-255x255.jpg "CNS photo/Jenna Isaacson, Catholic University of America")
WASHINGTON — When John Boehner arrived on the campus of The Catholic University of America as commencement speaker May 14, the Catholic speaker of the House of Representatives did so under a cloud of controversy. The media attention was the result of a well-timed, backhanded welcome letter sent by a group of professors from Catholic universities.
The letter was patronizing in tone. “We write in the hope that this visit will reawaken your familiarity with the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals as they relate to governance,” the letter said. It continued: “Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings. From the apostles to the present, the magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policymakers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.”
The letter to the Ohio Republican, a graduate of Xavier University in Cincinnati, was also confusing, presenting itself as akin to protests against President Obama being honored at the University of Notre Dame for his advocacy for legal abortion and even infanticide — giving the impression that rather than being a matter of prudential judgment, budget cuts at a time when calls are being made for renewed fiscal responsibility constitute an intrinsic evil.
What stood out, though — albeit probably lost in most of the headlines and news briefs — was that the majority of those signing the letter were not even professors at The Catholic University of America.
Claes Ryn, a professor of politics at CUA, underscored that point: “Most faculty on campus seem to have been bothered by the tone and the substance of the letter. Even some liberal Democrats would have nothing to do with it. The associate professor of politics who organized the letter, Steven Schneck, directs an institute on campus [the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies] that has been trying to shed a reputation as left-wing. He has now reinforced that image.”
Ryn also objects to the tone: “The letter is presented as an expression of Catholic sentiment, but what is Catholic about it? It is hardly the tone of the letter. The signers announce that they are not opposed to the speaker’s visit to campus. Oh no, they welcome him! They just want him to know that they regard him as a moral midget. This is the voice of Catholic conscience?”
The Principle of Solidarity
Seeking to provide some clarity after media frenzy about the commencement letter, Ryn said in an e-mail: “The signers of the letter present a strained, truncated version of Catholic social thought. They are, of course, correct that Jesus showed great empathy for the poor and told us to care for them. The poor, he said, you will always have among you. But when he admonished us to be charitable, he was addressing the conscience of individuals, calling upon them to act. We should love ‘neighbor,’ people up close who have names and faces. This is something quite different from exuding a merely sentimental and self-applauding ‘caring’ for abstract and distant collectives like ‘the poor’ and ‘the downtrodden.’ Individuals and local communities are sometimes unable to handle social problems at the grassroots, but here a central principle of Catholic social thought comes into play, and it is one that the signers of the letter simply ignore: It is the principle of subsidiarity.”
“This principle says that, whenever possible, social problems should be addressed by those most directly concerned,” Ryn explains. “Only when people at the grassroots are quite unable to manage on their own, should groups and associations further away become involved. In America, more than in most countries, there is a proliferation of intermediate associations, including churches, that have traditionally assisted the poor. To the extent that their efforts have been deemed insufficient, municipal and county governments have stepped in. Further away, but capable of action, are the state governments. The principle of subsidiarity advocates a maximum of neighborliness and localism and opposes centralization as destructive of humane relations. In their highly selective and self-important use of Catholic social teaching, the signers of the letter disregard all this. The problem of poverty must be handled just as they deem appropriate or the approach violates Catholic conscience.”
He added: “And what does Catholic social teaching demand? That poverty be handled by the federal government of the United States — the authority most distant of all from those affected. To present this view as the Catholic view shows moral-spiritual and intellectual myopia.”
And Ryn is far from alone. On campus, in the politics department at CUA, there were other dissenters from the letter.
“I have no objection to faculty speaking their minds; it is, after all, what they are paid to do in a certain way. However, I did find the letter somewhat gratuitous, leaving the signatories open to the accusation of selectivity in the target of their critique,” David Walsh, another CUA professor of politics and former department chairman and author of After Ideology: Recovering the Spiritual Foundations of Freedom, tells me. “It might just as easily have been signed by ‘Catholics for Obama.’ Besides, one could make the argument that not caring about the fiscal decline of the United States is particularly irresponsible in regard to the most vulnerable members of society who depend on government support.”
