Paul Ryan and the Angry Catholic Left
Apr 30, 2012
R.R. Reno
When Representative Paul Ryan said that his recently released budget proposal was developed in accord with his understanding of Catholic social doctrine, the liberal Catholic establishment reacted with outrage.
Ryan was scheduled to talk at Georgetown, and the ever-reliable Fr. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., and others have organized a letter of protest. “Our problem with Representative Ryan,” Reese told reporters, “is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching. This is nonsense.”
I’m afraid that “nonsense” applies more to the letter Reese helped write than the budget Ryan proposed. It accuses Ryan of “continuing misuse of Catholic teaching,” and snidely dismisses his budget proposal as reflecting “the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
The letter concludes: “Along with this letter, we have included a copy of the Vatican’s Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, commissioned by John Paul II, to help deepen your understanding of Catholic social teaching.”
This is not a letter of protest but instead one of reprimand. Liberal Catholics are horrified that people with conservative views appeal to Catholic teaching to explain and attract support to their public policies. Their reaction is not to argue about the merits but instead to denounce.
It was not always so. In the early years of the twentieth century, the Catholic Church put its weight behind many of the key goals of the progressive movement. Fr. John A. Ryan played an important role, making the arguments that linked Catholic teaching to the then ascendant confidence that we could scientifically manage the problems of modern industrial societies.
Private charity is not enough, the earlier Ryan argued. Today’s world is complex, and the gospel rightly understood involves using the power of government when local communities and free markets fail to adequately provide for the needs of the poor and vulnerable. His arguments prevailed. In 1919 the program outlined by the bishops called for minimum wage laws, housing for workers, insurances for illness and disability, as well as support for the unemployed and elderly.
The Church was right to listen to Fr. Ryan. Modern industrialization caused vast social changes that made old modes of solidarity obsolete, or if not obsolete at least ineffective. As men migrated to the cities to work in factories, the old networks of families and small town life were not longer there to provide a social safety net. Put crudely, the weal and woe of many came to depend on wages rather than relationships. In that context the bureaucratic and legal solutions culminating in the New Deal made sense.
However, there are no lasting solutions to any fundamental political and social challenges. “The poor you shall always have with you,” Jesus teaches. And it has been so. The New Deal reached its high-water mark with Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, which turned out to be a domestic quagmire. As Charles Murray documented in his important book, Losing Ground, our welfare policies had the effect of subsidizing a culture of poverty.
Morally serious people who read Murray’s book began to think about making changes. By the mid-nineties, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which reformed welfare and created incentives designed to work against the culture of poverty.
The Catholic Left howled in protest back then just as they are today. Dire consequences were predicted. The actual results, however, were positive. The culture of poverty is still with us, but the subsidies are less blatant, less destructive.
Today we face an even larger problem created by the social programs once endorsed by the Catholic Church: insolvency. When Paul Ryan spoke at Georgetown last week, it’s this problem that he put front and center: “The overarching threat to our whole society today is the exploding federal debt.” He did not back off from his claim that his budget reflects Catholic social doctrine. “The Holy Father, Pope Benedict,” he reminded his audience, many of whom had signed the letter of reprimand, “has charged that governments, communities and individuals running up high debt levels are 'living at the expense of future generations' and 'living in untruth.” During the last century the leaders of the Catholic Church—and many other men and women of good will—made countless prudential judgments about how basic Christian truths should be applied to the crises then facing modern industrial societies. Some were wise and led to good policies: minimum wage laws, for example, and unemployment insurance. Others such as wage and price controls weren’t so wise.
That the results were mixed is not surprising. Policies and budgets don’t follow like conclusion from syllogisms, as the simplistic logic of the letter of reprimand implies. Instead, we need to apply ourselves to solve the problems we face as best we can.
Today we need government programs to support the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, the vulnerable. And we need programs to help young people get educated, to rebuild our infrastructure, and defend our country. In short, we need to do all the things that a good, responsible government should do in a healthy society concerned about the common good.
We can argue about how to do all this and what takes priority. However, by Paul Ryan’s reckoning—and I certainly agree with him—we face a fiscal crisis. We can’t keep doing all the things we’ve been doing the way we’ve been doing them. And so his budget proposes changes.
Are the changes necessary? Are the workable? Are they wise? These are all questions liberals can insist upon asking. But enough with the high-handed presumption that no conservative can be concerned about the poor. Paul Ryan wants us to take political responsibility for the fiscal crisis we’re facing, and responsibility is the first virtue necessary for anyone seeking to govern in accord with Catholic social doctrine.
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
4.30.2012 | 9:27am
Dean from Ohio says:
Thomas Reese and others of Catholic Inc. live in a poverty of their own making--a poverty of hearing and obeying the Word of God. Here are two scripture passages that came to my mind this morning:
"The wicked borrows and does not repay,
But the righteous is gracious and gives." -- Ps. 37:21
"Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children." - The Apostle Paul, in 2 Cor 12:14
Like the men of Ophrah (now that's an irony!) in ancient Israel, who discovered that Gideon had busted up their idol and wanted to kill him for it, those of Catholic, Inc. who serve the jealous god of Progressive Thought will brook no rivals. Like Gideon's dad, R.R. Reno calls them out and exposes the weakness of their god and their misguided faith.
He might have gone further. Like the Pharisees and Sadducees of old, Thomas Reese loves the best seats in the religious gatherings--in this case, academic chairs of honor in nominal Christian universities. For a pretense he prays long prayers in the form of haughty and sanctimonious letters. He devours widow's houses in the form of seizing the inheritance of my children and my grandchildren who have no force to resist the heavy hand of government. They do all this covered by a veneer of piety. As Jesus said, "Such men will be punished most severely."
"The wicked borrows and does not repay,
But the righteous is gracious and gives." -- Ps. 37:21
"Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children." - The Apostle Paul, in 2 Cor 12:14
Like the men of Ophrah (now that's an irony!) in ancient Israel, who discovered that Gideon had busted up their idol and wanted to kill him for it, those of Catholic, Inc. who serve the jealous god of Progressive Thought will brook no rivals. Like Gideon's dad, R.R. Reno calls them out and exposes the weakness of their god and their misguided faith.
He might have gone further. Like the Pharisees and Sadducees of old, Thomas Reese loves the best seats in the religious gatherings--in this case, academic chairs of honor in nominal Christian universities. For a pretense he prays long prayers in the form of haughty and sanctimonious letters. He devours widow's houses in the form of seizing the inheritance of my children and my grandchildren who have no force to resist the heavy hand of government. They do all this covered by a veneer of piety. As Jesus said, "Such men will be punished most severely."
4.30.2012 | 10:22am
chuck r says:
And of course, there is a way to do all of the things a decent government should, without increasing the debt: raising taxes.
Isn't it funny how often the responsible thing doesn't look appetizing? But as with all else, doing the right thing has its own rewards.
Isn't it funny how often the responsible thing doesn't look appetizing? But as with all else, doing the right thing has its own rewards.
4.30.2012 | 10:58am
Ben Embry says:
"Private charity is not enough, the earlier Ryan argued."
