WASHINGTON — Last month, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., described Capitol Hill’s escalating budget standoff as “Big Abortion vs. American Taxpayers.” That forecast turned out to be prescient: The showdown ended late April 8, after Republicans agreed to a truce on their effort to defund Planned Parenthood in exchange for Democratic budgetary concessions.
The agreement was cemented just two hours before a deadline for shutting down the federal government. While both parties sought to claim victory, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was seen as the biggest winner, and he heralded the “largest real-dollar-spending cut in American history.”
The speaker’s pro-life allies, however, vented frustration with the decision to back off on the Planned Parenthood defunding effort against strong pressure from Planned Parenthood and its supporters on Capitol Hill.
The agreement forced the Democrats to accept a total of $38 billion in federal spending cuts this year. Republicans also won two other small but significant victories: a revived ban on federal funding of abortions in the District of Columbia and new federal funds for a District school voucher initiative discontinued soon after the 2008 election led to Democratic control of the House.
Key details of the plan have yet to be spelled out, and while Republicans joined forces to support Boehner, fissures were soon apparent in the GOP’s united front.
Over the weekend, Pence, a top pro-life congressman, defended Boehner on ABC’s This Week but stopped short of endorsing the deal. “I want to see the language in the bill. I think John Boehner has a good deal, but it’s probably not good enough for me to support it,” said Pence, the author of the amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. Pence was traveling and could not be reached for comment.
Disappointment With Boehner
The 11th-hour negotiations yielded new federal policy on abortion and vouchers for the District of Columbia. Mayor Vincent Gray attacked the move as an unwarranted intrusion of the federal government into the internal affairs of his city. Gray and several D.C. Council members were arrested for civil disobedience during a protest yesterday.
But the new federal policies were expected to win approval from the Archdiocese of Washington, though Church administrators were awaiting details of the voucher-funding plan for students seeking to attend private schools, including inner-city parochial schools. On March 30, Cardinal Donald Wuerl endorsed a voucher plan Boehner had advocated.
Christa Lopiccolo, executive director of the Department of Life Issues at the Archdiocese of Washington, was more forthcoming about the reinstatement of the ban on federal funding of abortion in the District. She applauded the decision to ban federal funding of abortions in the city as the right response to “the highest abortion rates in the nation.”
“Women who are struggling with the difficulties of an unintended pregnancy do not need more abortions; they need compassionate care and more access to the services that make it possible for them to care for their children,” Lopiccolo said.
The Susan B. Anthony List, which helps to elect pro-life women to legislative positions and collaborated on the campaign to defund Planned Parenthood, greeted the budget deal with dismay. “The negotiations last week were all about spending and budget cuts. We lost the fight to defund Planned Parenthood before we even knew it,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the SBA List.
“The battle was really over when the speaker stopped pushing for this and undermined his own political leverage by publicly stating that he would not shut down the government over this issue,” she charged.
Planned Parenthood in Spotlight
Dannenfelser described the tactical retreat of House pro-lifers, including the speaker, as a “bitter disappointment.” But some of her political allies suggested the pro-life movement has reason to be proud of its incremental victories over the last couple of months.
“The cutoff of federally-funded abortion in D.C. will save lives — over 1,000 abortions a year will be prevented by the policy won by Speaker Boehner,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
Johnson noted that the political campaign against Planned Parenthood educated the public about the organization’s primary emphasis on abortion, rather than other health services for women — as its recent media campaign had asserted.
“More than ever before, Planned Parenthood is in the spotlight for its role in funding abortion, the way they deal with minors, and other allegations raised against them,” Johnson said. “One-half of the legislative branch has voted to cut off the organization from all funding sources. Planned Parenthood is on the defensive.”
That said, Johnson acknowledged that Planned Parenthood still possesses “formidable resources, including a President who is willing to do anything needed to support the organization.”
Indeed, while the Democratic leadership, and much of the media, presented the last week of the budget fight as evidence of the GOP’s willingness to go to extremes to block abortion funding — and thus delay a resolution to the budget crisis — Republicans and their allies suggested that the opposite scenario was closer to the truth.
“What was clear,” said Pence on ABC, “is that this administration and liberals in Congress were willing to shut the government down to continue to fund abortion providers in this country. That’s the bottom line.”
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, leader of the Republican Study Committee that shepherded the Pence Amendment through the House and helped to put federally funded abortions in the District in play, established a connection between his party’s fiscal and social policy.
During a telephone conference with reporters, Jordan outlined his plan to “achieve real savings for the taxpayers and not have our tax dollars go toward abortions.”