A Layman’s Testimony
In his commencement speech, Boehner did not respond to the letter or controversy, instead presenting a layman’s testimony to the role his Catholic faith and prayer have played in his life. Boehner highlighted the importance of humility and patience.
“[CUA] has prepared you in a way no other institution can,” he told the graduates. “The focus of your development here has been getting you to grapple more with who you want to be than what you want to be. You’ve been challenged to think rationally and to use your heart and your conscience to guide your words and your actions.” He added: “Of course, to whom much is given, much is expected. That’s why each of you must be willing to work hard and make the sacrifices necessary to succeed. Let me tell you, there are no apps for these skills …”
This non-direct response to the letter frustrated Schneck, as you might expect. From Rome, where he was attending a conference on Pope John XXIII’s 1961 encyclical Mater et Magistra (On Christianity and Social Progress), Schneck responded to the speech: “Naively, I truly hoped that the speaker’s thinking might have been awakened by our letter and the crazy media frenzy about it. … At the very least, he could have offered a standard argument for how his policies help the poor, via subsidiarity, the miracle of the market, trickle-down, or whatever.”
Schneck did add: “I honor the speaker for his other good work, for his opposition to abortion, for his support of Catholic education, and so forth. I remain hopeful that the way forward lies through rebuilding compassionate conservatism and moral progressivism.”
Speech Drawn From Struggle
Others were more receptive to the commencement speech and to Boehner himself. “He gave a very warm human speech, much of it drawn from his own struggle to lead a Christian life. I thought it was appropriate and moving,” David Walsh says. “It was full of the kind of concrete advice that we all can use, especially newly minted graduates as they begin to make their way in the world. There was really no discussion of political or policy issues, and certainly no partisan posturing. So I was delighted he came, especially since he is an eminent Catholic public official.”
And graduating senior Alexandra Smith, a politics major from Bryn Mawr, Pa., and former chairwoman of the CUA College Republicans, said of the controversy: “I thought it was absolutely absurd, and I am so ashamed to say that I have had a few of the professors who signed the letter. If these professors wanted a genuine dialogue about Catholic social teaching, they would have raised their opposition back in April” when Boehner was first announced as commencement speaker. Smith continued, “Putting out a letter 72 hours before the commencement ceremony was a clear attempt to both seek media attention and to disrupt the occasion.” She added: “What really made me angry was when a Washington Post reporter essentially crashed the event by taking advantage of a 10-minute pause between the commencement and degree ceremonies and specifically told the person sitting next to me, ‘We’re looking for students opposed to Boehner’ and proceeded to ask him questions like: ‘Do you believe that the budget cuts reflect Catholic social teaching?’”
Mission accomplished. One student told the Post: “His policies reflect different values than the values of social-work professionals, which are to help people who are poor, vulnerable and repressed.”
Not a Party Issue
Maria Sophia Aguirre, professor of business and economics at CUA, puts the situation in further perspective: “The principles of the social doctrine of the Church (the dignity of the human person, solidarity and subsidiarity, the common good) as well as the preferential option for the poor, are perennial principles. Therefore they are to be lived and applied by all and at all times; it is not a party issue. The concrete implementation of these principles — in the case of our discussion, the welfare-policy recommendations and programs — is a matter left to the freedom and responsibility of each Christian.”
“Under the present economic conditions,” she continues, “the reality of the needs of so many families who are suffering its consequences is presented to us in a special acute way. ... And yet, this does not necessarily mean that cutting funding or reallocating it necessarily means rejecting the preferential option for the poor or any other principle of the social doctrine of the Church. Just like it does not necessarily mean that allocating more funds for welfare programs will ensure that the needs of these families will be met, especially if we are to respect the principle of the fundamental dignity of each person. One could perhaps argue that such programs could at times violate it and even foster behavior that harms the good of the person and of society as a whole.”
As it happened, though, the broadside released before the commencement wound up being just the beginning of a renewed focus on what exactly Catholic social teaching means on a practical level, in a Washington in moral crisis, economically and otherwise. Later in the week, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s office released a refreshing exchange between him and Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, now president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, on just that.