Mr. Reno liked the earlier Ryan's point. My question is, in Reno's estimation, What is private charity enough for? At what point does he think it runs aground? what makes it such a weak force in society?
Mr. Reno liked the earlier Ryan's point. My question is, in Reno's estimation, What is private charity enough for? At what point does he think it runs aground? what makes it such a weak force in society?
4.30.2012 | 11:30am
John Hinshaw says:
The Catholic Church in America is suffering in this economy, just like the rest of us. In response, the Church, and particularly Bishops, are making prudential judgements about what should be funded by their shrinking budgets. They are no longer able to sustain all of their Diocesan programs. Virtually every Diocese is doing this. Yet their bureaucracy in Washington fulminates against any attempt by members of Congress to do the same thing for the overdrawn taxpayers. This government is in debt and going further in each day. Judgements need to be made soon about what we can sustain and, at the least, Paul Ryan is making an attempt to deal with deficit and consider the legimitate needs of the poor. Perhaps it is his political party which bothers the Catholic Left?
4.30.2012 | 11:31am
Mike Melendez says:
@chuck r: Sometimes the solution is to raise taxes. Sometimes it is not. You need to make your case, not just claim it.
4.30.2012 | 12:22pm
harry says:
"Pope Benedict XVI is critical of 'living at the expense of future generations' doesn't mean deficit reduction is a principle of CST." -- David Nickol
Sure it does. CST nowhere insists that we must irrationally ignore reality. Bankrupt nations can't do much for the poor.
And CST is not defined soley by the statements of the U.S. bishops. It consists largely of Papal Encyclicals over the last 120 years. Consider the following remarks of JPII in *Centesimus annus*:
"The Church, in fact, has something to say about specific human situations, both individual and communal, national and international. She formulates a genuine doctrine for these situations, a corpus which enables her to analyze **social realities**, to make judgments about them and to indicate directions to be taken for the just resolution of the problems involved."
CST takes **reality** in consideration.
"Work thus belongs to the vocation of every person; indeed, man expresses and fulfills himself by working. …:"
If government supports those who could support themselves by working, it is depriving them of their vocation and their fulfillment.
"In recent years the range of such [state] intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
"By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need."
CST does indeed insist on caring for those in need, and that should always be pointed out when discussing CST, but so should that fact the CST takes reality into consideration and does not wholeheartedly endorse "big government" and "more government" as the only solutions to poverty. It instead points out where government is part of the problem.
Sure it does. CST nowhere insists that we must irrationally ignore reality. Bankrupt nations can't do much for the poor.
And CST is not defined soley by the statements of the U.S. bishops. It consists largely of Papal Encyclicals over the last 120 years. Consider the following remarks of JPII in *Centesimus annus*:
"The Church, in fact, has something to say about specific human situations, both individual and communal, national and international. She formulates a genuine doctrine for these situations, a corpus which enables her to analyze **social realities**, to make judgments about them and to indicate directions to be taken for the just resolution of the problems involved."
CST takes **reality** in consideration.
"Work thus belongs to the vocation of every person; indeed, man expresses and fulfills himself by working. …:"
If government supports those who could support themselves by working, it is depriving them of their vocation and their fulfillment.
"In recent years the range of such [state] intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
"By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need."
CST does indeed insist on caring for those in need, and that should always be pointed out when discussing CST, but so should that fact the CST takes reality into consideration and does not wholeheartedly endorse "big government" and "more government" as the only solutions to poverty. It instead points out where government is part of the problem.
4.30.2012 | 1:00pm
Henry Chambers says:
Chuck R has an interesting solution: raise taxes!
I have questions in that regard: Is there such a thing as a God-given right to private property? I get the impression there is, from the Ten Commands: Thou Shalt Not Steal.
If there is indeed a God-given, unalienable right to private property, is taking somebody's property, or a good chunk of it, with the purpose of distributing wealth, moral? Can God's will be overrruled by a majority vote? Does the majority know better what is moral than God?
I have questions in that regard: Is there such a thing as a God-given right to private property? I get the impression there is, from the Ten Commands: Thou Shalt Not Steal.
If there is indeed a God-given, unalienable right to private property, is taking somebody's property, or a good chunk of it, with the purpose of distributing wealth, moral? Can God's will be overrruled by a majority vote? Does the majority know better what is moral than God?
4.30.2012 | 1:10pm
Steve Billingsley says:
David Nickol,
Show your work please....
"However, with large tax cuts for the rich and draconian cuts in spending on the poor"
I understand that the Ryan plans lower top marginal rates (which by the way, so do the Bowles-Simpson commission that Obama himself commissioned) but do you have actual projections that show how these "large tax cuts" will play out in reality? And you actually have a stronger case with this assertion. As to the second (draconian cuts in spending to the poor) - just saying that is the case does not make it so...do you have any actual examples that show this to be the case? Does block granting Medicaid to the states significantly lower spending to the poor? Does a Medicare premium support system lower spending to the poor? Are there large cuts (and I mean cuts, not cuts in the rate of growth when compared to the Obama budget, which by the way, did not garner even a single Democrat vote) to other social programs?
The Ryan plan (which I don't see as ideal, but it is preferable to the status quo in my opinion) has us spending about 33% more on the federal budget in 2022 (~$4.7T) than our current spending (~$3.5T). I don't see how that is draconian.
If you are going to make these kinds of assertions - show us actual examples.
Show your work please....
"However, with large tax cuts for the rich and draconian cuts in spending on the poor"
I understand that the Ryan plans lower top marginal rates (which by the way, so do the Bowles-Simpson commission that Obama himself commissioned) but do you have actual projections that show how these "large tax cuts" will play out in reality? And you actually have a stronger case with this assertion. As to the second (draconian cuts in spending to the poor) - just saying that is the case does not make it so...do you have any actual examples that show this to be the case? Does block granting Medicaid to the states significantly lower spending to the poor? Does a Medicare premium support system lower spending to the poor? Are there large cuts (and I mean cuts, not cuts in the rate of growth when compared to the Obama budget, which by the way, did not garner even a single Democrat vote) to other social programs?
The Ryan plan (which I don't see as ideal, but it is preferable to the status quo in my opinion) has us spending about 33% more on the federal budget in 2022 (~$4.7T) than our current spending (~$3.5T). I don't see how that is draconian.
If you are going to make these kinds of assertions - show us actual examples.
4.30.2012 | 1:13pm
VQ says:
Dr. Reno, I am not sure how you could write this statement:
"Some were wise and led to good policies: minimum wage laws, for example, and unemployment insurance. Others such as wage and price controls weren’t so wise."
The reason I point this out is because the minimum wage is a price control, so you have literally written a contradictory statement - and you have missed a key argument which is that far from the minimum wage helping it actually causes unemployment and poverty because it has the real effect of discriminating against low skilled workers.
"Some were wise and led to good policies: minimum wage laws, for example, and unemployment insurance. Others such as wage and price controls weren’t so wise."
The reason I point this out is because the minimum wage is a price control, so you have literally written a contradictory statement - and you have missed a key argument which is that far from the minimum wage helping it actually causes unemployment and poverty because it has the real effect of discriminating against low skilled workers.
