Nation Approaches "Fiscal Cliff"

The news this week has been abuzz with the term "fiscal cliff." That's a shorthand way of referring to the negative economic impact the U.S. government and the general population will face when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 go into effect at the start of 2013. The "cliff" can be avoided if Congress acts to change the law, but as of this writing (on Wednesday), the two sides in the debate on how to avoid the impact are far apart and engaged in brinkmanship.
According to financial writer Thomas Kenney, if no compromise is reached in Congress, the new year will bring "the end of last year's temporary payroll tax cuts (resulting in a 2 percent tax increase for workers), the end of certain tax breaks for businesses, shifts in the alternative minimum tax that would take a larger bite, the end of the tax cuts from 2001-2003, and the beginning of taxes related to [the Affordable Care Act]. At the same time, the spending cuts agreed upon as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011 will begin to go into effect."
These cuts, which would kick in automatically due to the provisions in the 2011 Budget Control Act, would affect more than 1,000 government programs, including the defense budget and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that all of this would cut the gross domestic product by four percentage points, sending the economy into a recession and causing unemployment to rise almost a full percentage point, with 2 million jobs lost.
It should be noted, however, that there is some debate over the severity and scope of the consequences as well as the effect of various policy moves to reduce the consequences. The policy moves are tied in with non-economic ideologies.
The central issues revolve around tax rates, tax rate distribution, the size of federal government expenditures, the scope of federal government power and the federal spending deficit. Democrats, including President Obama, want a combination of tax increases for the upper 2 percent of American tax filers along with either some spending cuts or increased “stimulus” spending.” Most Republicans want no increase in taxes and believe that an increase only on the top 2 percent would result in less revenue to the federal government and result in worse economic growth, including higher unemployment, and favor both wider and deeper spending cuts.
The current political gridlock in Congress makes reaching a compromise difficult. Many observers believe that whatever happens won't occur until very near the deadline, if then, and that those measures that are passed may be stop-gap, pushing real policy change into the new year or even later.
The "cliff" image is misleading in the sense that the full impact of a Congressional failure to act wouldn't be felt immediately, though if allowed to continue, would most likely cause significant damage to the economy over the year and would be felt in most households.
While it is possible for Congress to allow the economy to plunge over the "cliff" and then change the laws retroactively, many Americans would like to see the matter addressed with a good compromise before then. One Wired Word team member tells of hearing a story that is apropos to the Congressional impasse: It involves three people who were interviewing for the position of school bus driver. Each was asked how close to the edge of the cliff he could get without going over. One said he could get within a foot or two. The second said he could get within inches. The third said, "I have no idea. I'd stay as far away from the edge of the cliff as I could get, especially with a busload of children!" That's the candidate who was hired.

More on this story can be found at these links:

What Is the Fiscal Cliff? About.com
Same Players, Same Disputes in Fiscal Cliff Debate. CNN
What Will the Fiscal Cliff Cost You? Bloomberg Businessweek

