“Specifically, the bishops should reinforce the need for economic policies that promote and strengthen the nuclear family . . . there’s no doubt about its importance to the future vitality of the country”

I could hardly agree more. In fact, I wrote a 3-part series of short articles on the subject as a blogger for my former employer. If anyone is interested, here are the links:

http://gcasacares.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflections-on-family-otherwise-known.html

http://gcasacares.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflections-on-family-otherwise-known_18.html

http://gcasacares.blogspot.com/2010/10/so-what-are-some-of-means-available-to.html

I am, as are the bishops, concerned about the state of the economy as it is reflected currently in the United States.  However, we should all follow the example of Jesus, who ministered eyeball-to-eyeball.  Too many Catholics are content to put their $10 in the collection and pay their taxes, relieved that “they” will handle the problem.  For God so loved the world He didn’t send a committee.  Our current teaching on social responsibility in the modern world goes back to 1891, when Pope Leo XIII wrote Rerum Novarum.  The basis of care for the poor is stated as subsidiarity, addressing the solution closest to the problem.  He warned that attempting to create a bureaucracy to address the problem created the danger of the bureaucracy becoming more concerned with maintaining itself than serving the people it was designed to serve.  Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, visit the prisoner…sounds like one-to-one ministry to me.  The government is trying to take over the corporal works of mercy and put the Church out of business.  That’s where we should focus all our energy.

Thank you, Jesus!

And, I’m sorry to say it and I know the Bishops have plenty to keep them busy, but…

It’s About Time.

It is too much to expect that the bishops should become uniformly economically literate when they are drawn from the general population, who are generally economically illiterate, and have no training to increase their competence in that specific field of study,

Sadly, though, the votes of the people and the exhortations of their shepherds towards faithful Catholic citizenship result in a significant influence on economic policy. A significant influence on economic policy wielded by parties who are economically illiterate is a danger to society in general and to the poor in particular.

It is thus a moral obligation for any bishop who would speak on such matters to really understand those matters before they speak on them. (A point which should go without saying…but evidently doesn’t.)

The criticism of the Ryan plan in particular was an egregious error which undermined the moral credibility of the Church in the eyes of those who know better.

The plain fact is that the numbers are bad, very very bad. The only action which would reliably avoid economic collapse would be to reduce federal spending by around one third over the next twenty years…and not merely by using accounting tricks, or doing it all at the end where after the current office-holders have retired, but doing a lot of it right now or very soon, for real.

This is, understandably, quite unpopular. That is why the Ryan plan’s cuts are actually insufficient despite being the closest thing yet proposed to an actual solution: Had he proposed enough cuts for an actual solution, the negative reaction would have prevented his plan from getting any serious discussion. Ryan showed the gumption and wisdom to push the envelope as far as it could plausibly be pushed—that is to say, as close to a solution as the current political climate would allow—without pushing it too far and being laughed out of town. Had he gone too far, he’d have had the dubious distinction of the prophet who failed to save the country because his message was too honest to be winsome.

Anyhow, let me return to the numbers: We must reduce spending by about a third, over the next twenty years, to have any hope of avoiding some pretty bad catastrophic economic failures.

A lot of people say, “Why not combine spending reductions with increased taxes?” which sounds fair-minded. But they don’t get it, they don’t know enough to realize why that’s an irrelevant suggestion. Taxes convert a percentage of GDP to revenue. Since before WWII, despite all the many changes in the tax code, the federal revenues have tended to approximate 20% of GDP. It goes lower in recessions (which are prolonged by tax increases) and higher in boom times and artificial bubbles. But it returns to 20%-ish every time.

But the current entitlements programs, if uncut, are scheduled to grow so much as a percentage of the economy that over the next 20 years they’ll be promising in excess of 30% of GDP just in entitlements and the associated loan payments on deficit financing.

That means that just to pay for two-thirds of our promised entitlements, we’d need to use every last red cent of the 20% of GDP we typically wring out of the economy in federal revenues. That leaves nothing left over for defense, for federal law enforcement, for highways, for the courts, or anything else…and it leaves one-third of our promised entitlements unpaid for.

You can’t raise enough taxes to make up that kind of difference. When you’re measuring as a % of GDP, that point becomes obvious: No tax code in the last 100 years has been able to extract 30% of GDP as revenue for even a 10-year period. You can get a brief boost by jacking up taxes in one part of the economy and lowering them in another…but as soon as everyone adjusts their behavior to the new code, the number drops to 20% again. So tax increases are irrelevant.