4.30.2012 | 2:23pm
John Burford says:
I find that when I ask most of my fellow Republicans why they oppose government social programs, their underlying objection is neither federalism or libertarianism (although those concerns are often voiced), but is actually resentment at being forced to subsidize others' poor work habits and poor life decisions, especially when it comes to morally objectionable areas like "reproductive health."
One of the most confusing parts about Catholic social justice doctrines is where to draw the line between helping the poor and affirming personal responsibility. The Bible tells us to help the poor, but it also says that those who don't work shall not eat (2 Thess 3:10). Papal encyclicals endorse food, healthcare, education, etc. as universal human rights while also condemning the welfare state and affirming private property rights. It doesn't take long to notice that these different values can easily come into conflict.
I do have to say, though, that I find David Nickol's argument somewhat strange. His comments about deficit reduction not being a part of Catholic Social Teaching might lead one to believe that Catholics have a moral duty to mortgage our grandchildren's finances so as to pay for programs for ourselves today. That's not social justice--that's selfishness. But I am sure that he simply misphrased his objections.
My question for everyone is, again, where do we draw the line? Does the government owe its citizens comprehensive healthcare from cradle to grave, a house, a decent car for each parent, free childcare, a free education through the college level, a good job, a solid pension, etc.? At what point do we say that people must bear personal responsibility for their own lives, and not just pass the buck in the name of "social justice" and "generosity"? And how can the government simultaneously guarantee all of these things while also encouraging work, considering that the entire reason why most people work is to feed their families, buy a house, send their kids to school, etc., and we've just paid for all of those needs using other people's money?
This is a genuine question.
One of the most confusing parts about Catholic social justice doctrines is where to draw the line between helping the poor and affirming personal responsibility. The Bible tells us to help the poor, but it also says that those who don't work shall not eat (2 Thess 3:10). Papal encyclicals endorse food, healthcare, education, etc. as universal human rights while also condemning the welfare state and affirming private property rights. It doesn't take long to notice that these different values can easily come into conflict.
I do have to say, though, that I find David Nickol's argument somewhat strange. His comments about deficit reduction not being a part of Catholic Social Teaching might lead one to believe that Catholics have a moral duty to mortgage our grandchildren's finances so as to pay for programs for ourselves today. That's not social justice--that's selfishness. But I am sure that he simply misphrased his objections.
My question for everyone is, again, where do we draw the line? Does the government owe its citizens comprehensive healthcare from cradle to grave, a house, a decent car for each parent, free childcare, a free education through the college level, a good job, a solid pension, etc.? At what point do we say that people must bear personal responsibility for their own lives, and not just pass the buck in the name of "social justice" and "generosity"? And how can the government simultaneously guarantee all of these things while also encouraging work, considering that the entire reason why most people work is to feed their families, buy a house, send their kids to school, etc., and we've just paid for all of those needs using other people's money?
This is a genuine question.
4.30.2012 | 2:32pm
michael Currie says:
John Hinshaw, great comment. In Phila. Pa. the closing of parish schools has been an ongoing trauma that confirms your point.
To your last point re: parties, are we to take from all of this that the Catholic church does or should endorse the democrats budget proposals, oh thats right they have not had one for three years and there probably is a good reason for that. Any budget that they propose, that seriously addresses what everyone admits are major problems, will expose them to the approbation of their base. If what they propose does not address these problems then they stand no chance of passing.
I'm not sure who it was but the other day a democratic senator commented that there were 16 vulnerable seats in the Senate that could be put at risk by passing a budget now. Just politics but there is a deafening silence by the Bishops on the irresponsibility of the Senate and the President in allowing this destabilizing inaction to continue.
There is a whole litany of issues that reasonable people can disagree about but there is one that truly mystifies me and that is the tax holiday pushed by the democrats and caved on by the republicans. Most of my adult life I have heard about how social security is the third rail of politics and how, in the not too distant future, it will go broke if not fixed. So what do we do, we cut the contributions to it by around a third for a short term political benefit and a few bucks in workers pockets.
So what have we learned here; that the Bishops and the democrats have at least one thing in common, neither one has a budget but they both have a target.
To your last point re: parties, are we to take from all of this that the Catholic church does or should endorse the democrats budget proposals, oh thats right they have not had one for three years and there probably is a good reason for that. Any budget that they propose, that seriously addresses what everyone admits are major problems, will expose them to the approbation of their base. If what they propose does not address these problems then they stand no chance of passing.
I'm not sure who it was but the other day a democratic senator commented that there were 16 vulnerable seats in the Senate that could be put at risk by passing a budget now. Just politics but there is a deafening silence by the Bishops on the irresponsibility of the Senate and the President in allowing this destabilizing inaction to continue.
There is a whole litany of issues that reasonable people can disagree about but there is one that truly mystifies me and that is the tax holiday pushed by the democrats and caved on by the republicans. Most of my adult life I have heard about how social security is the third rail of politics and how, in the not too distant future, it will go broke if not fixed. So what do we do, we cut the contributions to it by around a third for a short term political benefit and a few bucks in workers pockets.
So what have we learned here; that the Bishops and the democrats have at least one thing in common, neither one has a budget but they both have a target.
4.30.2012 | 2:47pm
David Nickol says:
Henry Chambers:
Here's an answer to your question from the Catholic point of view:
I. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GOODS
2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.
2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself." The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.
2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.
2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
Here's an answer to your question from the Catholic point of view:
I. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GOODS
2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.
2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself." The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.
2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.
2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
4.30.2012 | 3:36pm
slepley says:
Unfortunately, the federal budget and its debt is so large now that it is difficult for people to understand its magnitude. If you taxed all income at 100% above one million dollars per person, you still wouldn't be able to eliminate one year's deficit of the Obama administration. And what would you get in subsequent years after taking all of that money the first time?
4.30.2012 | 4:00pm
maineman says:
The problem with Chuck r's point is that it is not based on an examination of the facts. It has been proven time and again, but somehow it just doesn't seem to get through to liberals: RAISING TAXES REDUCES TAX REVENUES. Reagan had it right, when you punish something (in this case economic success), you usually get less of it.
My problem with Mr. Reno's piece is that it seems to me to succumb to the same kind of thinking that traps so-called "liberal Catholics" (an oxymoron, but that's another story) and progressives of all stripes. The problem goes back to the supposed days of "good" progressivism - which gave up the greatest ponzi scheme of all time, Social Security.
I see no basis for the author's assumption that the industrial revolution obviated the rules of subsidiarity that had held for the prior 18 centuries. The turn of the last century represents an era during which the West began to drift in a sea of relativism, having abandoned the awareness of absolute truth that had sustained us to that point. It was natural, then, that we should panic, forget about God's love, and replicate the Fall by taking things into our own hands. This, in essence, is the liberal delusion and why it is irrevocably, irretrievably doomed.
The failure of contemporary liberalism was baked into the cake over 300 years ago. And now we have confused Catholics arguing that not all truth is Catholic truth, not all morality is Catholic. Either the Catholic church is universal and the Bride of Christ (and therefore emanates from absolute truth) or it's just another form of human self-delusion, a very elaborate superstition. And either we adhere to the principal of subsidiarity and the prioritization of the individual or we don't.
