It looks like Congress will vote later today or this evening to raise the debt ceiling and avert a possible default by the United States Treasury. How the debt promise will fair when measured against Acton’s Principles for Budget Reform it is too early to know, but one thing is certain: if the deal contains a single budget cut for even the most ineffective of social programs, we’ll hear screams of protest from Jim Wallis and his Circle of Protection.

Already parts of Washington are “livid over the extent of the deal’s domestic spending cuts, as well as the absence of any immediate tax hikes on wealthier Americans.” Coalitions that have a confused idea of mon good won’t like a debt deal that threatens to reflect economic realities and truths about the human person—and this plan doesn’t even have the support of many important conservatives.

As Jim Wallis explained the progressive Christian’s view of the debt negotiations:

Our country is in the midst of a clash between peting moral visions, between those who believe in mon good, and those who believe individual good is the only good. A war has been declared on the poor…

Wallis reveals here a fundamental misunderstanding of mon good, and thus of politics. To Circle of Protection and its allies, mon good is achieved by higher taxation of the wealthy and redistribution of wealth: as everyone gets his check on the first of the month, justice is served. What redistributionists don’t understand is that simply running all the money through mon mill doesn’t mean you’re serving mon good. A large administrative state is not a sign of munal society.

An idea of mon good must be grounded in a correct vision of human nature, and the class warfare lens through which Wallis views the world distorts by materialism his perception. What is called mon good is in fact mon advantage, and belief in mon advantage is indeed belief that “individual good is the only good.”

Government for the sake of mon good requires a free citizenry, because without the freedom to make choices of moral consequence, a people cannot do good. Thus, taking the means of private charity and redistributing it for the sake of material equality is not practicing government for mon good.