic freedom is out of the reach of many, many people. I am not saying that we need to end all social programs. That would be cruel and unfair to those who really do need the social safety net. But we need to plan for the end game. It seems to me that the government is very good at starting things — welfare, unemployment, wars — but is not very good at ending them. Yes, we need a social safety net, but it needs to be just that — a safety net and not a lifestyle.

There is ample biblical evidence for the church aiding the poor. In fact, it is one of the mandates that Jesus left us to love our neighbor. And there is ample biblical evidence of the church “teaching a man to fish.” It is time that the church and her people get off the sidelines and get into the game.

Please consider reading the articles on the website of Christians for a Sustainable Economy and if so moved add your signature to the letter to the President. I was honored to add my name to the list of American Christians that care about the poor and care about our country. Won’t you too be one of them?

Rev. Robert J. Sirico: The Church as the Bride of Caesar

1 Comment

Rev. Robert J. Sirico

Rev. Robert J. Sirico, president of the Acton Institute criticizes Rev. Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourner’s Magazine. Wallis, the “self-appointed chaplain to the Democratic National Committee” as Sirico calls him, was recently revealed to be taking money from George Soros, a charge he denied at first but was finally forced to confirm as more proof was offered. Sirico correctly critiques Wallis for his conflation of religion into politics, particularly using the poor to justify financial bloat and the imposition of debt on future generations.

Jim Wallis

Source: National Review Online | Rev. Robert J. Sirico

It is telling that the Washington Post report on the religious Left’s Circle of Protection campaign for big government describes the effort as one that would “send chills through any politician who looks to churches and religious groups as a source of large voting blocs,” because, in fact, this is not an honest faith-inspired campaign to protect the “least of these” from Draconian government cuts, as claimed. It is a hyper-political movement that offers up the moral authority of churches and aid organizations to advance the ends of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress.

The Circle of Protection, led by Jim Wallis and his George Soros-funded Sojourners group, is advancing a false narrative based on vague threats to the “most vulnerable” if we finally take the first tentative steps to fix our grave budget and debt problems. For example, Wallis frequently cites cuts to federal food programs as portending dire consequences to “hungry and poor people.”

Which programs? He must have missed the General Accountability Office study on government waste released this spring, which looked at, among others, 18 federal food programs. These programs accounted for $62.5 billion in spending in 2008 for food and nutrition assistance. But only seven of the programs have actually been evaluated for effectiveness. Apparently it is enough to simply launch a government program, and the bureaucracy to sustain it, to get the Circle of Protection activists to sanctify it without end. Never mind that it might not be a good use of taxpayer dollars.

It is also telling that the group’s advertised “Evangelical, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, African-American, and Latino Christian leaders” who are so concerned about the poor and vulnerable in the current budget negotiations have so little to say about private charity, which approached $300 billion last year. To listen to them talk, it is as if a prudent interest in reining in deficits and limiting government waste, fraud, and bloat would leave America’s poor on the brink of starvation. It is as if bureaucratic solutions, despite the overwhelming evidence of the welfare state’s pernicious effects on the family, are the only ones available to faith communities. This is even stranger for a group of people who are called to “love the neighbor” first and last with a personal commitment.

Although the Circle of Protection has been endorsed by a few Catholic bishops, the predictably left-leaning social justice groups, and Catholic Relief Services, the Catholic Church in America has long moved beyond the heady (and increasingly-distant) days of the 1980s when knee-jerk opposition to any reduction in government spending was the norm. That still holds, even if some of the staff and a few of the bishops at the Bishops’ Conference still imbibe such nostalgia.

The actions of Wallis and the co-signers of the Circle of Protection are only understandable in light of political, not primarily religious, aims. Wallis, after all, has been serving as self-appointed chaplain to the Democratic National Committee and recently met with administration officials to help them craft faith-friendly talking points for the 2012 election. And when Wallis emerged from that White House meeting, he crowed that “almost every pulpit in America is linked to the Circle of Protection … so it would be a powerful thing if our pulpits could be linked to the bully pulpit here.”

Think about that for a moment. Imagine if a pastor had emerged from a meeting with President George W. Bush and made the same statement. I can just imagine the howls of “Theocracy!” and “Christian dominionism!” that would echo from the mobs of Birkenstock-shod, tie-dyed, and graying church activists who would immediately assemble at the White House fence to protest such a blurring of Church and State.

But in the moral calculus of Jim Wallis and his Circle of Protection supporters, there’s no problem with prostrating yourself, your Church, and your aid organization before Caesar. As long as he’s on your side of the partisan divide.

Rev. Robert A. Sirico is president and co-founder of the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58