That means that there is no such thing as "the unemployed" who need help. There are people who are unemployed. Some of whom need help and some who don't.
Same thing for "the poor." Are we talking about the poor in spirit? Or maybe people without as much stuff as everyone else who may, in fact, be rich in spirit - a richness that will be/was robbed from them by liberal/progressive schemes designed to fix what they thought to be wrong.
Liberalism is, at bottom, a disregard for the truth, and that is why it cannot but fail. There can be no "conservative" Catholics, only Catholics. Best we stick together and just pray for the so-called progressives, including those who thought they were doing what was right a hundred years ago.
My problem with Mr. Reno's piece is that it seems to me to succumb to the same kind of thinking that traps so-called "liberal Catholics" (an oxymoron, but that's another story) and progressives of all stripes. The problem goes back to the supposed days of "good" progressivism - which gave up the greatest ponzi scheme of all time, Social Security.
I see no basis for the author's assumption that the industrial revolution obviated the rules of subsidiarity that had held for the prior 18 centuries. The turn of the last century represents an era during which the West began to drift in a sea of relativism, having abandoned the awareness of absolute truth that had sustained us to that point. It was natural, then, that we should panic, forget about God's love, and replicate the Fall by taking things into our own hands. This, in essence, is the liberal delusion and why it is irrevocably, irretrievably doomed.
The failure of contemporary liberalism was baked into the cake over 300 years ago. And now we have confused Catholics arguing that not all truth is Catholic truth, not all morality is Catholic. Either the Catholic church is universal and the Bride of Christ (and therefore emanates from absolute truth) or it's just another form of human self-delusion, a very elaborate superstition. And either we adhere to the principal of subsidiarity and the prioritization of the individual or we don't.
That means that there is no such thing as "the unemployed" who need help. There are people who are unemployed. Some of whom need help and some who don't.
Same thing for "the poor." Are we talking about the poor in spirit? Or maybe people without as much stuff as everyone else who may, in fact, be rich in spirit - a richness that will be/was robbed from them by liberal/progressive schemes designed to fix what they thought to be wrong.
Liberalism is, at bottom, a disregard for the truth, and that is why it cannot but fail. There can be no "conservative" Catholics, only Catholics. Best we stick together and just pray for the so-called progressives, including those who thought they were doing what was right a hundred years ago.
4.30.2012 | 4:05pm
Gil says:
One of the great tragedies endemic to the Catholic left is its wedding itself to secular initiatives that run counter to basic Catholic moral principles in dealing with poverty, and in liberal Seattle where I live my protests go unheard in media outlets, especially Catholic ones. For example, I recently wrote and couldn’t get published:
“For decades there was a swarm of social scientists who couldn’t comprehend the obvious: most crack heads desire chemically-induced ecstatic bliss over anything the scientists offer as an alternative. But when a government bureaucrat obsessing on economic number-crunching caught on to the truth, he recommended a policy where the State would provide a crack head with an apartment, medical care, food, clothes and $300 crack money the 1st of every month if he stayed out of jail. The economic logic was simple: locking crack heads up in jails and prisons was far more costly than rewarding their lifestyle as a deterrent to committing crimes. The problem, of course, for Seattle, is that ours was the first city that figured this out, and so when the plan was instituted, crack heads from around the country moved here for the trade-off, and that’s why you now got hordes of panhandling crack heads roaming the streets day and night.”
This logic makes sense only from an amoral perspective, and the Seattle Archdiocese is wedded to this philosophy, which results in many buildings owned by the Archdiocese being used by state agencies in prioritizing help for drug addicts committed to addiction who find every which way to get around seeking help for their addiction. So, for example, when my daughter, three grandchildren and I were homeless, no Catholic agency could help us. All of them said they could provide me with food and shelter, but not my daughter and grandkids. I decided to stay homeless with them to protect them. And we would sleep alongside the parish I have belonged to for 25 years for two weeks (parishioners turning a blind eye) until a former employer, a conservative, let us use her condo until we found shelter (she moved in with her parents), and after my daughter found housing, it was September and the kids had to be enrolled in school. After contacting the Archdiocese, she was given the number of St. Martin DePorres that deals directly with clothing the homeless for the Archdiocese. She was given a $35 voucher to purchase clothes for herself and the three children at a thrift store. Again, the Archdiocese provides vouchers to Ross Stores for addicts.
After being homeless for a week, I spoke to the person who deals directly with the homeless in the Archdiocese, and she suggested that my daughter tell authorities that she is being physically abused by a man, and then she will be able to get help. I said, "My daughter has to lie to get help?" "I know. It’s horrible," the woman responded with visible angst, "But that's the way it is. There’s limited assistance for homeless women with children."
Then I thought about how in Acts women with children who didn't have husbands to support them were supported by the community; in fact, the first big argument on its social policy was if widowed gentile women should receive the same benefits as Jewish women, and it was decided that they should, and persons were assigned in making this the number one priority as a social issue that would always be resolved. Yet in Seattle, the priority of the State in unison with the Archdiocese makes committed male drug addicts, then men in general, then women, and then women with children the priority field.
The Catholic Left has aligned itself with the secular culture’s philosophical outlook and its demands where it should be informing those secular institutions, especially in prioritizing the emergency relief for children. This is one of the many corruptions we need to look at.
“For decades there was a swarm of social scientists who couldn’t comprehend the obvious: most crack heads desire chemically-induced ecstatic bliss over anything the scientists offer as an alternative. But when a government bureaucrat obsessing on economic number-crunching caught on to the truth, he recommended a policy where the State would provide a crack head with an apartment, medical care, food, clothes and $300 crack money the 1st of every month if he stayed out of jail. The economic logic was simple: locking crack heads up in jails and prisons was far more costly than rewarding their lifestyle as a deterrent to committing crimes. The problem, of course, for Seattle, is that ours was the first city that figured this out, and so when the plan was instituted, crack heads from around the country moved here for the trade-off, and that’s why you now got hordes of panhandling crack heads roaming the streets day and night.”
This logic makes sense only from an amoral perspective, and the Seattle Archdiocese is wedded to this philosophy, which results in many buildings owned by the Archdiocese being used by state agencies in prioritizing help for drug addicts committed to addiction who find every which way to get around seeking help for their addiction. So, for example, when my daughter, three grandchildren and I were homeless, no Catholic agency could help us. All of them said they could provide me with food and shelter, but not my daughter and grandkids. I decided to stay homeless with them to protect them. And we would sleep alongside the parish I have belonged to for 25 years for two weeks (parishioners turning a blind eye) until a former employer, a conservative, let us use her condo until we found shelter (she moved in with her parents), and after my daughter found housing, it was September and the kids had to be enrolled in school. After contacting the Archdiocese, she was given the number of St. Martin DePorres that deals directly with clothing the homeless for the Archdiocese. She was given a $35 voucher to purchase clothes for herself and the three children at a thrift store. Again, the Archdiocese provides vouchers to Ross Stores for addicts.