The Big Questions
1. Brinkmanship is defined as the practice "of seeking advantage by creating the impression that one is willing and able to push a highly dangerous situation to the limit rather than concede." Is there any place for brinkmanship in church life? If so, what is worth going to the "cliff" over? How do we decide? Is it acceptable to take others, including the unwilling, over the cliff with you? If there is no place in church life for brinkmanship, explain why not.
2. When is it important to forge ahead without taking time to consider God's will? When is it a mistake to do so?
3. To what degree should setting church policy (in a congregation or in a denomination) be a matter of finding common ground? Are there policy discussions where common ground ought not be the goal? When and why or why not? Are there times when you can afford to back off from an issue where there is disagreement and wait for consensus to develop? Is the church subject to the same deadline constraints as society?
4. The country is facing the fiscal cliff now because during the budget negotiations of 2011, lawmakers did not come to an agreement and "kicked the can down the road" with a stop-gap measure. We are now "down the road" where the "can" and the fiscal cliff are. In our spiritual life, do we ever engage in similar inaction? In what ways do we delay "doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with our God" (Micah 6:8) and otherwise put off tending to kingdom-of-God business? What are the ramifications of continued posturing, rhetoric, etc. that push decisions into the future and deny the impact of that decision on the present? 
5. In what ways and in what areas of our lives do we test the limits of what God will allow?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
2 Chronicles 26:16
"But when he had become strong he grew proud, to his destruction." (For  context, read 26:1-21.)
On balance, Uzziah was one of the better kings of Israel. "He did what was right in the sight of the LORD" says the chronicler (v. 4). At least he did until later in life. Early on, he undertook many projects for the good of his people and took steps to increase the nation's security. But then comes the verse above. When he had "become strong" politically and in terms of having the respect of his people, he began to "bull" through his own ideas, even entering the temple and doing there what only the sanctified priests were to do. This was a dangerous precipice he went over, and consequently, he was struck with "a leprous disease" (v. 19), and had to surrender the reins of power to his son. 
Questions: When have you given yourself permission to do something questionable, saying, "Surely God won't mind if I ..." and then bulled ahead? What happened?
Daniel 6:10
"Although Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he continued to go to his house, which had windows in its upper room open toward Jerusalem, and to get down on his knees three times a day to pray to his God and praise him, just as he had done previously." (For context, read 6:1-28.)
Daniel, a faithful Jew, was living in Babylonia where a new edict had just outlawed praying to anyone but the Babylonian king. Anyone who did so was to be killed. Daniel, however, continued praying to God, and not in secret, but deliberately where he would be observed doing so, so as to cause a confrontation on this matter. Eventually, he was thrown to the lions, but God kept him unharmed, and the edict was rescinded.
This action, in effect, was Daniel "playing chicken" with the authorities. He went all the way up to -- and over! -- the brink, because the cost of giving in and failing to follow what he understood to be God's leading was greater than the loss of even his life.
A TWW team member points us to the acronym BATNA,* which stands for Best Alternative To A Negotiated Resolution. Whenever we negotiate, both sides have to have in view what the alternative is. (In the fiscal cliff matter, the BATNA includes the automatic tax increases and some spending cuts -- which are unlikely to be the best (or even great) resolutions, but they’re what we have. Of course both sides have their own views of what the long-term consequences of going over that cliff will be, so that plays into their assessment of their own -- and the other side's -- BATNA.)
Our team member goes on to comment: "You could say this same game [of chicken] played out in Jesus' life, in the opposition of the religious leaders. They kept pushing, giving Jesus chances to give in and say he wasn't the king, wasn't the Son of God, etc. Jesus, on his side, kept doing what he knew he was to do, and in his own way tweaked the religious leaders about their lack of faithfulness. When the religious leaders couldn't see his side, it must have looked to them like Jesus' BATNA was martyrdom. What no one counted on was that his BATNA was victory over death!" 
*From the book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by Roger Fisher, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton
Questions: Over what matters have you felt it essential to stand your ground despite pressure from others to compromise? What was the BATNA in those cases? When you choose, for reasons of principle, to go "over a cliff" yourself, what weight do you give to the fact that some people may be negatively affected by your choice?
Matthew 4:6
"If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you,' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.'" (For context, read 4:1-11.)
This is dialog between the devil and Jesus during the latter's temptations in the wilderness. In this case, the devil is tempting Jesus to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple while relying on God's protection that he not be hurt. In effect, the devil is telling Jesus to "test the limits" of God's care. Jesus responds with Scripture, quoting Deuteronomy 6:16 -- "Again it is written, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test'" (v. 7).
We note the case of Psalm 106:14, which says that the people of Israel, while in the desert, "had a wanton craving ... and put God to the test." Then verse 15 says God "gave them what they asked, but sent a wasting disease among them."
