Over the years, I have been involved in many budget discussions. Most of those budgets were church budgets. In addition to the congregational budgets I served on, I also voted on Conference budgets. I also served on corporate boards of ministries in the national setting of the United Church of Christ. And I have been a volunteer member of the boards of several different nonprofits as well. Some of those budget discussions became very intense. People’s passion can be ignited when they talk about money.

Church budgets are tricky. Although pledges made by members tend to be kept and generally provide a solid income projection, income from other sources, including gifts above and beyond pledges from those who have made pledges, is very difficult to predict. Giving to the church goes up and down with the emotional energy of the congregation and the ability of church leaders to interpret mission needs. Many of the dedicated volunteers who serve on church boards are not comfortable asking other members to donate. Church finance boards tend to attract people who are good at reading and interpreting numbers. Many church finance board members are not, however, charismatic when igniting passion for giving. I’ve heard many dry presentations of financial facts that don't inspire generosity. Congregations that are willing to take financial risks often come out ahead because the risk inspires an emotional response. Risks, however, are frightening. No one wants to participate in a budget that results in a financial crisis for a church.

Churches, however, rarely go out of business because of a lack of funds. They are far more likely to close because of a lack of members. A few faithful stewards usually remain and hang on to financial resources beyond the congregation’s ability to attract new members.

Whenever I was involved in forming or deliberating church budgets, I knew I could count on extended debate over small items. It is an oversimplification, but it is not uncommon for salaries and benefits to make up half of a church budget. An additional 40 percent will be the building, insurance, and utilities. That leaves 10 percent for actual programs. Debate over salaries, however, is generally nonexistent. Building, insurance, and utility costs are often seen as fixed and unavoidable. That leaves the program discussion. When a deficit appears, it is usually too large to avoid by slashing programs. However, when a church is facing an income shortfall, programs are always on the line.

I’ve pointed out over and over that church education programs are so lightly funded that cutting them out entirely will not balance a budget, only to see the programs cut and sometimes eliminated. In the midst of budget discussions, participants rarely recognize that people are attracted to churches for their programs, and educational programs are often at the top of the list. Eliminating educational programs frequently results in decreased income. Funding them adequately usually increases income. But they are always on the line when a shortfall is projected.

Slashing budgets is often seen as the primary way to balance them. It is rare for a congregation to consider ways to increase income to address deficits.

Of course, there are exceptions. After a lifetime of church membership, however, I can generally predict how budget discussions will go.

For me, there is a sense of “been there, done that” when I listen to public statements about the current budget talks in Washington, DC. Sometimes, when the legislature fails to pass a budget, they can agree to a continuing resolution that keeps the government operating while they seek a resolution of differences. The federal government has operated for years at a time on continuing resolutions while budget adoption eludes representatives. When a continuing resolution fails to pass, however, the federal government has experienced periods of shutdown. In 2019 2019, the government shutdown lasted 35 days. The focal point of the argument was funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The current U.S. government shutdown threatens to set a new record for length. After operating for more than a year on continuing resolutions, the last continuing resolution expired without agreement on a new one. While it is difficult to obtain accurate information on all the points of contention, the central sticking point is the health insurance subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act. Health subsidies account for about 5% of the federal budget. With military spending comprising 57% of the total budget and representing a portion of the budget where an audit has not been completed, you might expect more debate over that part of the budget. But when deficits occur, people focus on small items, not on the big ones. And the proposed budget includes the most significant increases in the federal deficit ever.

Meanwhile, the focus in the past few days has turned to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, benefits are provided to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget in the form of an Electronic Benefit Transfer card that can be used only for approved groceries. The administration has ordered payments to be suspended during the shutdown. Food and Agriculture account for only about 1% of the Federal budget, and SNAP is a small fraction of that. You wouldn’t know it by the intense rhetoric being bandied about, however. While there may be some waste and fraud in SNAP benefits, it can't be as significant as in other areas of the government.

The administration may favor eliminating the production of pennies, but it is not beyond arguing over pennies.

The recipients of supplemental food support are not politically powerful. Congressional leaders seem content to defend the administration’s decision not to continue the benefits. I do not understand how anyone can oppose feeding hungry children, but that is the direct result of the suspension of payments. With monies in reserve, the courts have ordered the administration to pay the benefits. The administration, however, has chosen to appeal those court judgments rather than extend the benefits.

I guess their actions aren't driven by Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats. They seem to have no concern for what they are doing to the least of these.