Ryan-Dolan Exchange
In reply to Ryan, a Catholic from Wisconsin, Archbishop Dolan took the principle of subsidiarity more seriously than Schneck had taken it: “The principles of subsidiarity and solidarity are interrelated to one another. The late Pope [John Paul II] reminded us that ‘… 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. (Centesimus Annus 48).’ Thus you rightly pointed out Pope John Paul’s comments on the limits of what he termed the ‘Social Assistance State.’”
Archbishop Dolan continued: “Your letter is correct in observing that the Church makes an essential contribution to society when she raises up moral principles to help guide and inform decisions about public policy in a compelling way. We bishops are very conscious that we are pastors, never politicians. As the Second Vatican Council reminds us, it is the lay faithful who have the specific charism of political leadership and decision (Lumen Gentium 31; Apostolicam Actuositatem 13). The high call to public service which you have nobly answered entitles you and all our elected officials to our respect and constant prayer. Thanks to you and your colleagues for accepting that call.”
The exchange promises to be — and ought to be — indicative of a new collaboration, free of conventional considerations and even partisan biases often encouraged by media, political and staff presumptions about parties and critics.
Speaker Boehner responded to the Ryan-Dolan exchange in a statement: “I welcome Archbishop Dolan’s letter and am encouraged by the dialogue taking place between House Republicans and the Catholic bishops regarding our budget, the ‘Path to Prosperity.’ Our nation’s current fiscal path is a threat to human dignity in America, offering empty promises to the most vulnerable among us and condemning our children to a future limited by debt. We have a moral obligation as a nation to change course and adopt policies that reflect the truth about our nation’s fiscal condition and our obligation to future generations, and to offer hope for a better future. Our duty to serve others compels us to strive for nothing less. As Chairman Ryan notes in his letter to the archbishop, Americans are blessed to have the teachings of the Church available to us as guidance as we confront our challenges together as a nation.”
Boehner’s statement was clearly not the “rethink” that Schneck — my former politics professor — was looking for, but part of a conversation that may bring a whole new bipartisan seriousness to the dialogue about what, exactly, social justice is.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a nationally syndicated columnist. She is a graduate of The Catholic University of America.
Dan Burke: Call to Prayer: Seven Resources for your Lenten Journey
Comments
Post a Comment
For those on the Left, the concern isn’t so much that the poor receive assistance; the concern is that *wealth is redistributed*, that is, that revenue in the hands of wealthier individuals and entities is appropriated by agencies of the federal government, and that this revenue is then distributed, preferably in the form of cash, to disadvantaged persons.
This action on the part of the government is partly about assisting the poor, no doubt, but it is most especially about maintaining the reliably solid preference for Democratic candidates among poor and working-class voters.
From the point-of-view of many on Left, assistance to poor families that comes from non-federal resources, from Church, private organizations and individuals is a distraction from the real business at hand: it gets in the way of shoring up poor and working-class voters’ political support for the Democratic Party.
It is said that the worst form of child abuse is overindulgence. Apply that to our government spending and creating a give-me dependent society. The Democrats especially want to have a large contingent of people who are beholden to them, so they can expect their votes at election time.
We have a terrible example with our House Representative Marcie Kaptur in northwest Ohio. She continually brings back money to our district in projects whether we want them or not. One observer commented—let’s just build a giant statue to her and get it over with. Thus she can say she has supplied her district, via her influence. Little does it seem to matter that the money is the taxpayers’, and not hers. It is like Oprah giving away cars—but they came directly from the car dealers, and the people had to pay monumental taxes to receive them ( and could not afford them).
The Bible and Jesus advocated that the richman to aid the poor—not the government. Good stewardship is also advocated in the bible—handling one’s money and riches well. That does not mean to throw it at political causes to satisfy promised pay-backs.
The continued expansion of government welfare programs will ultimatly end in a socialist state like China. Is that what the Catholic social teaching is promoting?
This is a profound article that should be read and considered by all. In many ways our politics has become the practice of symbolism over substance. Its practice has the capacity to morph good (love thy neighbor) into evil (enslave thy neighbor). This practice is ever more appealing because it provides the appearance of doing good (for which politicians and their supporters receive much credit, aggrandizement and self-satisfaction) when the real objective is to win voters, both those who are recipients of the largess as well as those who wish to maintain separation from those they pity or even loathe. It is made easier because the taxpayer is powerless, except through the ballot, to refuse. Publicizing the letter to the Speaker is designed, partly, to maximize confusion at the polls.
