• Advertisement

Does The Government Shutdown Mean “The End of the World”? The Radical Religious Right Thinks So

The End of the World Is Nigh

Ok, so maybe the government shutdown IS “the end of the world.”  At least as far as some Tea Party leaders are concerned.

Yes, seriously.  No, this is not a joke.

This eye-opening analysis comes from Rev. Morgan Guyton, a pastor in Virginia:

I wanted to do some research into the theological roots of Senator Ted Cruz, the standard-bearer of the Tea Party Republicans behind the shutdown… It turns out that Ted’s father, Rafael Cruz, is a pastor with Texas charismatic ministry Purifying Fire International who has been campaigning against Obamacare the last several months. He has a distinct theological vision for what America is supposed to look like: Christian dominionism.

Here’s Sen. Cruz’s father, a year ago: “But here’s the exciting thing… The rabbinical teaching is… that in a few weeks begins that year 2012 and that this will begin what we call the end-time transfer of wealth.”

Here’s how the Rev. Guyton distills the current state of Cruz’s theology:

The reason governmental regulation has to disappear from the marketplace is to make it completely available to the plunder of Christian ‘kings’ who will accomplish the ‘end time transfer of wealth.’ Then ‘God’s bankers’ will usher in the ‘coming of the messiah.’ The government is being shut down so that God’s bankers can bring Jesus back.

—–

OK, take a minute to breathe here.  Remember that most Christians (including, particularly, Rev. Guyton) don’t believe that bankers can bring Jesus back.  (Most Christians take a very different message from the Bible.  Remember my post “The Republicans Make an Offer on Sequestration”?)

But it’s a very enlightening perspective on the current federal crisis.

—–

Prepared for even more enlightenment?  Read Rev. Guyton’s post on “The God of No Compromise and the Government Shutdown.”

[For evangelicals], the word ‘compromise’ has always been a bad word. It means to allow non-Christian values and influences to corrupt your devotion to Biblical truth.  … a stormtrooper evangelical Republican must categorically reject any idea that is generated by a Democrat because accepting it would amount to a compromise of worldview.

This need to “categorically reject” Democratic ideas helps explain why the right-wing Heritage Foundation so adamantly opposes Obamacare.  If you’re a policy geek, you might remember that the Heritage Foundation actually proposed the individual mandate, back in 1989.  But now that’s a Democratic policy… Sen. Cruz believes it’s a reason to shut down the government.

It also helps explain why – no matter how hard President Obama may try to “compromise” – his attempts to “meet in the middle” are always going to be rejected.  Read “Translating from TeaPartyese: What ‘negotiate’ really means.”

Promises, promises…

A lot of promises were made, back when the Bush tax cuts were first enacted.

Back in 2001, the Heritage Foundation projected that:

  • “Under President Bush’s plan, an average family of four’s inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.”
  • “The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011.” (“Uncommitted funds” is a fancy way of saying “surplus”.)

Did your family’s disposable income increase by $4,544 last year? (Wondering how the top 1% are doing? Browse through “How to Spend It” here.)

Has the national debt been paid off?
Is the Social Security surplus “safe”?
Has your family been able to increase your savings?

What happened to the $1.8 trillion federal surplus that was supposed to appear, after the tax cuts stimulated the economy and the “job creators” created jobs?

Lots of promises were made, back when Republican Leadership was forcing the Bush tax cuts through Congress. [Historical footnote: both the 2001 tax cuts and the 2003 tax cuts were passed in a way that made them exempt from Senate filibuster. In 2003, the Senate vote was 50-50 after Republican Senators John McCain, Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe voted “nay”; and Vice President Dick Cheney cast the deciding vote to enact the bill.]

Those promises never panned out. But now, Republican leaders in Congress are acting as if high-income taxpayers are somehow entitled to the low tax rates they have been enjoying for the last decade

What’s up with this idea of “entitlement”?

Millions of American workers have paid into the Social Security system for decades, based on the promise that we would get Social Security benefits when we retired. Isn’t it reasonable for all of us workers to think we’re entitled to the benefits we contributed to? But now, Congressional Republicans are insisting on “adjustments to eligibility and benefits in the Social Security and Medicare programs.”

One man – Dick Cheney – cast the deciding vote to give the wealthy their tax cuts; but now Congressional Republicans think those tax cuts are somehow sacred. Just two days ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told a hometown newspaper that any “fiscal cliff” deal “must not raise taxes on wealthy.”

Sense of “entitlement”?

“Gifts” from the government?

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to “jump-start” our economy. They were supposed to “trickle down” and enrich working families. They were supposed to eliminate the country’s debt. They didn’t do any of that – but now Congressional Republicans want us to pay the price, through cuts to our Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Didn’t they get the memo? Romney-Ryan lost.

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement