There is a new morality debate emerging quickly to the forefront of American politics. Many conservatives now talk about economic issues like the debt, deficit spending, and crumbling entitlement programs as moral problems our country must face head on.
Speaker John Boehner said recently, "It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt. It is immoral to rob our childrens future and make them beholden to China." Potential presidential candidates such as former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty are taking to the campaign trial calling the national debt "immoral," and tea party favorite Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) says that the "mountain of debt is an immoral burden on future generations." Speaking about his recent budget proposal Representative Paul Ryan(R-Wisc.) said, "Our debt problem is not just a fiscal challenge involving dollars and cents. Its a moral challenge involving question of principle and purpose."
Liberals who are pushing back against entitlement reform and spending cuts, preach a compassion message laced with fear and guilt. For example, President Obama, in his recent speech on the deficit asserted, "There but for the grace of God go I, we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security . They tell us that if we reform Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, we are failing our obligation to take care of the poor, those in need, and the elderly."
While our country should provide services to those in need, we cannot be resistant to reforming our generous government assistance programs.
You can read the entire commentary here. Please leave your comments on the Washington Post site.
Please note that in discussing political issues, candidates positions and political party statements, Jordan Sekulow is offering analysis in his individual capacity as lawyer and commentator. He is not speaking on behalf of the American Center for Law & Justice. The ACLJ does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Nothing contained in this article should be construed as the position of the ACLJ.