According to one estimate, in 2009 Planned Parenthood received $360 million in federal funding.
Going on the Record
The Pence Amendment (H.R. 1, Section 4013), a measure designed to stop all federal funds going into the coffers of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its 102 affiliates, was introduced on the House floor in early February. While the Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, pro-life activists have long contended that federal dollars designated for the group’s family-planning services are fungible, and simply free up other sources of revenue to be used for abortions.
The Susan B. Anthony List and its newly elected congressional allies in the House applauded the measure, and Planned Parenthood moved into the crosshairs of the pro-life Republican majority in the House. A series of embarrassing sting videos made public on YouTube, which reportedly documented Planned Parenthood employees ignoring evidence of sex-trafficking and statutory rape, were produced by Lila Rose of Live Action and turned up the political heat.
“[W]e will not back down from stopping taxpayer funding for an organization that is directly responsible for the abortion of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies each year. If you are going to kill the unborn, you’re not getting taxpayer funding,” vowed Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., at a February press conference designed to kick-start the effort to shut down the organization’s access to federal funds.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops signaled its support for the campaign against Planned Parenthood.
“I strongly support provisions that retain all appropriations riders against abortion funding and that restore a consistent ban on such funding in the budget of the District of Columbia,” wrote Stockton, Calif., Bishop Stephen Blaire, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, in a March 4 letter to U.S. senators that outlined the conference’s budget priorities. “I hope funds now provided to organizations that perform abortions, and to programs that promote contraceptives to unmarried minors, will be redirected to meeting the basic needs of the poor.”
Planned Parenthood quickly moved to shore up its credibility, mounting a media campaign that highlighted a wide array of basic health services for women and downplayed abortion services. Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, portrayed the attack on her organization as a move that “hurts women, does not cut the deficit or fix the economy, and must be stopped.”
Democratic women in the Senate rose to Planned Parenthood’s defense: “This is an opportunity for the right wing in the House to really sock it to women,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
When Speaker Boehner and President Obama entered the final countdown before the government shutdown, pro-life GOP stalwarts sought to keep the Pence Amendment on the table. But the president repeatedly made it clear that there was “zero” chance the White House would agree to any ban on federal funding for the group.
The budget agreement requires the Senate to conduct a formal vote on defunding Planned Parenthood and Obamacare. And pro-life activists expect to use those votes to target vulnerable Democrats in the 2012 election — just as Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., was defeated in 2004, in part, because his constituents were confronted with the South Dakota lawmaker’s voting record on abortion.
Douglas Johnson suggested that the pro-life movement should focus now on retaking the Senate and the White House.
“Boehner got the best deal possible,” he insisted. “We can’t be successful in defunding Planned Parenthood unless we have a pro-life majority in the Senate and a president willing to sign the bill. The House could not have pushed harder. It was the last issue [on the table], and the president would not budge an inch.”
Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Jimmy Akin: Pope Francis and lying to save life
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Comments
Post a Comment
Best deal we could get? How about sticking to your guns? Sad, sad, sad is all I can say.
The president in- action in reference to plan parenthood was within the norm of the biblical in reference to Covil Laws The budget is in the category of civil law , not criminal laws . There are precepts under the civil law , revealed in biblical law , President Obama would not violate ( Live, Hunanity, charity)
Hate and revenge not to be cherished ( Leviticus 19:17-18)
Kindness to be shown toward immigrants ( Deuteronomy 10:18-19)
Respect to be shown toward the aged ( Leviticus 19:14)
Consideration for misfortune ( Deuteronony 22:4, Leviticus 19:32, Exodus 23:5)
A Borrowed Is not to be fealty with oppressively ( Deuteronomy 24:10-13)
Corporal Punishment Not to be excessive ( Deuteronony 25:3)
Precaution to be taken against accident ( Deuteronony 22:8)
Rights of immigrants , orphans,widows,to be especially respected ( Deuteronomy 24:17-18)
Hebrews who are enslaved o be set free, with gifts , in the seventh year ( Deuteronony 15-12-15)
Captive woman ,if taken as wife , not to be enslaved or sold, ( Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
Gleanings of field and vineyard to be left for the poor ( Deuteronomy 24:19-22)
All are to share the rejoicing of the feast of tabernacle ( Deuteronomy 16:13-15)
Levites and development persons to receive the tithe every third year( Deuteronony 14:28-29, 26:12-13, Leviticus 25:35-37)