We are admonished by God to love our neighbor and in the exercise of that effort we are the recipients of grace. As the government appropriates more and more of what we can give to assume that role, the opportunity for that grace is diminished. In addition, with government as his benefactor, the recipient no longer feels the love of his neighbor, but rather a feeling of dependence, entitlement and resentment when the government does not provide what the recipient feels he needs. Those who receive charity from their neighbors are more likely to do whatever they can to be less of a burden and are more likely to be truly thankful for the love of their neighbors.
In a perfect world, we would need no government to provide for the less fortunate. Local communities would take care of their own. Unfortunately, many factors, in addition to government, have worked to create large pockets of the truly needy whose needs cannot be met by local resources alone. Exploding deficits jeopardize all, and cuts in all functions of government that are not in government’s basic purview must be made. At the same time, an astounding effort will be called for to bring the care of our less fortunate neighbor under the wing of our local communities and their immediate organizations. While government is charged with rendering equal treatment under the law, it is a poorly chosen vehicle to best recognize the fundamental dignity of each person.
Scripture is filled with examples to guide our actions. I would rather see an effort to return us to that mindset than one that effectively perpetuates the dehumanization of our least fortunate.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.” (Para 1885). The professors who wrote this insulting and scandalous letter, represent, not Catholic Social teaching, but rather the historically and morally bankrupt thinking of the Socialist Culture of Death Elitists who currently reign supreme on so many college campuses, in popular culture and in our political bureaucracies. They attempt to camouflage their promotion of abortion, homosexual activity, and euthanasia by pretending to have a bias for the “poor”. This is the same camouflage employed by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and Castro. Their policies lead only to physical and spiritual death.
There is a difference in the people helping the unfortunate and the Government doing it. Subsidiarity is the main thing. Help needs to be done on the lowest level either individual or county Government, then State Government and very,very little by Federal Government.
Jesus told the rich young man to sell his possessions and give his money to the poor, He did not tell him to sell his possessions and give the money to Herod to give to the poor. I read an interesting article in “The American Conservative” (Pat Buchanan’s magazine a few months ago which tried to address this idea that the Government should do all. The wealthy used to live throughout the country with people of lesser means. They knew their duty to help the lesser fortunate and did it themselves. Now “The Rich” live in a few dense areas, “The Blue Counties” and have lost sight of the poor. They would rather pay taxes to the Federal Government then give to charities that do good and/or do works of charity themselves. They would rather put their elderly parents in a nursing home then take care of them themselves.
The poor is an inherent consequence of the social structure, just as the attitude is explicitly obvious when referring to the ‘poor’ as a lowly entity. The poor is also referred to the lack of understanding that is objective in human relations. It is when these structural and personal obstacles are removed that people shall be given fair opportunities to help themselves irrespective of culture or status.
Having been singled out for criticism from among the eighty signers of the letter addressed to Speaker Boehner, allow me the opportunity to point to the following five statements from the American bishops (published since February) that raise the same concerns about cuts to programs for the poor that we faculty members raised in our letter.
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-094.shtml
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/2012-Budget-Letter-to-House-04-13-11.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/Final-2011-CR-letter-Domestic-Senate.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/Final-2011-CR-Budget-letter-Domestic-House.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/Hill Notes Budget Protect the Poor Feb 2011 final.pdf
I urge Catholics to read these statements. We can be sure that our bishops fully understand all the principles of Catholic social teaching. The profound concern in the above statements about cuts to existing governmental programs that support the poor speaks for itself. Let me reiterate: I urge Speaker Boehner to endorse the Circle of Protection as advocated by our bishops to protect critical programs for the poor from cuts.