After being homeless for a week, I spoke to the person who deals directly with the homeless in the Archdiocese, and she suggested that my daughter tell authorities that she is being physically abused by a man, and then she will be able to get help. I said, "My daughter has to lie to get help?" "I know. It’s horrible," the woman responded with visible angst, "But that's the way it is. There’s limited assistance for homeless women with children."
Then I thought about how in Acts women with children who didn't have husbands to support them were supported by the community; in fact, the first big argument on its social policy was if widowed gentile women should receive the same benefits as Jewish women, and it was decided that they should, and persons were assigned in making this the number one priority as a social issue that would always be resolved. Yet in Seattle, the priority of the State in unison with the Archdiocese makes committed male drug addicts, then men in general, then women, and then women with children the priority field.
The Catholic Left has aligned itself with the secular culture’s philosophical outlook and its demands where it should be informing those secular institutions, especially in prioritizing the emergency relief for children. This is one of the many corruptions we need to look at.
4.30.2012 | 4:30pm
bobster says:
David Nickol, I know you are intelligent enough to understand that the Catechism portions you cite are only the starting point for discussion. As Paul Ryan pointed out, there is a lot of room for prudential judgment in proposing governmental structure.
What we cannot do is continue to borrow money for programs that make us feel better. There is no high moral ground to be had in using government coercion to spend other people's money.
What we cannot do is continue to borrow money for programs that make us feel better. There is no high moral ground to be had in using government coercion to spend other people's money.
4.30.2012 | 5:14pm
Chillingworth says:
I agree with Mr. Chambers: voting to take the property of another only to redistribute it, whether to oneself or others, is theft and immoral.
Mr. Reno wrote,
During the last century the leaders of the Catholic Church—and many other men and women of good will—made countless prudential judgments about how basic Christian truths should be applied to the crises then facing modern industrial societies. Some were wise and led to good policies: minimum wage laws, for example, and unemployment insurance. Others such as wage and price controls weren’t so wise.
I disagree; I think minimum-wage laws and (governmental) unemployment insurance were very bad policy, too. The minimum wage, for example, leads to higher unemployment, as Thomas Sowell and other economists will tell you. As someone said somewhere, minimum-wage laws cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
I agree with you that it's a matter of "prudence", but as it turns out, the policy that increases government control and diminishes liberty is pretty much always the wrong choice. I wish the church would realize that.
Mr. Reno wrote,
During the last century the leaders of the Catholic Church—and many other men and women of good will—made countless prudential judgments about how basic Christian truths should be applied to the crises then facing modern industrial societies. Some were wise and led to good policies: minimum wage laws, for example, and unemployment insurance. Others such as wage and price controls weren’t so wise.
I disagree; I think minimum-wage laws and (governmental) unemployment insurance were very bad policy, too. The minimum wage, for example, leads to higher unemployment, as Thomas Sowell and other economists will tell you. As someone said somewhere, minimum-wage laws cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
I agree with you that it's a matter of "prudence", but as it turns out, the policy that increases government control and diminishes liberty is pretty much always the wrong choice. I wish the church would realize that.
4.30.2012 | 5:29pm
David Nickol says:
bobster,
I was answering Henry Chambers' questions: "Is there such a thing as a God-given right to private property? I get the impression there is, from the Ten Commands: Thou Shalt Not Steal. If there is indeed a God-given, unalienable right to private property, is taking somebody's property, or a good chunk of it, with the purpose of distributing wealth, moral? Can God's will be overrruled by a majority vote? Does the majority know better what is moral than God?"
I hope the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not too controversial here, but I fear it is with some! Governments have a legitimate right to tax and spend for the common good. One may debate whether the common good is currently being served, or would be better served by Ryan's budget or Obama's budget, but one may not maintain an absolute right to private property and claim government has no right to collect taxes to serve the common good.
Taxation is not theft!
I think the concept of "the universal destination of goods" must be horrifying to some here, but that is Catholic teaching.
I was answering Henry Chambers' questions: "Is there such a thing as a God-given right to private property? I get the impression there is, from the Ten Commands: Thou Shalt Not Steal. If there is indeed a God-given, unalienable right to private property, is taking somebody's property, or a good chunk of it, with the purpose of distributing wealth, moral? Can God's will be overrruled by a majority vote? Does the majority know better what is moral than God?"
I hope the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not too controversial here, but I fear it is with some! Governments have a legitimate right to tax and spend for the common good. One may debate whether the common good is currently being served, or would be better served by Ryan's budget or Obama's budget, but one may not maintain an absolute right to private property and claim government has no right to collect taxes to serve the common good.
Taxation is not theft!
I think the concept of "the universal destination of goods" must be horrifying to some here, but that is Catholic teaching.
4.30.2012 | 5:52pm
David Nickol says:
John Burford,
When I say deficit reduction is not part of Catholic Social Teaching, I mean that if you look in the sources (say, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church), you will not find anything that says there must be no deficits, that deficits above a certain level of GDP must be avoided, and so on. If you look at budget deficits over the history of the 20th century, they were *dramatically* higher during World War II than they are today (as a percent of GDP). I am sure during World War II there must have been somebody who said, "We've got to stop spending all this money! We're piling up debt! Let somebody else fight the Axis." If they did, they would have found nothing that I am aware of in Catholic Social Teaching to say you shouldn't run big deficits during a crisis.
Obviously the various authorities in the Catholic Church that make pronouncements on such things would not endorse continual piling up of debt with no end in sight that would result in eventual ruin. But then, no one else would, either. There is nothing specifically Catholic about not bankrupting a country. There are no doubt millions of teachings that are good and true that are not found in Catholic Social Teaching.
When I say deficit reduction is not part of Catholic Social Teaching, I mean that if you look in the sources (say, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church), you will not find anything that says there must be no deficits, that deficits above a certain level of GDP must be avoided, and so on. If you look at budget deficits over the history of the 20th century, they were *dramatically* higher during World War II than they are today (as a percent of GDP). I am sure during World War II there must have been somebody who said, "We've got to stop spending all this money! We're piling up debt! Let somebody else fight the Axis." If they did, they would have found nothing that I am aware of in Catholic Social Teaching to say you shouldn't run big deficits during a crisis.
Obviously the various authorities in the Catholic Church that make pronouncements on such things would not endorse continual piling up of debt with no end in sight that would result in eventual ruin. But then, no one else would, either. There is nothing specifically Catholic about not bankrupting a country. There are no doubt millions of teachings that are good and true that are not found in Catholic Social Teaching.
4.30.2012 | 6:30pm
David Nickol says:
Steve Billingsly,
I would direct you to two graphs presented by Ezra Klein. The first is titled "Income Gainst at Top Under Ryan Plan Would Dwarf Those for Middle-Class Families," and the second is "62 Percent of Proposed Cuts in Ryan Plan Come from Low-Income Programs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-ryan-budgets-priorities-in-two-graphs/2012/04/02/gIQARH2vqS_blog.html
You ask: "Does a Medicare premium support system lower spending to the poor?"