Hebrews to release each other’s debts in the seventh year ( Deuteronomy 15:1-10)
The Christian Law of Love ( 1corinthian 13:3, Ephesians 4:31-32)
The Christian uses of riches ( 1Timothy 6:17-19)
The law of Rest in the seventh Day ( exodus 23:12)
The law of rest in the seventh year ( Leviticud 25:6-7, Exodus 23:10-11)
The subject of abortion / defunding Plan Parenthood has to with Criminal laws , according to biblical revelation , and the individual responsibility for his act , also revealed in Biblical Law. The criminal himself, and no other , must answer for his crime ( Deuteronomy 24:16) and in referencecto abortion itself ( injury to a pregnant woman ) Exodus 21:22-25
What the priests are responsible to do , is to impart the teaching of the bible ,to the nation in reference to their conduct ( the spendor of moral) the expression of that conformity to the will of a god, according to Bible teaching ,is that of doing good to other men.But blending the precepts of criminal laws with Civil Laws is cheating, it is not considered fair dealing. In these days when preachers and prophets are working for the regeneration of society, too much cannot be said concerning the ordinary virtues of justice and honesty. The average man knows the differencecbetween truth and falsehood- between honesty and dishonesty. oh! Thatbthis knowledge might be applied to every - day life. It is dishonesty to steal from everybody. Men holding offices of public trust should read the following: ” Oresident Roosevelt is not the only official in the administration who shattered a tradition. It has been the custom for years to permit the retiring vice- president to carry away the ink stand provided for his use. A very expensive onevwas placed at Mr. Fairbanks’ disposal four years ago; when his term ended last week Mr. Fairbanks surprised the secretary of the Senate of the Senate by handing him his personal check for $200.00?in payment for the stand . So tradition has gone by the board once more.”
Peace to all during this Lenten Season !!!!!!
When The Stupid Party controls The POTUS, The Senate, and The House of Representatives, they will defund P.P. and they will use their Constitutional Authority to take Abortion Cases out of the hands of the Supreme Court just like they did last time they controlled all Three Branches of Govt..
OR…
They will tell their followers that FIRST they have to balance the budget and secure Social Security while the time is ripe for a deal and THEN they can…Blab, Blah, Blah Lucy, Charlie Brown, Football
I guess Reagan and neither of the Bush’s knew that our tax dollars were being handed over to planned parenthood by the billions? All intelligent people agree the funding should stop but the question is really how did it ever start? King Phillip of Spain was said to have remarked on his deathbed “Oh that I had been born a beggar, rather than a Monarch”.
The winners? Easy, the top 2% of income earners who got their tax breaks secured in December - well before and outside of the “fiscal crisis” phoney drama of last week. The GOP made sure tey delivered that to the big money guys. Punked again….
Good point Vermont. Why was Planned Parenthood not defunded when Bush was president (first term) and Republicans had control? Why didn’t they get rid of public funding for NPR and National Institute for the Arts and a lot of other worthless programs and agencies?
If I was a political bookie, I’d put money on any bet that the Japanese will get a hold of their fall out situation faster than we’ll ever learn the full facts of what went down last Friday. Admittedly, there’s some hyperbole in my comparison. However, this isn’t a fully closed deal between the House, Senate and White House. In one respect, some wonkish “good government” purist might say tongue-in-cheek that this was a good deal all around since nobody came away fully satiated. Indeed they didn’t.
At first glance, Prolifers appear to have plenty of reasons to be disappointed with Speaker John Boehner. Truth be told, the Pence Amendment is a good idea but it was submitted at the worst possible time and sadly enough, also for the worst possible reason: personal egotism and parliamentary Machiavellianism. The Prolife Movement is about saving lives; no more, and certainly no less.
To the best of my knowledge, even private companies contracted by the Pentagon haven’t received additional subsidies for performing basic functions that can and are performed by other—even rival—firms involving in providing routine resupplies of necessary parts, logistical support, etc. Maybe it provides company bonuses to recognize efforts to reduce wasteful s pending or promote greater quality control. Surely somebody can and should set me straight if I’m off here. The point is, government bodies, be they federal, state or local, should never be in the business of simply providing subsidies to publicly-traded companies to perform routine functions such as pap smears, mammograms, etc., (in this case I’m only referring to the “non-abortion services” provided by Planned Parenthood.) It goes without saying that not a single penny should go to paying for abortions. However, because money is fungible, and so long as PPF provides direct abortion-related “services” … it only stands to reason that a penny saved by PPF from its federal subsidies to perform its non-direct abortion services also frees up another penny for the abortion side of its business operations.