We are reminded of a person who, despite earning well during his working years, made no financial provisions for his retirement. He was a Christian, and he believed that God would take care of him, but in effect, he built a "fiscal cliff" into his life and deliberately put God to the test. In a way, God did take care of him, because friends helped him out financially, but his retirement ended up being pretty meager and unhappy.
Questions: What is the difference between trusting God (as in the case of Daniel) and putting God to the test (as in the case of the man who assumed God would care for his retirement finances)? Why does the Bible encourage trusting God but not testing him?
Luke 9:59-60
"To another [Jesus] said, 'Follow me.' But he said, 'Lord, first let me go and bury my father.' But Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.'" (For context, read 9:57-62.)
While heading to Jerusalem, Jesus invited a man along the way to follow him. We're not told why, but apparently something about the man's demeanor told Jesus he was a possible candidate for discipleship. The man, however, "kicked the can down the road," declining to make the decision right then. His "explanation" at first sounds reasonable -- he wanted to bury his father first -- but it's likely that his father wasn't dead and that the explanation was really an escape line.
Questions: When have you responded with "Maybe later, Lord," to some call from God? What happened?
James 1:22-24
"But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like." (For context, read 1:14-26.)
One TWW team member says that this business of "playing chicken" is like those who look at themselves in a mirror and then, after walking away, forget what they look like. There are two ways this mirror metaphor can be applied:
1) We sometimes do the same with God's call to be "doers of the word." While we're considering the call, we agree that it's something we should do. But when we settle for just HEARING the word and not actually doing it, its importance seems to disappear in the same way our reflection does when we walk away from a mirror.
2) Looking in a mirror, we see what we really look like, imperfections and all. But unless we use that information to change our self, what we've seen is to no avail.
Questions: In what ways is the Bible a mirror we are looking into? In what ways do you "play chicken" with what you see there?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from the same team member who pointed us to BATNA: "I used to be a lawyer and often found myself in negotiations where this BATNA stuff was in play, as well as questions of how to go about the negotiations. I do think there are biblical/ethical limits on how we are to negotiate. You don't lie. You don't hide evidence. You don't make people into pawns (like sometimes happens with custody of/visitation with the children in a divorce negotiation where that gets used as a bargaining chip). You choose ethical representatives/spokespersons. You're careful about issuing ultimatums, which means that you have to be very clear with your own self about what is truly worth going over the cliff for, and what isn't." 
2. We recognize that in the Congressional standoff, there are competing views of what measures will most contribute to the common good, and we assume there are at least some sincere believers in those views on both sides. Likewise, in some disagreements within churches or denominations, there are "true believers" in the staked-out positions. Sometimes, to go to a "common good" compromise feels to those committed to one view or the other like a betrayal of principles. In such cases, should the "good of the most" be a consideration in whether one agrees to a compromise or not? Why or why not? What are some other alternatives?
3. Respond to this, from a TWW team member who is a Church of the Brethren pastor: "In my faith tradition, during the 19th century, the old Brethren met every year as a denomination somewhere in the country to discern God’s will through Scripture. Sometimes they did not agree. When they did not have consensus they waited until the next year, or the next. Their arguments were heated, but they were content to wait decades until God’s will became clear. The only time they split, in the early 1880s, there was one person who kept insisting a decision had to be made right then. The Brethren split three ways. Within 20 years all the Brethren groups were in accord on the issues that [had] divided them."
4. Households sometimes deal with a sort of "fiscal cliff." Perhaps we dare to walk too close to the edge of the cliff in terms of maxing out credit cards, living beyond our means, etc., and sometimes we end up in bankruptcy or foreclosure as a result. Should we expect our government to behave differently from how we do ourselves? Why?
5. Respond to this: One TWW member observes that congregations sometimes stay so far away from fiscal cliffs that it impinges on their ability to minister. They work hard at not living beyond their means, and end up being scared to live fully into their means for doing ministry. She says, "I've been a part of a congregation, and have known others, so afraid of going broke that they quibbled over every nickel and dime that might be spent on ministry. Perhaps that's an example of not going close enough to the fiscal cliff!! It's like seeing someone with a broken leg lying five feet from the cliff, while you stand 25 feet from the cliff, and not 'daring' (or choosing) to go help the hurt person."
6. It's possible that at least a few politicians will vote for a compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff not particularly because of deep concern for their constituents but because they want to be reelected. Does doing the right thing count if it is done for the wrong reason? Does doing good deeds count if we do them primarily to be considered righteous by God or others?
Responding to the News
Perhaps the key spiritual insight from this lesson is about the difference between "stepping out in faith" and "putting God to the test," especially when you are considering undertaking something that is controversial or a significant change of direction. One way to think about the difference is to ask, "Am I doing this to make God prove himself, or am I doing this because I believe God is calling me to do it?" It's more likely to be something blessed by God if it's the latter.
Closing Prayer

We pray, O Lord, for our president and lawmakers, that the result of their labors might be the good of all. In Jesus' name. Amen.