Absolutely. Increases to Medicare premium supports (why not call them vouchers?) are pegged to the rate of inflation (the consumer price index). From 2000 to 2010, the cost of health care rose 48%, while the consumer price index rose only 26%. If Medicare premium supports had been instituted in 2000 and covered all health care expenses—let's say $15,000 a year—by 2010 the premium supports would have risen to $18,900, but medical costs would have risen to $22,200. Of course this saves money, but it does so by requiring people to pay more and more of their own costs out of pocket as the years go by. It also, of course, abolishes Medicare as we know it today and totally replaces it with a system that gives vouchers (of ever dwindling value) to senior citizens to buy insurance. And who, do you imagine, has higher health care costs—people under 65 or people over 65?
I would direct you to two graphs presented by Ezra Klein. The first is titled "Income Gainst at Top Under Ryan Plan Would Dwarf Those for Middle-Class Families," and the second is "62 Percent of Proposed Cuts in Ryan Plan Come from Low-Income Programs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-ryan-budgets-priorities-in-two-graphs/2012/04/02/gIQARH2vqS_blog.html
You ask: "Does a Medicare premium support system lower spending to the poor?"
Absolutely. Increases to Medicare premium supports (why not call them vouchers?) are pegged to the rate of inflation (the consumer price index). From 2000 to 2010, the cost of health care rose 48%, while the consumer price index rose only 26%. If Medicare premium supports had been instituted in 2000 and covered all health care expenses—let's say $15,000 a year—by 2010 the premium supports would have risen to $18,900, but medical costs would have risen to $22,200. Of course this saves money, but it does so by requiring people to pay more and more of their own costs out of pocket as the years go by. It also, of course, abolishes Medicare as we know it today and totally replaces it with a system that gives vouchers (of ever dwindling value) to senior citizens to buy insurance. And who, do you imagine, has higher health care costs—people under 65 or people over 65?
4.30.2012 | 7:04pm
David Nickol says:
maineman says: "And now we have confused Catholics arguing that not all truth is Catholic truth, not all morality is Catholic."
How about 1 + 1 = 2? A Catholic truth, or just a truth?
How about, "You shall not steal"? A Catholic truth? There weren't any Catholics around when that truth was handed down.
Catholic Social Teaching does not encompass all truth or morality. It is a specific area of Catholic teaching. The Church affirms as dogma the Immaculate Conception, but it is not a matter of Catholic Social Teaching. The Church's prohibitions on abortion and contraception are not Catholic Social Teaching. The prohibition against murder comes from God, not the Catholic Church.
How about 1 + 1 = 2? A Catholic truth, or just a truth?
How about, "You shall not steal"? A Catholic truth? There weren't any Catholics around when that truth was handed down.
Catholic Social Teaching does not encompass all truth or morality. It is a specific area of Catholic teaching. The Church affirms as dogma the Immaculate Conception, but it is not a matter of Catholic Social Teaching. The Church's prohibitions on abortion and contraception are not Catholic Social Teaching. The prohibition against murder comes from God, not the Catholic Church.
4.30.2012 | 7:10pm
Alan says:
Catholics can make prudential judgments about how best to attain desirable ends, but Catholicism is quite clear about what those desirable ends are. There is a moral obligation not to impose debt on future generations in order to underwrite current consumption. Deficit reduction is certainly a valid end. But the Ryan budget is defective in how it seeks to reduce the deficit, which is to place the burden on social programs. A failure to consider raising taxes (Americans are now paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than they have in decades), as well as a refusal to reduce spending for defense (which is currently higher than at the height of the Cold War): these are the problems with the Ryan proposal. To justify the Ryan proposal as consistent with Catholic social teaching, one has to explain why the choices he has proposed to reduce the deficit are the correct ones.
4.30.2012 | 7:47pm
Thomas Aquinas says:
David writes: "Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor."
That's why a 3 trillion dollar debt financed by yet unborn generations is a violation of this precept.
That's why a 3 trillion dollar debt financed by yet unborn generations is a violation of this precept.
4.30.2012 | 9:54pm
Len says:
Remind us again how Ryan's budget squares with Catholic Social Teaching and not with a Conservative and Free Market Ideology?
4.30.2012 | 10:10pm
Gil says:
We are terrified of creating a kind of First World in-house subculture for those poor that have for a variety of reasons lost all incentive to work, perhaps an arrangement mirrored in refugee camps where groups of persons displaced and otherwise traumatized by war and poverty reside, with guidelines for those wanting to exit through various incentive programs. In that subculture the basic necessities would be provided, as in refugee camps, until transition through some type of employment, even government sponsored, is not just made available, but chosen.
I sense that this is where we will have to eventually go with the solidification of the notion of government entitlement being a right. Should we dare think this thought? I do know I lived in a housing project made up almost exclusively of Somalians who had come from refugee camps, where many had resided for many years with no alternative. The vast majority of those Somalians in this complex were extremely resourceful in caring for their families and pursuing the American dream of economic independence, especially providing a better future for their children (many of those children spoke three languages fluently).
One thing is obvious: we have to find a way out of the notion that the government should take care of us, and that we should be competing for those benefits. And we should be able to do this without people going hungry or having no shelter.
I sense that this is where we will have to eventually go with the solidification of the notion of government entitlement being a right. Should we dare think this thought? I do know I lived in a housing project made up almost exclusively of Somalians who had come from refugee camps, where many had resided for many years with no alternative. The vast majority of those Somalians in this complex were extremely resourceful in caring for their families and pursuing the American dream of economic independence, especially providing a better future for their children (many of those children spoke three languages fluently).
One thing is obvious: we have to find a way out of the notion that the government should take care of us, and that we should be competing for those benefits. And we should be able to do this without people going hungry or having no shelter.
4.30.2012 | 11:33pm
jonathan krizner says:
Excellent comments by John Henshaw and Michael Currie. Having exprienced a school closing at our parish a few years ago, I was struck by the cold calculation of the ordeal.The very same diocesan officials who encouraged people to give in faith perhaps beyond their means (or at least what those people believed their means to be) now claimed to be totally at the mercy of the realities of economics. We heard cries of existing debt( 150,000.00) which was far less than the personal debt of most of us who protetested. We heard about the unfairness of other parishes (wealthier ones) having to share the burden of that debt. We were also told closings were necessary to strengthen the future of catholic education. the diocese was willing to accept a 65% attrition rate of students who would not transfer ( could not have been accomodated anyway) to the other catholic school in town but would default to the public school system. Paul Ryan would have been much kinder. The school could have increased tuition(raised taxes) to cover the debt. Actions like these,however, are usually followed by a decrease in enrollment(revenues). I'm not arguing that there was an easy answer, or that the wrong decision was made,but it seems hypocritical at least for a church founded on faith to live by the dictates of the market while chastising a government based on the market for not ignoring a debt crises and operating on faith. I agree with most of Dr.Reno's assertions but would refer him to former Creighton U. economics professor Neil Cahill S.J. (now passed on) for some entertaining commentary on the nonsense of the minimum wage.