The Catholic left’s version of “Social Justice"is not the true teaching of the Church. Is it better to have more and more people expecting and demanding to be taken care of by government or for a healthy economy and people actually working? Is it better for the USA to go bankrupt by the excessive borrowing and spending in Washington? The Church has never endorsed Socialism…...where people are dependent on the government for everything. That is exactly the direction Obama and the Democrats are pushing. Under Obama the poverty rate has increased. They conveniently forget about the poorest of the poor…...the unborn. The Catholic League stated on this subject:
“The most oppressed among us are the unborn. Schneck, it should be noted, signed a letter in 2009 praising the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services. She defends the killing of babies who are 80 percent born, was the proud recipient of tens of thousands of dollars from George Tiller, the king of partial-birth abortion, and was openly denounced by the last three archbishops of Kansas City. Moreover, Schneck supported the Obama health care bill over the objections of the bishops. Fidelity anyone?”
“...the magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor”.
When did “preference” become a verb? This is bureaucrat-speak. But nowadays it typical of academics whose purpose has become preparing students from comfortable circumstances to be employed in one of the bureaucracies.
Suprema lex salus animarum. The saving of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Do you doubt it? Ask then why so many poor people prefer the Pentecostal Churches?
Today’s fiscally conservative Catholic pols, particularly men like Paul Ryan (R-WI) who imposed his preference for Ayn Rand on his staff (some choice for a Catholic! LOL!) have a tendency to interpret subsidiarity’s more localized approach for massive cutbacks in Federal funds, which in turn force states to pull back massively on their programs, which in turn also put the squeeze on muncipal programs; not to mention what massive cutbacks have also done directly to curtail Catholic social agencies ... which tossing the poor a few coins and smugly calling it “doing one’s daily act of corporeal mercy.”
The poor can’t print their own money. The Church isn’t allowed to print currency. Nor can municipalities, regional authorities and states. Guess where this takes us all back to?
Even the the most tightfisted GOPers like Ryan whose idea of constructing a health care plan for the poor, elderly and disabled is to toss out vouchers as if they were candy for kids at Christmas and doggie treats to keep our mutts pacified, as well as trained.
One must learn not to bark too loudly in this age of shrinking compassion and rising oligarchs.
Well, this social conservative with a fiscally liberal heart knows how to bark and BITE and he won’t be pacified or “house broken” by any pol or Washington, DC, fiscally conservative pundit bringing home a very handsome income (after taxes.)
Any other Catholics who know what subsidiarity is really all about instead of what Ryan gets from Ayn Rand and his other pal in Washington besides Boehner: Grover Norquist who’s sole dream in life is to drain the bathtub of government and/or strangle our social safety net as well.
I won’t say Lopez is “less a Catholic” because of her divergent views on this subject. There’s a Pharisee anvil choir all packed for that purpose on a variety of other subjects. But she could stand to take a few more lessons when it comes to the Church’s teachings…and not just from the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute or Acton Institute. Hmmm, sure seems like a lot of crazy ideas without foundation come out of those institutes.
Boy, if Ryan’s dog-bone Medicare voucher replacement “courageous idea” provides a morsel taste of what’s to come if we just sit, wag our tails and be good obedient mutts, what wonders will they toss our way when they start pulling their real blackmail tools when the battle royale of dogfights about raising the debt ceiling finally occurs?
I just loved this line: ” . . . The media attention was the result of a well-timed, backhanded welcome letter sent by a group of professors from Catholic universities.” Hopefully Mr. Boehner didn’t sob too many tears over that letter ... notwithstanding Ms. Lopez’ mistaken view, is a hell of a lot more than he deserved. Silence would’ve sufficed as well.
The conservative wing of the cafeteria Catholics are loading up their trays. Should be a fun time this summer.
I am sick and tired of people in politics (of both parties) who try to cleave the gospels down the middle and take the half that gives moral justification for everything they do while ignoring the rest of what Jesus said.
If you’ve ever read Evangelium Vitae, you know very well that the Holy Father was uncompromising on matters such as abortion, euthanasia and the creation and slaughter of human embryos for research. You will also know that he also said that a Culture of Life requires more than that; that it requires social justice in the name of the poor, the helpless, the battered, the raped, the enslaved and the other forgotten and exploited people of this planet.
Did Jesus say do it unto others before they do it to you first? Was there something in the Beatitudes I missed about blessed are the exploiters, the violent, the robber barons? Does the cross mean anything to some of the people who post here besides your personal get out of jail free card as regards the few of your sins that you chose to admit are sins?
