While there are differences over strategy, we have in the past had a consistent bipartisan consensus on the principle of protecting the poor. This was true in 1990, 1993 and 1997. Those deficit-reduction agreements, along with strong economic growth, led to the balanced budgets in the late 1990s, proving that deficit reduction does not have to be done on the backs of the poor

The Heritage Foundation’s Jennifer Marshall raises important issues in her essay, “Compassion for the poor is meaningless unless it’s also effective”

Fair enough. No one wants to harm poor people, and no one believes wasting money on ineffective assistance is a good idea.

But the alleged shortcomings of our social safety net are vastly exaggerated. In 1959, nearly one in four Americans (22.4 percent) lived in poverty. Today, despite our economic woes, the poverty rate is 14.3 percent. A more accurate measure of poverty, taking into account the value of food assistance and the earned income tax credit, would be 12.5 percent.

The poverty rate is bad enough, but without the social safety net, more than twice as many people would fall into poverty.

The Circle of Protection (www.circleofprotection. us) is necessary, because neither party has yet pledged to protect the poor as we balance our budget.

Programs for the poor make up only about one-fifth of the federal budget. Yet rather than protecting poor and hungry people, the House of Representatives passed a budget that actually disproportionately burdens them.

Nearly two-thirds of the proposed spending cuts would come from food, medical and other assistance that helps low-income Americans. The Senate has not even proposed a budget.

Galen Carey is the vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, the largest evangelical umbrella group in the U.S. He has more than 25 years experience leading church-based poverty relief and economic development programs both in the U.S. and overseas.