Conservatives decry Public Broadcasting for its perceived “liberal bias” in covering the news and programming. A penny paid by the government to PBS, NPR that’s used in the production of a non- controversial topic, say “Click n’ Clack: Car Talk” or broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera, Nature, or even Sesame Street “frees up” a penny for a Frontline story about say, the Koch Brothers. (Don’t count on it because of Kochs’ support for various “cultural” productions and other public broadcasting shows, and neither PBS or NPR have any strong des ire to bite the hands that feed them.)
Inasmuch as I’d hate to see PBS/NPR take a heavier than deserved proportional amount of cuts, or even gouged right out of the budget, given my druthers to see the money set aside via Friday’s anti-shutdown deal to keep it in business, ( $445M for the following two years), or seeing some of its funding go to restore lost funding for programs serving the needy, there’s no question I’d rather see the poor receive the funds. Fiscal and edu-cultural liberals might be breathing easier now that one of their favorite sacred cows wasn’t defunded, but they owe it to their own deeper consciences, especially if they are believers…and if Christians…who take Jesus’ warning in MT 25:45 seriously—to ask themselves if Jesus would approve of seeing money spent on airing expensive productions that could and is often made up through private and local radio station fundraising efforts—when that money could be transferred to WIC, which lost roughly $504M, Community Health Centers , which lost $600M, IDEA, $16M, which serves children with special education needs, Substance and Mental Health Services Administration, $45M, and the National Institute for Health, $260M.
While watching the debates in the House last week, I couldn’t help noticing that many Republicans had taken to expressing loud concerns over the prospect of our men and women in uniform not getting paid should a shutdown last longer than the first pay-period. Their concern was understandably laudable. But it would’ve been far more laudable if the Republican members hadn’t been so eager to show this concern in such a virulently partisan manner; much like their forbearers’ waving of the old “bloody shirt” during the decades following the Civil War to besmirch the Democrats for their role in causing the Civil War. Translated and summed up, this was their mantra, “How dare the Democrats play politics with our brave service men and women serving in harm’s way just so they can have things their way here at home!”
I’m a former military dependent yet I was disgusted by the sight of those self-serving pols who knew full well the Pentagon would get an increase in its budget. Ah, but these boyos sure knew how to wring that shirt for all it was worth, especially when they were addressing their audiences back home. Is it me, or was it just a coincidence that most of the budget hawks happened to come from the Sunbelt where most of our bases happen to be located. Tip O’Neill was right, even with it comes to wringing and waving the bloody shirt, “All politics is local.” Sometimes shamelessly so. But did we hear nary a peep of concern for social programs needed to help the poor and middle class? Silence in their case was golden since speaking out against these cuts would’ve cost them dearly when it came to fundraising activities.
Truth be told, nobody seriously believed that our men and women serving in harm’s way or their families back home, would have to suffer from a government shut- down. Truth also be told that so long as the Republicans were willing to tuck in wedge-issue such as Pence’s … when such a salient moral issue like abortion should’ve been nothing less than a “stand alone” question for Congress to face … and this amendment was sandwiched in with a long laundry list of discretionary funding budget cuts … the GOP left itself wide open to fair charges that they were willing to play politics with the lives of unborn children, all the while, cynically enough, bellowing for severe cuts in many necessary domestic programs which all played a clear Constitutional role to help the government “insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, … “
In fairness to the Republicans, nobody would’ve wanted to seriously believe the President and his party would remain so obdurate in their defense of Planned Parenthood’s government subsidies. However strongly we’d like to believe otherwise, President Obama’s and his party’s record for the past decades since Roe v. Wade speak all too loudly for us to ignore at the peril of future unborn children. Sadly, however, the Republicans, led by its uncompromising Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), have equally behaved in an equally obdurate way, stridently calling for drastic cuts in programs that have long benefitted many young poor and pregnant mothers; and yes, saved many lives because these women realized they would have some financial help beyond the capacities of their families, friends and local churches, to feel secure enough to bring these babies into the world.
Before anybody reaches for their keyboards and starts hammering away at any notion that government should take any role in providing fiscal assistance to these brave women, they should ask themselves – What if they can’t find enough family, ecclesiastical or private community-chest support, and they’re also facing considerable pressure from family, the “fathers” and “ever-concerned friends” to abort their babies – could I live with myself knowing full well that I took such an uncompromising stand because I didn’t like the idea of having “having more money come out of my wallet” to pay for somebody else’s mistake or tough breaks? FDR’s comment about the tragedy of a full wallet groaning louder than empty bellies still holds. Must we add more emptied wombs before their appointed time because we’ve lost the ability to see beyond just our own personal needs?
