Unlike many figures of the Evangelical and Religious Left, Ron
Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) has sustained an
integrity that many conservatives have grudgingly admired. Unlike
many of his activist cohorts, he has not prevaricated on Christian
teachings about sex, marriage, or abortion. And unlike many of his
fellow religionists on the left, Sider has maintained a rigorous
concern for the global persecution of Christians when others prefer
silence over criticism of Islamist or communist regimes.
Now Sider, as he nears retirement from 40 years as ESA founder
and head, has again distinguished himself by dissenting from the
Religious Left on the untouchable sacredness of the federal welfare
and entitlement state. Sider has very publicly resigned from the
Association of Retired People (AARP) to protest its refusal to
compromise on entitlement reform.
Calling AARP “selfish and guilty of intergenerational
injustice,” Sider chides the self-professed lobby for seniors over
its adamant opposition to any reform of Social Security and
Medicare. He notes that the “federal government spends about $4 on
every senior over 65 and only $1 on every child under 18.” And he
notes that the 22 percent poverty rate for children percent is much
higher than the 9.7 percent rate for seniors.
Sider describes what is obvious to most but still resisted by
much of the Religious Left. “We have a large, unsustainable federal
budget deficit,” he
writes for Huffington Post. “If we continue current
patterns, by 2025 all federal income will be needed simply to pay
for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (health care for poor
Americans) and interest on the national debt!”
Specifically Sider criticizes AARP for opposing any increases in
Medicare payments even by wealthier seniors or requiring
co-payments for “unnecessary use of doctor visits and medical tests
by seniors.” He also complains that AARP opposes any reduction in
Social Security payments for wealthier seniors. Sider asked: “Is
there any reason why a senior with a total income (Social Security
plus other income) of $100,000 should not pay income tax on all of
their Social Security income?”
Sider is rhetorically unsparing: “The AARP is a selfish lobby
demanding things for seniors even though modest sacrifices would
help us reduce the deficit and enable us to spend more on crucial
things like better education for our children.” He implores seniors
to rise above “selfish” interests and “make some sacrifices for our
children and grandchildren.” And he urges other seniors who care
about “intergenerational justice” to follow his example in quitting
AARP.
This denunciation of AARP and call for entitlement reform
contrasts with the atmospherics of the “Circle of Protection” of
2011, when religious groups effectively sided with President Obama
against congressional Republicans during the federal debt ceiling
crisis. A coalition of Jim Wallis’ Sojourners, the National
Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches, U.S.
Catholic Conference of Bishops, and Sider’s ESA urged tax increases
and denounced any spending limits affecting “low-income people” in
pursuit of deficit reduction. “Circle” representatives met with
President Obama, who presumably welcomed the impression of their
aligning with his opposition to entitlement reform.
In fairness to Sider, the “Circle’s” official statement
specified protections for low income recipients of entitlements.
And Sider is now asking for reforms affecting upper income seniors.
But few of the other “Circle” participants are forcefully echoing
Sider’s demand for responsible Medicare and Social Security reform.
And few are likely to.
More typical of the Religious Left is a critic of Sider’s AARP
stance who opined his response in Christian Century.
Robert D. Francis is a lobbyist with Lutheran Services in America,
which seems to have endorsed the “Circle.” He complains that Sider
pits “investments” in seniors against those of children.
“Such thinking leaves out other ways America spends its money —
the military, tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy and
corporations,” Francis complains. “It also assumes a fixed overall
level of public investment, as though we as a society could not
decide that we should actually pay for the level of government that
we say we want.” He frets over Sider’s “false choice” of throwing
“today’s seniors overboard, or tomorrow’s children.”
Francis also has faith that Obamacare will reduce health care
costs and alleviate pressure on Medicare. Faith indeed. He hopes
Sider “rethinks his rhetoric of ‘greedy geezers’ and
intergenerational conflict, whether or not he tapes his AARP card
back together.”
Most Religious Leftists like Francis think more Big Government,
fueled by tax increases, will solve impending national insolvency
caused by Big Government. Naturally they resent their colleague
Sider’s disputing their illogic. Sider has had his own infatuations
with Big Government over the decades. But he is sufficiently
theologically grounded to understand there’s nothing sensible, much
less Godly, in flirting with bankruptcy and defrauding one
generation to retain the political allegiance of another.