The only other options are borrowing money and “printing money.”

But the more leveraged you are, the more expensive it is to borrow money because your creditors fear you won’t be able to pay it back. We’re already close to that tipping point, where loans will only be offered to us at increased rates because of the increased risk of default. We could handle maybe a shortfall of 1-3% of GDP through borrowing…but not 10%.

And “printing money” (that is to say, putting more dollars into circulation through electronic ledger entries) is no solution either. It seems like the easy way out: Did we promise grandma a $500 Social Security payment that we can’t pay for? No problem! Let’s “print” $500 and hand it over!

But it doesn’t work, because as additional money enters circulation, each dollar becomes less valuable (see: re: Argentina and the Weimar Republic, and also the phrase “not worth a Continental”). In theory grandma’s $500 was suppose to take care of her rent and groceries. By giving her $500 created out of thin air, you’ve fulfilled your obligation numerically. But because each dollar has less buying power, her combined rent and groceries now cost $650, not $500. She’s still choosing whether it’s more important to have heating oil or not eat cat food.

And that’s how “money printing” works for the BEST kinds of entitlements, those where the defined benefit is measured in dollars paid out. But many benefits, especially in health care, are defined not in terms of dollar payouts but goods or services (e.g. drugs or medical procedures). As you print more money to cover Social Security payments, the price of these goods and services rise by the same amount. But when an entitlement recipient comes to you for that service, you can’t just say, “Here’s the $500 we promised you for your medical care.” No, you have to provide the medical care at its current cost, $650, which is $150 more than you originally expected to pay before inflation changed the price. So BECAUSE you printed $500 to pay for the Social Security, you now must print $150 more to cover the change in the price of the medical care. Your money-printing, which triggered inflation, forced you to respond to price changes by doing yet more money-printing, which will trigger yet more inflation!

It’s easy to see that this process will destroy the retirement nest eggs of anyone who was smart (or dumb?) enough to save for retirement. If Joe Blow saved $1 million for 15 years’ worth of retirement, but suddenly that $1 million drops in value by a fifth, then he now only has enough money for $12 years’ worth of retirement. Joe had better either go back to work, or die early. Inflation punishes savers for saving, by making their saved money less valuable than it would have been had they spent it all right away.

So. We have 20% of GDP in revenue, and have promised people enough entitlements to equal 30% or more of GDP. We can’t get any more money through taxes. We can’t get any more money through borrowing. We can’t “print money” to get out of our problems without fresh catastrophes that hit the elderly and punish the diligent savers.

“When the earths are stopped, the fox faces the hounds.” We have no alternatives left. We have to cut entitlements. By a lot. By a third at least. Other things, too, like the military. But, folks, over the next 20 years the growth in entitlements is projected to make entitlements swell to 65% or 70% of the federal budget, leaving the military down at 20% or less. You could eliminate the military ENTIRELY and it wouldn’t be enough to eliminate the deficit, because entitlements account for most of it. (And, y’know, countries that have to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber tend to be conquered or to suffer coups and dictatorships.)

So we have to cut entitlements. By a third or more. That’s the deal. It’s that, or economic collapse.

And who do you think gets hurt worst in an economic collapse? It’s not the rich. They fly elsewhere. They have high-dollar educations and skills.

No, economic collapse hurts the poor disproportionally.

It is therefore an exercise of one’s Preferential Option For The Poor to pursue policies which avoid economic collapse by cutting entitlements. This is a problem for the poor initially, but not as bad as collapse.

What percentage of the bishops understand all I just related, do you think? I mean, I even way oversimplified certain aspects (not enough to change the argument, but enough to give a good economist fits and itches). But do the bishops even understand the simple version?

For that matter, what percentage of readers here get it?

The more people who get it, the better off we’ll be…but the bishops, in particular, need to not be ignorant, if they’re going to offer critiques of policies.

I listened to these bishops speak in the follow-up comment period after Bishop Blaire’s proposal of a letter on the economy.  It signaled that some courageous bishops (the tide IS turning) were willing to stand up to stop this domination in the bishops conference of meddling into areas where they have no implied expertise i.e. economics and also promoting a socialist agenda for the country’s governance (i.e. providing cover to Obama and the Democrats).