I came of age during the 50s & 60s. Like so many spoiled members of my generation, I had no reason to believe my children would grow up facing diminishing economic conditions. Life and economic downturns will always pose challenges. There’ll always be individuals we need to be wary of who’ll rob us blind in a heartbeat. But I was never prepared for the day when my government, which I and so many other millions of Americans, who came of age between WW II and Vietnam, would at one day be purposely stripping itself of compassion, respect for all human dignity, and pull back from both promoting and securing the economic security and prosperity of all its citizens, regardless of age, faith, race, ethnicity, gender, economic standing, physical and mental functions. Indeed, while I was well-read on the evils of economic selfishness and the dire perils of rejecting Jesus’ instructions to not only love our neighbors as ourselves, but to demonstrate it in action, it appears that I, and so many other aging baby boomers have been caught by surprise by a new generation of more tight-fisted politicians, pundits and sadly enough, folks active in religious activities, clerics and laity alike, who are more interested in making sure everybody “at the end of the day” will be “held accountable,” and the ledger books filled, even if it means some people will have to go to bed with less not only in their bellies … but far more significantly, yet more needlessly, their kids’ bellies as well.
Who will bet against me that this is the stuff that won’t lead to a violent rebellion of sorts, even here in the good ol’ USA? When billionaires and their heirs get a free ride of nearly $700B that the rest of us will have to pay in diminished services, quality of life and reduced protections for our economic posterity? I’ll place my bet that it will, just based on what pushed Daniel Shays to put muscle n’ musket to the “enough is enough” legitimate complaints of his time.
Vermont and Terrig - why don’t you write your congress members and ask them why PPH wasn’t defund when they had control. It would be interesting to find out.
My thinking why it didn’t happen then was not enough support to go after PPH because of all the other “good things” PPH was supposedly doing, similarly to why so many Catholics vote for the pro-abortion party – because of the other “good things” they do for “the poor.” That coupled with the number of proabortion Democrats and Republicans was enough to defeat a bill.
Things have changed now thanks to the “stings” on PPH, the wasteful Democrat spending driving our country into insolvency (hurting the poor more than anybody), as well as knowing PPH makes plenty of money on their abortions.
But with all of that against PPH - it won’t happen without a government shut down. There are not enough votes to override a veto by the pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President, 55% of Catholics voted for, because of the number of pro-abortion Democrats still left in the Senate.
DCH
“The winners? Easy, the top 2% of income earners…The GOP made sure tey delivered that to the big money guys. Punked again….”
Those “2%ers” pay 40% or more of aALL personal income taxes in the country. That is not enough for you, DCH?
Besides, the GOP made sure everyone who paid personal income taxes, which is only about half of those working, were able to keep the money they were getting in their take home pay for another two years. By not ending the Bush taxs cuts of 10 years ago which has been benefitiong ALL workers those 10 years, ALL workers will continue to be able to keep their money for another two years thanks to the party that REALLY CARES about people.
Still believe, your slavish devotion to the 21st Century Bourbons is certainly consistent. BUT, yeah, you know I had a “BUT” waiting for ya ... even if your 40% figure for what they pay is accurate, you’re still talking about people who have millions, if not billions left over to still buy x number of pols to make sure they keep passing outrageous “Billions for Billionaires Bailout Bills” like the one Obama’s smarting about signing and will CHANGE if he has his way. $700B, and a lot of it was in inheritance taxes so guess what: millions and millions of us will wind up paying billions in taxes for years to come, not to mention having to live lower standards of living so the wealthy can “sleep” knowing their kids will be ENTITLED to be born between 3rd and home with no catcher guarding the plate.
BTW, how ya like THAT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM? You know Paul Ryan and his buddies, think this is just dandy. lol.
Geeesh, I wish Ryan was around when Tip was running the show. What fun O’Neill would’ve had exposing Ryan for all he is. A wealthy Irish Catholic who came from a family of Irish Catholics who evidently forgot where the hell they came from. I at least, like Tip, never have.
For StillBelieve: Here’s a couple of good articles for you about Mr. Ryan and the great times we live in: “Paul Ryan’s Bad Day,” by Andrew Leonard in Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/paul_ryan_rwis/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2011/04/13/paul_ryan_cannot_handle_the_heat) and “The Artful Dodgers: How a Dozen Multinational Corporations Spent a Billion Dollars on Lobbying and Campaign Contributions and Avoided Paying Taxes” by PublicCampaign.(http://publicampaign.org/reports/artfuldodgers) Remember Ross Perot’s old “whooshing sound” comment about jobs leaving the country due to NAFTA? Now it’s taxable cash. First jobs, now taxable cash. What will our worst capitalists who’ve given free enterprise a royal Ayn Randesque black eye by making themselves out to be shameless boardroom Benedict Arnolds, going to sell cheaply to the sleaziest sweatshop nation abroad, yank, or simply hand away…and no thanks to their lobbyist pals on K-Street get to pull this act of disloyalty off with impunity. With apologies to Barry Goldwater, “None Dare Call It Treason.” He had a libertarian streak in him, but Barry would never stand for economic treason.
Talked to a friend tonight who would likley be one of those rich people, he’s already taxed at 46% by just fed. and state taxes, he said if it goes higher he’ll put much of it in tax excempt funds and cut back on his buisness…. that’s what they’ll all do, you can’t tax the rich anymore than they already are…... one good thing here, Oboma and the democrats showed their true colors, they won’t fool anyone next time around, they won’t get the votes of any practicing Catholics or any true Christian and republicans will easily win the presidency and the saenate…... with the tea-party’s presence there won’t be any rino’s elected and planned parenthood will be defunded.
@Robert R: It’d be interesting to know which state your friend lives in. Does he pay a flat tax as in MA , or a graduated tax as in other states? What does your respective state’s capital gains tax look like? What’s your sales tax percentage. All of these factors can make a huge difference in the amount a person has to pay in taxes. Let’s not forget your state’s corporate tax rate, too. Admittedly, in some states and communities you pay higher taxes than in others. So to say a combined 46 pct. does seem very high at first sight, and worth looking into more and see how it all breaks down to see what he’s getting in return for the taxes he’s paying before jumping to conclusions. One mustn’t overlook the ideological make up of individual taxpayers as well when they complain about paying too much or that there should be higher taxes. That’s what a lot of people don’t want to touch for fear of appearing “judgmental,” thus discussions drop in quality for fears of going beyond merely appearing too politically incorrect, unpopular to simply politically impolite.
No doubt your friend has very sincere concerns for both short and long term reasons. Nor would it be proper for me to judge his private motivation for putting his money in tax exempt accounts. Moreover, I wish him the best because it appears from the way you described his situation, he falls into the vast majority of business owners, “small business.” (Those bills and obligations aren’t small!) You’d be surprised to know how many other very profitable businesses are able to qualify as “small businesses.” According to Rep. Chris Van Hollen D-MD), ranking Budge Cmte. Member, hedge fund managers, and even Price Waterhouse falls under this category. Their profits aren’t exactly small and for hedge fund managers being able to fall under the 15% tax bracket … well, we both know that has to smell and leave a bitter taste in any “regular” taxpayer’s mouth. It’s not right, especially given the recent history of what those privateers “managed” during the past three years in particular.
My question, and it’s not directed at any individual; is what happens if we all keep our money, stash all of it overseas or into some untouchable charity, etc., thus in effect, starving our respective levels of government of the funds they need to operate efficiently? How will we fund our military; state and local public safety departments, courts, prisons, water treatment plants, maintain our roads, track-beds, airports, schools, public hospitals and clinics, not to mention some of the largest functions in many states, public higher educational institutions? You can privatize some functions, but certainly not all of them. (No thanks on prisons, courts, public schools and what few remain, mental institutions.)
Rarely do I hear the biggest mouths in the pseudo conservative movement of today give much, or in some cases, any, recognition of government’s role in helping to maintain a prosperity within the private sector. If you were to ask any realtor, or even a company CEO/COO what one of the biggest, if not THE biggest considerations when money-savvy individual, couples, or corporations are contemplating a move into A, B or C state or city, public schools, followed by police and fire departments rank at the top. Maybe some notable private academies, but predominately, public schools. Why? Simple: these states and communities are concerned for their kids’ future and this in turn means they’re more likely to raise and maintain an educated workforce. Of course, this theory doesn’t always work as well even in some of the most educated states from time to time. By and large, however, it does, and it helps homeowners a great deal with they want to sell their homes later on because these homes seldom suffer precipitous drops in value. This is especially so around colleges and universities.
Similarly, you’ll rarely hear from our contemporary rightist pontificators how much the private sector is dependent on the government when it comes to job creation through direct allocation of government funds. What? Government actually creates jobs? Sarah Palin said last week, or was it for several weeks running, along with her pal, Mrs. Bachmann, that government doesn’t create jobs, only the private sector.
Really? Whether or not Palin (actually) wanted that “bridge to nowhere,” where did the private contractors who built it with their privately-built earth-moving equipment get their money to build this thing? Did they have to open up an Alaskan gold mine? Palin and Bachmann might have some trouble with that. The latter knows that if she hires somebody to work a farm owned by her family (or maybe still, her father in law), that one she received a government farm subsidy for, her hired hand got a private sector job thanks to taxpayers from all 50 states.
Want to know why the Pentagon quite largely escaped the GOP’s budget guillotine act whereas a lot of other agencies didn’t? Let me rely on my old hero, Tip O’Neill again: “All politics is local.” It’s not that the federal agencies that were chopped weren’t also located in the districts of many GOP reps who voted to cut them, but when it comes to Old Glory and bloody shirt waving time and raising money for the military … no matter how big a boondoggle a certain weapons system might be, you can rest assured that if the weapons system is slated for manufacture by numerous companies in key, (as in districts represented by ranking Members) that system will be built. And guess what, despite some of my own cynical misgivings for the much larger cynical machinations of politics Washington, style, those machinations pay off in terms of…drum roll, please…private sector jobs that could’ve ONLY resulted from the government. Thank God we don’t have private armies or defense systems. Geesh, I just let a cat out of a bag.
Guess what makes it possible for many families to find adequate nursing home care for their seniors, a severely retarded child needing full-time care, even in private facilities, and they create private sector jobs as a result of Medicaid…government spending.
How many people have been able to attend college in private schools thanks to government-backed loans and Pell Grants? How many research programs conducted in private colleges and graduate universities have been able to hire more teachers, researchers, librarians, computer assistants, et al thanks to government funding?
Robert, in your closing remarks, you mentioned something about the president not receiving “any practicing Catholics or true Christians.” Are you sure you want to go that far? Just I wouldn’t want to judge all of what your friend told you about his tax situation, why do you want to play prosecutor, jury and judge when it comes to such a huge swath of voters, especially since the GOP has only seen the likes of Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich and The Donald really come forth to show any real interest? Would Jesus who loathed people who would use their workers as mere pawns in leveraged buyout schemes as Romney did to make his millions? Would Jesus approve of Bachmann’s hypocrisy when it comes to her trash-talking people taking advantage of a federal program to avoid losing their homes to foreclosure, while she used her influence to obtain $251,973 during an 11 year span (95-06)? How would Jesus view the combined five divorces of Newt Gingrich and The Donald? Though Jesus forgives the sins of all those who humbly ask him, and I hope they did…show me in the Bible and Canon Law where it says we have to grant the same kind of spiritual forgiveness in matters of politics as we do within our Church family. The Church and her leaders are more than pleased to have Jefferson’s Wall preventing the flock from making the mistake of confusing the sacrament of Clerical forgiveness with civic punishments for hypocrisy when candidates are asking the voters to trust them and believe they’ll never put their hands back in the cookie jar of rank hypocrisy. And how would Jesus view a politician who boasted of being the “most prolife” of the field when in fact the same pol while voting to defund PP in a largely symbolic gesture, nevertheless when it came to voting for cuts with a much greater chance of standing, such as those to WIC, housing for homeless vets, drug and alcohol treatment, NIH and so forth … they gladly pulled the GOP’s guillotine lanyard.
Ah, Steven -
Look it - lets have everybody, and I mean EVEYBODY, pay at least 10% of there income for Federal taxes, graduated by 5% for every increase in income of $25K. Let’s start at earning up to $25K per year pays 10%; $50K pays 15%; $75K - 20%; $100K+ - 25% maximum tax. And everybody who wants to send the Feds more money above their maximum tax level – can. Then you and everybody like you can give as much as you want to the government so it can do all the things you want it to do. You should also be allowed to designate what you want your extra money to go for. That’s fair, don’t you think? Then that eliminates any judgmentalness some people seem have about what other people want to do with the money they earn. This seems to me to be a very Christian way to deal with this. Coveting, you know, would be avoided. What do you think?
P.S. I knew it had to be you by how well written it was, how long it was, and of coarse - the politcal slant it took…judgementalness and coveting. I read that and thought that has to be Steven before going on the NCR website to see who the author was. Glad to see you again.
StillBelieve…you have me stupified…in a positive way! As you might suspect I’m more up on jacking up the rates for the highest income brackets. Comparing your plan to that of the GOPs and especially one its “rising”(?) House “stars,” Robt. Woodall, (R-GA, Lawrenceville), who came up with his so-called “Fair Tax” ... you oughta be coaching the GOP. Maybe independent fiscal prolife lefties like myself and you could pull out a workable compromise, thus demonstrating that people CAN be Prolife and mentally functioning human beings.