5.1.2012 | 8:49am
MLaffey says:
"the gospel rightly understood involves using the power of government when local communities and free markets fail to adequately provide for the needs of the poor and vulnerable." i could not disagree more with this statement. Jesus preached personal responsibity. We have an obligation as individuals to voluntarily help the poor. We do not discharge that obligation by using the coercive power of government to force other people to do what we are called to do.
But more importantly I do not support government social programs because they have not worked and in many cases have done more harm then good. The theory that if we just throw a little more money at a problem it will get better is a theory that the left would abandon if it honestly looked at historical results.
But more importantly I do not support government social programs because they have not worked and in many cases have done more harm then good. The theory that if we just throw a little more money at a problem it will get better is a theory that the left would abandon if it honestly looked at historical results.
5.1.2012 | 12:11pm
Steve Billingsley says:
David Nickol,
Color me unconvinced. I looked at the source material of the two graphs and in contains all sorts of assumptions that are skewed to say the least. It doesn't account for the block granting of Medicaid in the terms of state expenditure. It only accounts for the expansion of Medicaid continuing at its current rate (which over the past 5 years has been exploding). As for Pell Grants and other expenditures, it also assumes that the very recent explosion of costs for these programs will continue indefinitely. The article linked below illustrates pretty clearly how social spending has exploded over the past 30 years in unsustainable ways.
As for Medicare - you are missing the main point as to why these costs have exploded. It is because there are no cost controls in place. Obamacare seeks to control these costs via bureaucratic rationing (and btw, it ostensibly cuts $500B out of Medicare in the next 10 years, the Ryan plan cuts $0 out of Medicare in the same time frame - premium support is only phased in for those currently 55 and under). Costs are going to be cut from Medicare one way or another - either by bureaucratic rationing or via market competition. Ryan's plan tries to do it via the latter (I have questions as to whether this will accomplish what it is claiming to accomplish, but note that these are projections 10 years+ out.).
Showing 2 graphs with dubious assumptions isn't particularly convincing. As to the article referenced above - here is the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-washington-really-does/2012/04/29/gIQAiplSqT_story.html
Color me unconvinced. I looked at the source material of the two graphs and in contains all sorts of assumptions that are skewed to say the least. It doesn't account for the block granting of Medicaid in the terms of state expenditure. It only accounts for the expansion of Medicaid continuing at its current rate (which over the past 5 years has been exploding). As for Pell Grants and other expenditures, it also assumes that the very recent explosion of costs for these programs will continue indefinitely. The article linked below illustrates pretty clearly how social spending has exploded over the past 30 years in unsustainable ways.
As for Medicare - you are missing the main point as to why these costs have exploded. It is because there are no cost controls in place. Obamacare seeks to control these costs via bureaucratic rationing (and btw, it ostensibly cuts $500B out of Medicare in the next 10 years, the Ryan plan cuts $0 out of Medicare in the same time frame - premium support is only phased in for those currently 55 and under). Costs are going to be cut from Medicare one way or another - either by bureaucratic rationing or via market competition. Ryan's plan tries to do it via the latter (I have questions as to whether this will accomplish what it is claiming to accomplish, but note that these are projections 10 years+ out.).
Showing 2 graphs with dubious assumptions isn't particularly convincing. As to the article referenced above - here is the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-washington-really-does/2012/04/29/gIQAiplSqT_story.html
5.1.2012 | 5:27pm
bobster says:
David, I never said taxation was unlawful. I'm saying that Catholic teaching cannot be used as a bludgeon against the formation and funding of public programs. Yes, we have an obligation to help the poor but saying we shouldn't bankrupt the country and future generations is not the same as wanting to steal food from babies.
There is a great moral distinction between Church teaching on something like abortion and trying to argue that Catholics are required to support the Democratic budget.
There is a great moral distinction between Church teaching on something like abortion and trying to argue that Catholics are required to support the Democratic budget.
5.1.2012 | 7:39pm
Sailor says:
The U.S. Catholic Church long ago made an historic mistake getting into bed with "Progressives", adherents of an exclusively statist "religion", whose precepts are fundamentally at war with religious truths. The Church's "chickens are now coming home to roost". On one hand, the Church hierarchy is, in many instances, led by deluded Progressives with collars (like Fr. Reese) and on the other is now confronted by the inescapable fact that the State now wants its proverbial, secular "pound of flesh" (abortion insurance coverage, for example). Fr. Reese is flailing (and failing) in an attempt to reconcile two "unreconcilable" belief systems. He, and other "true believers" in the beneficial state have been used and exploited. Reese has not yet recognized and accepted this betrayal.
5.2.2012 | 1:38am
John Schuh says:
Raising taxes is the easy solution for those who do not expect to pay them. Tax the rich, they say! But the truly rich are always able to shelter their wealth, and to avoid taxation. But even if they pay, this doesn’t make the country prosperous; only makes everyone out at the sleeves, as Britain was between 1945 and 1960.
5.2.2012 | 7:07am
Frank M says:
Somehow I just knew that the quote from Jesus saying " The poor you will always have with you" would be noted. These words are frequently cited by those who oppose helping the poor at the expense of the very wealthy who will also always be with us.
5.2.2012 | 1:20pm
David Nickol says:
bobster,
You say: "I never said taxation was unlawful."
I never said *you* did. But certainly you have heard the slogan, "Taxation is theft." Well, not according to Catholic Social Teaching it isn't. (And in fact one of the rallying cries of the American Revolution was NOT, "No taxation," but rather, "No taxation without representation.")
Please note that basically all I have done is quote the Catechism, without comment. I strongly disagree with Paul Ryan, but I have not tried to make a case against him. I just quoted the Catechism on the concept of the universal destination of goods and the right of the government to tax. I am really only dealing with the Catholic concepts of government power and private property. Obviously the Catechism doesn't settle many political arguments, but it does answer the question of whether the government has a right to tax or not. Anyone who says that "taxation is theft" is contradicting Catholic teaching. Certainly there can be grossly unfair taxation that amounts to theft. But according to Catholic teaching, taxation in and of itself is not theft. Governments have power to tax and spend for the common good. Can we at least agree on that?
You say: "I never said taxation was unlawful."
I never said *you* did. But certainly you have heard the slogan, "Taxation is theft." Well, not according to Catholic Social Teaching it isn't. (And in fact one of the rallying cries of the American Revolution was NOT, "No taxation," but rather, "No taxation without representation.")
Please note that basically all I have done is quote the Catechism, without comment. I strongly disagree with Paul Ryan, but I have not tried to make a case against him. I just quoted the Catechism on the concept of the universal destination of goods and the right of the government to tax. I am really only dealing with the Catholic concepts of government power and private property. Obviously the Catechism doesn't settle many political arguments, but it does answer the question of whether the government has a right to tax or not. Anyone who says that "taxation is theft" is contradicting Catholic teaching. Certainly there can be grossly unfair taxation that amounts to theft. But according to Catholic teaching, taxation in and of itself is not theft. Governments have power to tax and spend for the common good. Can we at least agree on that?
5.2.2012 | 3:41pm
Artaban7 says:
It is one thing to say that Catholic teaching affirms the right of government to engage in some taxation, and to have authority over some aspects of life. It is a different thing to say Governments have the power to tax and spend for the common good.