The bishops made these points:
#1 That there was a perception (implied or intentional) given that all the bishops were against Paul Ryan’s budget proposal. It was said that that should not have occurred.
#2 That the bishops ought to stick to theology and the principles of the social teaching of the Church and leave the particulars to lay men and women whose role it is in the Church to mediate and advance these principles in society.
#3 The Church needs to comment on the disintegration of the nuclear family as, in part, causative to our economic woes.
#4 With the enormous debt our country has managed to accumulate, it poses a moral problem for solving our economic distress and it ought not be ignored.
#5 more government programs as solutions to our economic problems can no longer be the answer as they have been tried and have failed.

I’d recommend that words of encouragement be sent to bishops like Boyea of Lansing, Naumann, Vigneron and others who have the courage to speak out and not continue the hijacking of Church social teaching by the socialists among them.

It’s a relief to see signs indicating the bishops are beginning to recognize how they have in the past been gulled by those politicians and activists who, on the one hand, espouse unrestrained government spending under the guise of fighting poverty while, as Archbishop Naumann put it, “attacking the traditional family.”  Here’s hoping (and praying) the bishops don’t succumb to the avalanche of pandering that will surely be visited upon all of us between now and November 6.

Generations of fawning adoration of Holy Mother State (in Dorothy Day’s splendid phrase) as economic savior by the American bishops have done little to advance real economic justice.  The most notable legacy of American Catholic statism is the current attacks upon the liberty of Christians to perform the works of mercy.  One awaits the bishops’ guidance in how we should prepare to face the coming economic meltdown and concurrent social crisis for which their anti-Christian hubris has paved the way.

Hats off to the bishops that are raising concern about their “statement”.  If the bishops take their usual “progressive” approach on this subject they will lose more credibility from Catholics thst do not believe that socialism is the solution to this problem.  Even Christ recognized that we will always have the poor among us.

Finally!

Thank God for bishops such as Earl Boyea of Lansing, MI, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, and Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit for standing up and speaking out for broadening the bishops’ message on the economy and making it less biased politically.  And thank God for the NCR for reporting on the story and their comments.  Up until the time they were mentioned in the article, I was getting a sickening, sinking feeling reading about the passage of Bishop Stephen Blaire’s (Stockton, CA) proposal that the bishops draft a message on the U.S. economy.  Bishop Blaire’s statement of two months ago in letters to Congress on the Paul Ryan budget which passed the House was demeaning to Congressman Ryan, a Catholic, and a disgrace to the Church.  Bishop Blaire’s public statement in opposition to the Ryan budget proposal couldn’t have been more partisan than if it had been written by presidential candidate Obama himself.  The bishops just showed their ignorance to what makes the economy work.  Anyone with a brain would know that continuing to do what President Obama and the Democrat Congress Members have done the past 3.5 years, and the 2 years before that when the Democrats controlled Congress (in the last 2 years of the Bush presidency) is going to continue to just make things worse for the people.  The Democrat control has proved that bigger government is not the answer; it’s the problem.  President Reagan proved that years ago. And for God sake, if the bishops can’t see that after what the Democrat Party is doing to the Catholic Church, then we, as a Church, are in worse shape than I fear. 

What “good” does bishop Blaire and the rest of the bishops like him think can come out of Democrat Party Legislators and President when that party is solely responsible for the murder of more innocent human beings than the Nazi Party of Germany and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, combined, by denying them their right to life, a human right more real and ordered by God than any government program the Democrats, or the bishops want?

Where is the call for the Catholic church to take back the mission of charity from the govt?  Do we really believe that taking money by govt force is more moral than asking for donations?
It is quite embarrassing that the majority of the money raised by both Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services comes from the US govt.  This is money that is taken from citizens without their consent.  No wonder the bishops have sold out to a coercive tax/borrow/spend govt.
One final thought.  Is it hypocrisy to pass a debt/obligations burden of over $200 trillion dollars to our children and still talk about the importance of the family?

Having read Bishop Blair’s letter attacking the Ryan Budget, makes me as a Catholic very sad. He should be more interested in the salvation of his flock and to keep away from something that he seems to know so little about. He wants the poor (along with the greedy) to stay in bondage to the government, while he can still enjoy his fine food and drink. Ted Kennedy and what is now being called the ‘democratic’ party have done so much to hurt and to destroy the family and the working class with all of the “freebies’ that they have doled out to the family and of course, this comes with high taxes to pay for this type of enslavement.  +JMJ+

It appears to me and to many other Catholics who take the time to inform themselves on the economic issues facing this country, that there has been evidence of partisanship among many bishops, particulary from those who tilt toward the Democratic Party. Thoughtful consideration should be
given to the position that a sound economy for our country results from living within one’s means and ultimately provides growth and opportunity
for all citizens including those who are less fortunate. This means that
government does not have to be the solution for all of our ills.  Personal responsibility and an individual caring for our fellow human beings will do more in the long run than a dependency on government handouts.

I applaud the tack the USCCB is taking, and I am especialy encouraged by the expression of the need for humility.  When the bishops express any opinions regarding proposals or policies, they must always be rooted in and derived from their teaching and pastoral office.  In the past, the bishops were seen—rightly or wrongly—as endorsing, encouraging, or approving of governmental actions which parallel church social teaching, implying an equivalence.  However, those statements were improperly taken and used to usurp our principles of subsidiarity, and now we are suffering some widely-flung consequences, which now the bishops are acknowledging and moving toward true pastoral leadership.  Hooray!

The bishops fail to recognize the impact of single motherhood in this country brought on by the “freedom to choose” and the impact of years of contracepting people who fail to live up to their responsibilities.  As a health care provider I have seen the effects of the sexual revolution on the breakdown of the family.  In addition, the amount of addiction to prescription and illegal drugs has such an economic impact.  When people are impaired and cannot work and do not have the skills needed in the work force, poverty ensues.  There are so many opportunities to get an education in this country.  But so many are impaired through drugs and alcohol.  In addition, the mentality of letting others pay for my needs is rampant in this country.  I agree with Ryan.  The bishops need to teach moral theology.  Only when people live the commandments will prosperity grow.  But a contracepting and drug seeking population cannot be productive.  The pill was suppose to decrease poverty but instead, fathers do not pay the child support and mother’s have children from multiple partners.  Teach morality and all will follow

First, Bishop Blaire is a partisan hack for the Marxist Democrat Party. His primary concern is the gospel according to the Liberal Establishment. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is secondary if that.  Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Boyea are spot on in their commentary.  Apparently Blaire thinks it’s highly moral for Obama to bankrupt our nation and send 26 MILLION people to the unemployment line. Blaire evidently greets the HHS Mandate with open arms. Blaire being the arbiter of Morality is definitely like the Wolf guarding the sheep.

I would like to propose two books for the good bishops to read while contemplating how to address economic issues: “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell, and “Economic Fact and Fallacies”, also by Thomas Sowell.

And if the bishops are really interested in strengthening the family, maybe they themselves ought to start preaching against cohabitation, fornication, divorce, contraception, etc., ...all that stuff they don’t normally mention from the pulpit, but relegate to some committee that the vast majority of Catholics don’t know about.

When the bishops act like it is the job of the government to take care of the poor they have gone seriously off the rails.  It is the job of the church, and the job of the laity.  If they want someone else to do that job, they should retire and let someone else do their job.

Yes, it would be nice to have other people helping.  But it is our job first.

To see such amazing unanimity among the commentators, mostly whom on the face of it appear to be strong and upright Catholic men, to this article and the Bishop’s conference is as wonderful a Fathers’ Day gift as one might hope to receive.  The care and concern shown on the part of these men for the country and the future of our families; their plaudits for the courageous statements made by Bishops Boyea, Naumann, and Vigneron, and equally appropriate condemnation of Bishop Blaire’s past statements; in addition, a healthy dose of wariness in the proposed (and possibly unfortunately) accepted uniform statement, “Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy” is a sign that we are not yet defeated as a nation and a Church.  Sadly, the infamous former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi’s arrogant and notorious remark, “We won’t know what’s in [it] until we pass it.” rings equally as true here. 

I happened to catch this portion of the rebroadcast of the conference on EWTN, and one could just see the uncomfortableness with which Bishop Blaire accepted the criticisms from his fellow bishops.  The shoe being on the other foot now in that he seems more adept at belittling congressmen than taking the heat himself.  He looked like the proverbial kid who was caught with his hands in the cookie jar.  It is no surprise that he hails from California, given the wretched state of governmental affairs there.  I am not yet convinced that enough of the Bishop’s have seen the light.  I suspect that the Bernadine era of the USCCB has a lingering strong hold over the views of far too many of our shepherds who act more like sheep when it comes to weening Catholic social ministries off of the government breast and reforming their socialistic ways.

