Washington (EWTN News) — Despite a few positive developments from the recent debt-ceiling agreement, the budget debates were mostly discouraging in their lack of concern for the poor, the U.S. bishops’ conference said.
“This debate demonstrated the partisan, ideological and dysfunctional polarization that dominates Washington,” said John Carr, executive director of the conference’s department of Justice, Peace and Human Development. “It wasn’t pretty, and it isn’t over.”
“While the crisis of default was averted,” Carr added, “for advocates of poor and vulnerable people, this debate was disappointing, ominous, and just a beginning.”
The debate over the federal debt ceiling officially ended on Aug. 2, as the Senate voted 74-26 to approve a bill that President Obama signed soon after.
In an Aug. 3 statement, Carr first noted the debate’s positive aspects, recalling how the bishops’ conference joined with “an unprecedented group” of dozens of Christian leaders and communities. Together, they urged legislators to protect the poor and vulnerable both locally and internationally.
He also praised the final deal for including a “crucial provision” to exempt low-income programs from automatic cuts that would take effect if a special congressional committee cannot agree on the next round of required deficit reductions.
“This was one of the last issues resolved and means that Medicaid, food stamps, child nutrition, unemployment compensation, the earned income and child tax credits, and other core low-income programs will not be automatically cut if the committee cannot reach agreement,” Carr said.
Despite this advancement, however, Carr said that, ultimately, the “deal fell short.”
The legislation “did not reflect the criteria called for by the bishops in their letters to and meetings with policymakers,” which included “fulfilling the demands of justice and moral obligations to future generations; controlling future debt and deficits; and protecting the lives and dignity of those who are poor and vulnerable.”
Instead, the legislation will require major cuts to discretionary programs, largely affecting needy individuals and families. Carr said these programs, along with international development and other poverty-focused programs, “remain particularly vulnerable to major cuts, with all their human costs and moral implications.”
Additionally, Carr noted, one provision of the final agreement would require that roughly $4 billion be cut from “security” spending for 2013. However, the legislation defines “security” to include not just the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, but also the State Department and USAID budgets.
“Under this unique arrangement, all international humanitarian, development, health and refugee resources are in direct competition with funds for military and homeland security.”
“This means,” he added, “that the already vociferous resistance to major reductions in Pentagon spending could require even greater cuts in international assistance to the sick and hungry around the world.”
Carr also said that fears of cuts to poverty-focused international development and humanitarian assistance are “well founded,” since the House Committee on Appropriations already proposed cutting these programs in fiscal year 2012 by 13%, in addition to the 8% cut last year.
He stressed that both the U.S. bishops and Catholic Relief Services “have called these deadly cuts unwise, unjust and unnecessary.”
“In August and throughout the fall, we will all need to raise our voices and make our case that it would be wrong to further cut programs that serve those with the greatest needs in our own country and around the world.”
Comments
Post a Comment
This was the first step on the way to the balanced budget. Bringing the budget in balance will unleash the creative forces of a free-market economy. That economy gives you the lowest unemployment rate, which provided most jobs for all, including the poor. The out of control spending approach has brought us a horrendous unemployment rate. The best “program” for the poor is a job.
If the “disappointment” is that federal spending “cuts” (which are actually just smaller increases) will leave the poor without necessary support, what is the answer? Provide the necessary support to the poor yourselves. I am disappointed that the USCCB continues to confuse federal largesse (the taking of one person’s money and giving it to another) with charity (aid given to those in need out of love of them and love of Christ). If the poor need support, we need to provide it VOLUNTARILY. Public welfare programs have usurped the proper role of charity in our society. Sadly, it’s probably going to take an economic collapse to get things straightened out.
With all due respect, I’m curious as to what kind of cuts would fulfill the conditions the bishops set forth? They seem to be saying that we need to decrease the debt burden on our children and grandchildren by making no cuts at all. Oh, excepting the military, of course. I’ve got news: it is impossible to reduce our debt by cutting the military only. Cuts to and restructuring of entitlements and discretionary “aid” programs have to happen. Further, I’m perplexed by the complaints of cuts at the end of the article. In this era of baseline budgeting, the “cuts” Mr. Carr is bemoaning aren’t real cuts, only a cut in the rate of growth. In other words, we’re still increasing spending to those programs, just at a slower pace than before.
I don’t have any problem with the bishops worrying about the poor. But this criteria they’ve set really strikes me as a “have your cake and eat it, too” position that ignores the root problem here. Even disregarding the economic implications of “additional revenues,” there is no rate of tax increase on “the rich” that will get us enough to keep spending the way we are. Cutting out the entire military and every teapot museum or other nonsensical project still leaves us deeply in the hole. Cuts to and restructuring of entitlements and “aid” programs are either going to happen (and I’d like to see the bishops start preparing the local communities to pick up the slack when they come) or we are going to see a collapse. The latter of which will be significantly more devastating to the poor than the former.
Hmm, I struggle as a Catholic on the position of the USCCB here.
Shouldn’t our commitment to helping the poor be something that springs from our neighborhoods, non-profits, communities and churches? Not the government?
Archbishop Dolan has talked about the principle of subsidiarity and solidarity. There exists a healthy tensions here… This article however paints the USCCB’s position rather one-sided…
Isn’t increasing our debt immoral?
Its NOT the government’s job to feed the poor. It is ours as Christians and mankind! We in financial turmoil - the government needs to cut spending and pay for programs that are outlined in the constitution. Leave the charity to the people!!! You don’t like it when the government pays for things that go against our faith - you can’t complain about that then turn around and complain they aren’t spending enough on the poor. If you want a socialist country then please go somewhere else. Give to Cesar what is his give to God what is His! I want to be the one to give what I want to whom I want and help who I want -not the government in my name. Look at the horrible results of jobless benefits and welfare! Let the PEOPLE give - we are generous and caring - not the government in the name of the people!
Good grief. I’m losing more respect for the USCCB every year.
1) There are no real cuts anywhere, only “promised” ones that wouldn’t supposedly take effect until after the next round of elections are safely past.
2) Congress has attempted to do an end run around the Constitutional requirement that the legislature is responsible for spending, by allowing the President to simply increase the debt on his own if he determines he’s spent too much of the slush funds handed to him.
3) Mr. Carr displays his complete ignorance of economic reality by claiming the “crisis of default was averted”??
No, Mr. Carr, eventual default was made inevitable. It’s actually pretty simple.
“Default” would be the failure of the US to pay the interest on the debt.
The interest on the debt was under $200 billion last year, while the income of the US was over $2,100 billion.
Even if the US did not borrow a single dollar more, it could easily afford to pay the interest on the debt, which completely avoids the possibility of default.
Increasing the debt limit is nothing more than borrowing more money, which does nothing but increasethe total amount of debt you owe.
If you already cannot pay back your existing debt, how is increasing that debt going to make it easier to pay back?
The truth is that with default is that every increase in the federal credit card limit makes default & bankruptcy MUCH more likely to occur, which increases the inevitability that the US economy will eventually completely crash, likely taking at least half of the global economy with it.
Then instead of, say, a 5% cut in welfare, we’ll see a 100% cut, which will be far more damaging to the poor around the world.
I would urge the Church to do everything it can do to help the poor, rather than moan whether secular governments are doing a good enough job of the Church’s responsibility.
I am continually amazed how bishops are ‘the good bishop’ when they talk about abortion and gays, but bad bishops when they talk about social justice and protecting the most vulnerable among us. Catholics can and are charitable. But all of our charity cannot help those who truly cannot help themselves. Government is supposed to ‘provide for the common welfare’. We do need to care for the elderly, the disabled, the mentally and physically ill who truly can’t support themselves. To be prolife is to care about the health and welfare of our citizens. People will die without this help. It MUST be a collaboration between government and charity.
@Clair
“To be prolife is to care about the health and welfare of our citizens.”
No, Clair, that is NOT what being “prolife” is. “PROLIFE” is to be against abortion. The word was coined to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “pro-choice” back in 1973.
