Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Faithful Democrats

Home
Politics and Religion
Slings and Arrows

Slings and Arrows

Last updated on: May 9, 2013 at 6:23 am by Faithful Democrats

Slings and Arrows 2013-05-09T06:23:01-06:00 Faithful Democrats

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I've just finished reading Tempting Faith, and have all manner of

thoughts in reaction to it. And I'd like to share some of the best parts of it
with you, as well. (Though as a future book-peddling author myself, I would be
remiss if I didn't encourage you to go out and buy your own copy.) But first
I'd like to address some of the criticism of David Kuo coming
from his former boss at the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives, Jim Towey.

(Apologies for
the late start. I raced through Tempting Faith this afternoon, wrote up
2,000 words of my thoughts on it, and then promptly had them erased by
the system when I tried to post in the early evening. Let's try again, shall we?)

I've just finished reading Tempting Faith, and have all manner of
thoughts in reaction to it. And I'd like to share some of the best parts of it
with you, as well. (Though as a future book-peddling author myself, I would be
remiss if I didn't encourage you to go out and buy your own copy.) But first
I'd like to address some of the criticism of David Kuo coming
from his former boss at the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives, Jim Towey.

My instinct is to start off with the qualifier that while I disagree with
how Towey has reacted to Kuo's book, I believe he is a man of good faith. He
is, and he sent me quite a nice note after I first started writing about
Democrats and religion. But at some point, being a person of good faith
shouldn't get you off the hook, it should require something of you. I was
surprised by the partisan and defensive tone that Towey adopted once he was in the
White House and it's disappointing to see him continuing to stay on-message
now. Let's take a look at his criticisms:

Those Weren't Campaign Events

In response to charges that faith-based gatherings doubled as campaign
events, Towey told the Los Angeles Times that he traveled to Blue
states as well. That's literally true-Towey's work took him all over the
country. But the events in question-at which White House officials urged crowds
to rally behind the Republican candidates of the day because of their support
(real or wished-for) of the faith-based initiative-were held in 20 battleground
states and congressional districts in 2003 and 2004.

If Towey's excuse sounds familiar, that's because it is the exact same one
put out by the White House press office on the one occasion when a reporter
inquired into the coincidental scheduling and location of these events: "The
bottom line is that Jim travels all over the country to talk about the
president's faith-based initiative." True, but-again-irrelevant to the question
at hand.

Kuo writes, "No one in the office but Jim and I knew…that we both kept handy
a copy of the political map with every state shaded to reveal its importance.
Mine was taped to the pull-out shelf on my desk. His was in a desk drawer. We
never did anything without looking at them."

Just Short a Few Dimes

Sunday night on "60 Minutes," Towey insisted to Lesley Stahl that Bush has "delivered on
every single thing he promised" for the faith-based initiative. "But not the
money," replied Stahl. "Not every cent of it," admitted Towey. That's one way
of putting it.

The president's initial promise was an $8 billion faith-based initiative. In
the first year, the White House delivered $30 million, with small increases in
subsequent years. "Not every billion" would have been a more accurate way of
putting it.

It turns out that every time Bush announced a new "compassion"
initiative-whether to help children of prisons or to combat teen violence-the
money came out of existing funds for his Compassion Capital Fund, and it was
usually somewhere along the lines of $10 million per year. Not chump change,
but not exactly $8 billion. Try to set Bush straight about the shell game his
political aides were playing, though, and-surprise-he didn't want to hear it.

At one point, Kuo went into the Oval Office to brief Bush on a meeting he
was about to have with some religious leaders. "Forget about all that," Bush
told him. "Money. All these guys care about is money. They want money. How much
money have we given them?" Kuo told the truth: "Sir, we've given them virtually
nothing because we have had virtually nothing new to give." Bush freaked. Rove,
trying to smooth things over, prompted Kuo about funds faith-based groups are
technically eligible for. Must be a lot of those, right? Yes, there was about
$8 billion in existing programs that faith-based groups could apply for, but
they'd already been eligible for-and many of them receiving-those funds.

"Eight billion in new dollars?" asked Bush. "No sir. Eight billion in
existing dollars," replied Kuo. No matter. "Eight billion. That's what we'll
tell them. Eight billion in new funds for faith-based groups. Okay, let's go."
And so off Bush went, to placate the religious leaders, who must have been
awfully confused about why none of them were getting any grants if there was so
much money floating around.

Even worse? Those roundtables and conferences the faith-based office kept
holding around the country for Republican candidates cost about $100,000 a pop.
Compare that to the handful of mini-grants of $50,000 or less dispersed through
the Compassion Capital Fund and you get a pretty good idea of where the White
House's priorities lay.