I'm not sure that Catholic teaching would affirm the second preposition, mainly because Catholic teaching realizes there are spheres of human activity that have little or nothing to do with government, and insofar as those spheres may also provide for the common good, and may in fact do so more effectively in many cases, government infringement into a "common good" may not in fact be as good as leaving it to some other group.
This is the crux of the teaching on subsidiarity. The example I like to use has to do with the care of orphans. Used to be that religion/churches almost exclusively provided for and educated orphans. During the Great Depression this began to change. Now the state foster system almost exclusively deals with such issues, and I haven't ever seen a private/church orphanage in my lifetime. There's quite a body of data to suggest government has done a far worse job than the old orphanages. It's in the interest of the "common good" to have children cared for. Doesn't mean it's in the interest of the child, or the maximization of good, to have the government doing it.
I'm not sure that Catholic teaching would affirm the second preposition, mainly because Catholic teaching realizes there are spheres of human activity that have little or nothing to do with government, and insofar as those spheres may also provide for the common good, and may in fact do so more effectively in many cases, government infringement into a "common good" may not in fact be as good as leaving it to some other group.
This is the crux of the teaching on subsidiarity. The example I like to use has to do with the care of orphans. Used to be that religion/churches almost exclusively provided for and educated orphans. During the Great Depression this began to change. Now the state foster system almost exclusively deals with such issues, and I haven't ever seen a private/church orphanage in my lifetime. There's quite a body of data to suggest government has done a far worse job than the old orphanages. It's in the interest of the "common good" to have children cared for. Doesn't mean it's in the interest of the child, or the maximization of good, to have the government doing it.
5.2.2012 | 9:02pm
David Nickol says:
Artaban7,
You says: "It is a different thing to say Governments have the power to tax and spend for the common good."
The Catechism paragraphs that I quoted above have two references to the common good: "The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise. . . . Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good."
Your argument is not that government doesn't have the right to tax and spend for the common good. Your argument is that sometimes the government's decisions about taxing and/or spending are not, in fact, for the common good—sometimes not even when the intention of the government is good. But certainly you would not argue that when the government taxes or spends, it *never* works in favor of the common good, would you?
My point, once again, is that taxation is NOT theft. Legitimate government, according to Catholic teaching, has the right not only to tax and spend, but has other rights that may override an individual's right to private property, such as "eminent domain"—the right to appropriate property (with compensation) for the common good.
You says: "It is a different thing to say Governments have the power to tax and spend for the common good."
The Catechism paragraphs that I quoted above have two references to the common good: "The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise. . . . Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good."
Your argument is not that government doesn't have the right to tax and spend for the common good. Your argument is that sometimes the government's decisions about taxing and/or spending are not, in fact, for the common good—sometimes not even when the intention of the government is good. But certainly you would not argue that when the government taxes or spends, it *never* works in favor of the common good, would you?
My point, once again, is that taxation is NOT theft. Legitimate government, according to Catholic teaching, has the right not only to tax and spend, but has other rights that may override an individual's right to private property, such as "eminent domain"—the right to appropriate property (with compensation) for the common good.
5.3.2012 | 11:01am
Asclepius says:
I also have to point one thing out to the very first commenter here, re: the bishops.
This does not reflect the opinions of the USCCB as a whole body. It represents, specifically, the prudential judgment of exactly two of them:
"In the letters, Bishops Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, and Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairmen of the Committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development and International Justice and Peace, respectively..."
That's two (2) bishops working on what is essentially a sub-committee, issuing a statement.
Again, this is not a statement from the USCCB, in the sense that the HHS Mandate responses are statements: one carries the opinions of two bishops working in coordination with the USCCB, while the other speaks for the unified body.
This does not reflect the opinions of the USCCB as a whole body. It represents, specifically, the prudential judgment of exactly two of them:
"In the letters, Bishops Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, and Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairmen of the Committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development and International Justice and Peace, respectively..."
That's two (2) bishops working on what is essentially a sub-committee, issuing a statement.
Again, this is not a statement from the USCCB, in the sense that the HHS Mandate responses are statements: one carries the opinions of two bishops working in coordination with the USCCB, while the other speaks for the unified body.
5.3.2012 | 1:30pm
Jack Merrit says:
What is good for example Apple or GM is not good for America. Perhaps it once was, but in age of multinational corporations, with complex shells situated all over the world, our companies, are no longer our companies with any vested interest in the well-being of our nation. The evasion of responsibility, from taxes and human rights to labor rights and environmental protection is a game that our corporations have played with great finesse (just look at Apple the past five or so years).
5.3.2012 | 1:59pm
Artaban7 says:
"Your argument is not that government doesn't have the right to tax and spend for the common good. Your argument is that sometimes the government's decisions about taxing and/or spending are not, in fact, for the common good—sometimes not even when the intention of the government is good. But certainly you would not argue that when the government taxes or spends, it *never* works in favor of the common good, would you? "
That is well put, David. I would not argue that when gov't taxes or spends it NEVER works in favor of the common good. Citizens do bear a degree of obligation to contribute to a society and the benefits it provides, the scary exaggeration we deal with is a socialist/communist ideology that insists on absolute obligation to the State.
That is well put, David. I would not argue that when gov't taxes or spends it NEVER works in favor of the common good. Citizens do bear a degree of obligation to contribute to a society and the benefits it provides, the scary exaggeration we deal with is a socialist/communist ideology that insists on absolute obligation to the State.
5.4.2012 | 9:13am
Mike says:
I think that the wolf is at the door. If the Republicans are elected and they get Congress they will enact the Ryan plan. A plan that will be devestating to the poor and will shred our country's social safety net the way a paper shredder shreds junk mail.
5.4.2012 | 1:31pm
Artaban7 says:
The wolf is at the door, Mike, but not as you think. The Obama plans will shred the social safety net just as surely as you think the Ryan plan will, because it undermines the economic ability to fund that net. It kills the golden goose of business and enterprise through excessive government taxing and spending. This is precisely the lesson the governments of Europe have been learning the hard way. Learn from history...
http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-063.cfm
Responsibility is no doubt entirely necessary to formulate a good budget, but so is accurate arithmetic. Neither, however, is specifically Catholic. Some from the angry Catholic right seem to elevate deficit reduction to a principle of Catholic Social Teaching. It isn't, and just because Pope Benedict XVI is critical of "living at the expense of future generations" doesn't mean deficit reduction is a principle of CST. Not all moral principles are Catholic, and not all Catholic moral principles are found in Catholic Social Teaching. It is fallacious to imply that because deficit reduction is necessary and the Ryan budget reduces the deficit, the Ryan budget is therefore in harmony with Catholic Social Teaching. One must actually look at the Ryan budget, look at Catholic Social Teaching, and determine whether they are in harmony. The USCCB has judged that they are not.
I understand the point made by conservative Catholics that just because a principle, or a law, or a budget is deemed conservative does not automatically mean it is out of conformity with Catholic Social Teaching. However, with large tax cuts for the rich and draconian cuts in spending on the poor, no matter how effective the Ryan budget might be in cutting the deficit, it is not inspired by Catholic Social Teaching.