In 1984, Cardinal Bernadin, from the Archdiocese of Chicago, the most corrupt Democrat city in the country, got the bishops to change the meaning of prolife to include prudential judgment issues, such as those you mentioned above in your quote. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Government charity is a prudential judgment issue. The bishops have made prudential judgment equal to or superior to intrinsic evil. And that is why our country and Church is falling apart. Over half of the bishops and Catholics are registered in the pro-abortion party and vote for their candidates. Fifty-five percent of Catholics who voted in the 2008 elections voted for the pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President we are stuck with for another 16 months.
Tell me how could any politician or party who supports murdering babies and coveting other people’s goods($) ever be trusted to make moral decisions concerning anything, including your concerns for the “care about the health and welfare of our citizens?” The murder of 52,000,000 babies and the pro-abortion party’s economic policies have ramifications that are affecting our nation economically and are requiring substantial budgetary corrections to save the programs the working people have paid into and were promised. Failure of the elected officials to take the actions necessary to save those programs will make things far worse for the “health(care) and welfare of our citizens” than if they make the necessary budget and deficit decisions you and the bishops are whining about. If it means some living off the taxpayers having to make adjustments to compensate for lost services, that’s the price you pay for politicians who use the poor as puppets to gain their powers to control other peoples lives. I don’t ever remember any teachings of Jesus that directed his followers to get governments the do what he directed them to do themselves. No politician or government is going to heaven because of his coveting people’s property to give to others. But, such politicians and governments can make everybody’s lives more miserable as this Catholic bishops-clergy-laity-supported-President and Democrat members of Congress are proving. The bishops should close down the USCCB, and with the money saved every month not having to pay the 350 member Washington D.C. staff, start helping the poor and needy with those funds.
Oh, by the way, why do you think Cardinal Bernardin of the Archdiocese of Chicago wanted to add prudential judgment issues to the definition of the intrinsic evil issue of abortion? According to him – “it would keep prolife movement from falling completely under control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” And why do you think that was a concern to the good Cardinal of Chicago? Could it be to save the pro-abortion Democrat Party? Well, it worked – and our nation is suffering the consequences ever since – Jimmy Carter and Iran going from a secular U.S. ally to a radical Islamist nation that has murdered thousands of Americans and who are developing a nuclear bomb and will blow Israel out of existence as well as us if they can; Bill Clinton and his Attorney General’s office threatening the banking and mortgage lending companies with government lawsuits if they didn’t make it easier for poor and low income people to get loans to buy houses, resulting in the sub-prime loans that caused the financial housing market problems, loss of wealth in workers’ retirement portfolios, and consequently higher unemployment, all of which we have been dealing with since 2008 as a result of the Carter and Democrat Congress enactment of the Community Reinvestment Act (1978) used by Clinton to make those threats to the bankin g and mortgage industries; and then there is - Barak Obama – what more needs to be said about what a failure he is. Thanks, Catholics, for your faithfulness to the teachings of the pope on intrinsic evil vrs prudential judgment. NOT!
@stilbelieve, WOW-I thought being prolife was being for life from conception to natural death——I think you are redefining what the Catholic Church says. It is NOT just being anti-abortion!!! What about the baby who is born but whose parents don’t have health insurance? Or the insurance companies who previously dropped the insurance for a baby/child with too many health problems? I dont’ think insurance companies can do that anymore, thank goodness. But they can still drop adults. Do you have health insurance? I do. But I have friends who don’t. That means when they have a health issue they delay going to the doctor because they can’t pay the money for the office visit. And they don’t have the money to pay for the prescription that would need to be filled every month. That delay can mean the difference between life and death (heart attacks and strokes that could have been prevented). An issue that can be easily managed (blood pressure or high chlorestral) with the right drug, or heart attacks and death when it is delayed. These people are the working poor. They don’t qualify for medicaid, and aren’t old enough for medicare. Prolife is caring about all life, not just in the womb. The Catholic Church says prolife is from conception to natural death. Prove to me otherwise….I am floored that you think being prolife is ONLY about being against abortion!!!
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.