If I may, I’d like to add to DJ Hesselius’ “proposal” a little more enticement to read the 2 books mentioned, in case the bishops are unaware of Thomas Sowell.  Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author. A National Humanities Medal winner, and a black man.

In watching the bishop’s media from Atlanta, I was disturbed at the attack on libertarianism by Bishop Jamie Soto.  As a libertarian and a Catholic, I’ve always felt that if God gave us free will, then surely His church should support free will.

In fact I believe that liberty is a revealed truth.

So if we choose for example to provide universal health care as a Catholic church, I am all for it.  But if we chose to impose universal healthcare from a police state forced charity, then I am opposed, as a Catholic, as a Christian and as a moral child of God.

As a Catholic I was very upset by the bishops’ criticism of the Ryan budget. Of course it was partisan! It equated the prudential with intrinsic evil, in my opinion. For too long the bishops downplayed the embrace of abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research by the Democrat party, so now that the Obama Administration is forcing them to speak out more on these issues the Dem defenders need to find something they can attack the Republicans on.

Do these bishops budget more spending in their dioceses than they take in? They close churches and schools to balance their budgets, yet criticize the GOP for wanting a pay-as-you-go budget that will not mortgage our country’s future or force our kids to take on unsustainable debt.

@Rob

“In watching the bishop’s media from Atlanta, I was disturbed at the attack on libertarianism by Bishop Jamie Soto.”

Could you elaborate more on what Bishop Jamie Soto said?  Is there a link anywhere to his remarks?

Good comments especially RC.  Good to see so many peoople “get it”.  I do wish bishops would stick to the salvation of souls and let Mr. Ryan do his job. DJ, your second paragraph made me laugh - so true.

Perceived as partisan? Bishop Blaire did everything save call out the Inquistors, pull out his bell, book, and candle, and excommunicate Mr. Ryan.  His wholesale and callous dismissal of the Ryan plan was appalling. Since when has socialism been a component of Catholic social thought? Where is Bishop’s Blaire’s condemnation of Catholics who are not doing their sworn Christian duty to aid those in need directly?

The good Bishop seems to forget that Christ called upon us as people to practice charity, not governments. I challenge the learned Bishop to show me one Gospel passage that compelled Rome to remember an obligation to the poor and needy. In Fact, the CCC is pretty clear on the role of the state:

“Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.” CCC 2431.

My wife and I support our Catholic Charities and the Diocesan Appeal. We also support other charities that we believe will be good shepards of our generosity. It is apparent that government is rarely as good at lifting people out of want and need. Indeed, it is in the government’s best interest to KEEP people in need. Generational poverty is the lubricant that fuels the vast bureaucracies of the welfare state.

If a social welfare program has failed to lift people out of need for three or four generations, who in their right mind would say it is effective? I guess Bishop Blaire does.

Instead of excoriating a politician who is seeking to restore responsibility to a government whose spending is out of control, the good bishop would have been better served excoriating the wealthy who don’t donate their money wisely. There are a lot of ‘cultural Catholics’ in the public life - Courtney, DeLauro, Pelosi, Biden, and many more - who are in a position to do a lot to actually address these social problems. There are a lot of ‘rank-and-file’ Catholics who are quite content to vote for politicians who will support increased welfare programs - why not? If they are paying income tax, it’s less trouble then them actually having to do something.

Government social welfare is polluting our culture. It allows people to abrogate their responsibility to the poor and needy by simply saying “my taxes will pay to help the poor.” And many actually think that’s acceptable.

I wrote an essay on charity some time ago http://catholic-citizen.com/secularfront/when-giving-becomes-a-sin/

Are the bishops listening to these comments? If so, will they disregard them or take them to heart?

To respect differences is commendable.  To avoid addressing the plight of nearly 4,000 human preborn babies who are daily killed by abortion is unacceptable.  Who of the LCWR leaders have or has addressed this?
How many of the LCWR leaders uphold and speak out on the value and basic family unit being based on marriage between one man and one woman? Do the “Nuns on the Bus”?

Religous Catholic women have done marvels in the past and in the present in providing spiritual, health care, educational and social services in our/their “preferential option for the poor.”

I support Paul Ryan’s plan supporting the principle of subsidiarity. This is perhaps one of the most crucial and most misunderstood in Catholic social teaching. According to the principle of subsidiarity, decisions should be made at the lowest level possible and the highest level necessary.