Congress Was the Real Problem

Towey also told Stahl that Kuo was wrong to think that Bush could just walk
on up and ask Congress to approve his faith-based initiative. The strong
implication is that the president tried his best, but Congress just wouldn't
come through for him. That is completely and utterly false.

The most significant piece of the $8 billion faith-based initiative as
originally trumpeted by Bush was the provision to provide tax credits for
charitable giving. The best estimates of the proposal projected that by
encouraging more Americans to give money to charity, it would stimulate
somewhere around $16 billion in giving each year.

When it came time to send the budget up to Capitol Hill, however, "those
charity tax credits weren't listed by the White House as must-haves," writes
Kuo, so they were left out. Senator Charles Grassley put them back into the
Senate version, because "he assumed that the White House had omitted the
charity provisions by oversight." Alas, no. During negotiations over the final
budget bill, Bush's chief congressional liaison told Grassley "to get rid of
the charity tax credits….The White House didn't want them anymore."

To make things even worse, the tax credits were bumped aside in order to
make room for elimination of the estate tax. One popular way of getting around
the estate tax for many wealthy individuals has been to donate money to
charities and write off the gift. Eliminating the estate tax not only prevented
$16 billion of new giving from being stimulated, but it cost more than $5
billion per year in charitable giving by those wealthy Americans who could keep
their money to themselves now.

We Got the Really Important Stuff Done

The White House and its supporters like to defend the faith-based
initiative by insisting that the meat of the effort was really in the executive
orders, not in the legislative efforts that got left on the floor of the
negotiating room. Those orders supposedly leveled the playing field to allow
faith-based organizations to operate like any other grantee, without
restrictions.

I can understand why Towey makes so much of this point-the fact that
faith-based groups were already on a level playing field is particularly
embarrassing for him. According to Kuo, Towey was focused on the "problem" of
religious groups not being able to hire based on religious affiliation. "He
thought it was crucial to show what a big problem it was," writes Kuo. "He
wanted to issue a new White House report on how faith-based groups were being
discriminated against because some federal programs prohibited them from hiring
as they desired." So Towey ordered his staff to scour the country for examples
of grant-receiving faith-based organizations that had encountered hiring
difficulties.

I think you see where this is going. After hundreds of calls, his staff
couldn't identify one example of a faith-based organization not being able to
hire the employees they wanted. Most were confused by the question-it's not as
if non-profits have folks knocking down the doors looking to work for them.
Even so, Bush's brave defense of the rights of religious organizations allowed
the White House to portray him as a savior. And allowed them to continue
deflecting attention from whether or not there were any new funds in the pot
for those same groups.

Don't Be Naïve

Towey's final criticism of Kuo is that the younger man was just too
unschooled in the ways of politics, that it's unrealistic to expect political
promises to be carried out in the hard-scrabble world of politics. But that's
odd, because Towey himself expressed serious frustration with the White House's
refusal to make the faith-based initiative a priority. In May of 2002, he sent
an email to his superiors at the White House to complain:

"The references to FB [faith-based] issues in welfare speeches and education
events, while welcome, do not effectively move the legislation. We have waited
for a high-level call from the West Wing to [Senate Finance Chair Max] Baucus
for nearly two weeks, to no avail….Senate Finance, meanwhile, schedules trade
and welfare reform because that is what the West Wing is calling for….I don't
know what I can do more under this present system other than to say that the
current path we are on is likely to leave the FB legislation lingering."

Towey was as right to be frustrated then as he is wrong to be making excuses
for the White House today.

Featured Writers

Previous Post

October 18, 2006

The Great Warming Call to Action

Next Post

October 19, 2006 Toxic Faith: Liberal Cure

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category About Us About Us Action Center Advertise Ask a Theologian Ask a Theologian Blogs Books Campaign Blog Candidate Spotlights Commentary Donate Facebook Featured Writers Fellows Fellows From the Pulpit General Information Hillary Clinton Interfaith Blog Latest Media Center Media Center Media Center MyBlog MyBlog News Newsflash Newsflashes Our Team Reader Blogs RSS Sermon of the Week Shop Social Networking Static Items Support Talking Points Test blogs The Basics Theology Uncategorized YouTube

Select a Month November 2020 October 2020 February 2020 August 2019 July 2018 July 2017 March 2017 February 2017 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 January 2006 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the main language of Jesus’ daily speech?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Greek Hebrew Aramaic Latin