Woodall’s idea would entirely kill the IRS once and for all, and replace it with a 23 pct sales tax. As I’ve mentioned before somewhere in one of our NC Register Comment debates, even George III would’ve balked at that. One of Woodall’s reasoning points is that it would help people control their spending habits. Sure would, but in a way that’d kill small retail businesses and cause even the large retailers to mutter his name with nothing less than deprecatory remarks. What a nightmare it’d be. Even the Europeans would squawk and take their tourist Euros elsewhere. Disney outside Paris would love it; the two we have would go belly up overnight. And Woodall’s said zilch so far about the impact of paying nearly a quarter on top of some state sales taxes that are already too high and disproportionately hit the poor. I’m sure you can imagine a host of other nightmare scenarios resulting from a scheme like this.
Who would really benefit from this? ONLY the wealthy because they’d still have lots left in their pockets after paying this exhorbitant/or extortionate/“fair” scam. What happens then if we kill of even what’s left of our once dominant manufacturing-to-retail-to-jobs-to-reasonably-fair structure we use to have before our manufacturing went to overseas and hell n’ gone? What happens when the stores dry up? Oh, people will be able to buy on computer. (That’s no way to buy shoes for the little ones.)
But where oh where are the Republicans and fiscal conservatives when it comes to what will really protect the American working middle class people and what little we still have of our manufacturing base? Sure, some of our companies still make earth moving equipment, Caterpillar and our trucs are still built here. But that’s not what people can carry out of a store or even delivered to their homes without facing their neighbors and a zoning battle. (LOL) What’s happened to TARIFFS?
As a crafter and soon to be (very) small businessman, I know full well what I’m getting into given how much foreign-made stuff I’ve seen hawked in crafts stores even in reputedly “upscale” towns. Without a tariff protecting all manufacturers, how can more and more Americans regain that mental spirit needed to fight-fire-with-fire economically speaking? For all the talk about “going back to the Founders/Framers’ ideas” when it comes to lawmaking, I’d sure as hell like to see some lawmaking demonstrating this in real terms by telling OUR people, be they American citizens or legal immigrants, etal trying to make the American Dream come alive for them . . . that their Congress will finally show some ECONOMIC SPINE by enacting reasonable tariff laws thus telling the rest of the world that the world’s greatest nation’s workers, their labors and the companies they work for are no longer for sale to the lowest bidder.” Adding to a tariff would be legislation filed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)stripping away any and all tax breaks for companies that yank their operations and the jobs that go with them for the sake of dodging taxes, (taxes for example that are used to pay private sector sub-contractors to maintain and expand highways that they need for the trucks that carry their products, etc.)
Not all of us are privileged to have the honor of serving our nation in the Armed Forces and those who do have earned our eternal gratitude. But civilians can become foot soldiers in this economic war for survival by waking up to what’s pressing in on us, getting off their bums and become more active in their local communities for starters to keep the American economic spirit alive. That’s subsidiarity and solidarity in the way the Church teaches. While you and I have honest disagreements over the size and width of government assistance programs, etc., I’m sure we can both agree that there’s a helluvalot of things people can do within their local communties, parishes, congregations ... you name ‘em, this nation has plenty of opportunities to help us pull this off.
Your tax proposal’s a pretty good jump towards the middle and maybe I’ll modify my ideal top tax brackets for starters. In the meantime, tell everybody this Georgia Congressman’s idea of a 23 pct sales tax on top of everything else ... is just plain nuts. Yeah, he’s right, it’ll change people’s “spending habits.” And most of the change won’t be for the better, even when it comes to just buying groceries and day to day items we all rely on. And the poor will suffer the most. If you like Georgia pecans, I hope you won’t take offense at my calling this idea Nuts because it gives a bad name to peanuts. Woodall seems to be a very likeable guy, but.. (LOL) Have a good one.
Ryan’s Medicare ideas and budget “Path to Nnowhere’sville” and Woodall’s 23 pct. unfair and nutty sales tax plan are bad enough. In fairness to both GOP Congressmen, they’ve got to get up awful early to top this gem from Rick Santorum concerning Medicare. (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/15/santorum-ryan-plan-current-seniors/)If Santorum has any chips resembling political smarts remaining, he might as well cash them right now before he goes any further than the “exploratory” stage of pursuing his presidential ambitions. Or the only thing he’ll have left to explore is the rabbit hole of yet more political impracticality.
He actually thinks Ryan hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to including the elderly, and I mean the real elderly into Ryan’s own plans. Santorum wants all seniors and young seniors between 55-63 to go on the voucher. You’re all heart, Rick. See ya.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.