These professors were correct to write that letter. More politicians of both parties need to be reminded that the Gospels of Christ are to be taken as a whole and not cherry picked for the positions that agree with what they want to do anyway. The gospels are, or should be, an indictment to all of us about our sinfulness. They should not be used as a tool to be edited and shaped to use as moral justifier for the political advancement of secular political parties and their practitioners.
What disturbs me most is that there are so many priests who support this blasphemy and who have obviously taught a good number of the posters on this site to do the same. I am disturbed, not by the various political opinions on this site, but by the ugliness of the way they are being advanced. What’s wrong with you people? Who told you that bitterness, cynicism and hatred for those you disagree with were righteousness?
It would have been helpful if Lopez would have drawn more from the cosigners of the letter. She spends too much effort on only a couple of “objectors” and doesn’t get to the main issues at hand, which is the Republican Party’s assualt on the middle class and poor.
PLEASE, there is no assault by republicans on the poor. Please speak to the 50 million babies who are DEAD because of Democratic and liberal catholics support for those politians and policies. Feed all the poor you want and these babies will still be dead. These academics still don’t get it. What are YOU doing mr. shcenck to help the poor. 50 dollars in a collection once a year, work at the soup kitchen? The gospel is NOT all about the poor either. This is cherry picking, which is what ALL catholic social justices type spout. They NEVER talk about sin or personal holiness or the CRoss or even Jesus. Mother Theresa said the poverty in US is worse than 3rd world countries due to Selfishness. Stop looking at one scripture verse and subscribing the entire Christian message ot it.
Rebecca, I loved that part about the Sermon on the Mount. Can you imagine the Koch brothers sitting in the front pews when a priest gets up and gives the same message you just posted. Oh, what a sight to be seen. How many shades can a neck turn before the collar starts to look a bit brown’d around the edges? LOL GREAT POST!
Edward, Kathryn Lopez is very deep within the conservative establishment and network of pundits. Very deep. Sometimes I find her quite enjoyable, others just utterly maddening. In that case, she’s earning her keep. LOL. On this issue, however, well ... it’s a good thing I still have a good head o’ hair at 59!
No where in the Gospel does Jesus say that the government has to take care of the poor. He says YOU and ME have to take care of the poor. I give my 10% to God so my conscience is clear. I don’t care what the US Bishops have to say about social justice. They should worry more about souls and the moral decay that’s around us instead of promoting their leftist agendas. Why can’t liberals understand that if something isn’t done about government spending, there will be no programs left for anybody.
Where was the backhanded “Welcome Letter” to former speaker Nancy Pelosi from these “Catholic” Professors?
Mr. Stephen Schneck, can you explain why she didn’t deserve a letter signed by you questioning her stance on abortion, especially when she made a spectacle of herself by publicly proclaiming that the Catholic Church has never determined when life begins? (And was then scolded by the Pope himself.)
Take a look at both Speakers of the House, and it’s clear which one holds closer to Catholic standards and which one is WAY off track!
After reading Edward, Rebecca and Steven’s responses…... I too am very tired, tired of hearing how wonderful Democrats are because THEY REALLY care for the poor and Republicans only want an “assault on the middle class and poor”. The Republicans are far from perfect but Democrats have gone so far left toward Socialism/ Marxism , endorsing abortion (not just in the US but all over the world wrapped in aid with our tax money) , embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, cutting conscience rights, pushing immoral “sex education” and gay “marriage” I really have to wonder why any “Catholic” could possibly vote for them. I was a Democrat but can no longer endorse/vote for any of them. Dems are supposed to be the great helpers of the poor…..but have any of these Government programs really helped the poor in the long run? NO…it has led to more and more Government takeover, the programs mis-managed, the US going broke and more and more dependency on the Gov…..so people feel they have to vote for Democrats for their handouts to continue. This letter to Speaker Boehner was purely a political slap in the face to Republican Catholics and an endorsement for Democrat votes. Where was their letter to Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, and most of the pro-abortion, gay marriage loving “Cafeteria-Catholic” Democrats all those years??? One man, one woman traditional marriage and family is a foundation to any thriving society. If you have no regard for life from the moment of conception, you have no foundation for any issue.
Pope John Paul II said it best: “It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop.”
Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life
We seem to be being served a good dose of Senator Schumer’s technique of crying “extreme” to any Republican budget. The recommended letters of the USCCB [possibly written by the bishop signatories but more likely by bureaucrats in that useless organization] is chock-full of bromides, but short on specifics. Will these bishops next be telling us that they are all for motherhood and apple pie?
As the man said “the Democratic Party [and its cheer leading bishops] declared a War on Poverty. Poverty won.
The Democrats who failed to pass a budget last year now complain about Republican efforts to do that - a major responsibility of the Congress. At the moment Mr. “I am in charge” Obama is writing checks with no money in the bank.
The bishops had done better to go back to their dioceses and start helping the poor at the local level. Let them give up their all too evident ambitions to play on the national stage.
Rebecca writes: “I am disturbed, not by the various political opinions on this site, but by the ugliness of the way they are being advanced. What’s wrong with you people? Who told you that bitterness, cynicism and hatred for those you disagree with were righteousness?”.
She fails to give examples.
A farmer who kept his money in a mattress was reproached by his grandson as being to old-fashioned. He should put the money in a bank and use checks. Finally the farmer did; he found checks quite convenient. Then one day his grandson came and told him he had no money left in his account. “You need money?” answered the farmer. “I’ll write you a check”.
The Democratic Party’s answer to all problems has been - throw money at the problem; write a check, whether you can cover the check or not. This is what the debt ceiling means: there’s no money in the bank.
I didn’t plan on answering any of this, since my rebutters made my points for me. But I’ve decided someone needs to point out a few things.
First, to those who say they don’t obey or listen to the bishops’ teaching about the poor and the disadvantaged: I assume you are not Catholic. But even if you aren’t Catholic, the bishops’ teaching in this area is taken from the Gospels and the direct teachings of Christ the Lord. You’re not really ignoring the bishops so much are you are defying Christ.
Second, regarding the claim that Jesus never said governments should help the poor, only individuals: This argument might have some merit if you are a living in a dictatorship. But those living in democracies—government of the people—have no such excuse. The clear teachings of many popes is that government DOES have a responsibility to provide for the common good, including the rights and needs of workers, the poor, families, the disenfranchised, and, of course, the unborn, sick and elderly. If you’re Catholic, that should be enough reason. If you’re not Catholic, the question remains, Are you Christian? Do you honestly believe that using a semantic legalism to hair-split your way out of obeying direct commandment of Christ the Lord is a sufficient justification for not only ignoring the Gospels, but teaching others to do so? Do you think this self-justifying nonsense will stand before the throne of God? Is that what you’re going to say, when that day comes?
Third, regarding the implication that, since abortion has taken so many innocent lives, all those of us who oppose abortion are somehow justified in committing whatever other sins we want. This is such self-serving, self-righteous claptrap I hardly know where to start. Are you saying that, since you’re opposed to abortion, you can rob all the banks, kick over all the baby carriages, commit all the adultery, you want? Of course abortion is a holocaust. But that does not justify one little sin of mine. Or yours. Or any one else. You sound like the story Jesus told of the Pharisee who went out to pray and spent all his time thanking God because he wasn’t a sinner like the tax collector praying beside him.
There is a lot of room for all of us to debate the issues of the day. It’s not only natural, it’s healthy for people to have different ideas about how to solve the problems our country faces. However, this ridiculous penchant for focusing on the people involved, for calling them names and degrading them as human beings, is destructive and sinful. Talk about the issues, not the people.
As for this group of professors who sent the letter to the Speaker of the House, getting letters like that is part of being in public office. If you disagree with it, send the Speaker a letter of support. But do not try to use personal attacks to silence the professors.
I have been trying for a while to fully understand Catholic social teaching in relation to our relying on government to provide for the poor. I still can’t see how a government that is full of waste, fraud and abuse can or should be the steward of my family’s hard earned money. Even the Jews at the time of Christ hated paying taxes to a government that persecuted and abused them. Not to mention the tax collectors who cheated them to line their own pockets. I was raised on welfare. It was miserable! The government had more rules to make it nearly impossible to get out from under their thumb than it did to encourage you to improve yourself and contribute to society instead of being dependant on society. On top of that we have the scandal of our government’s laws that cause real charities to close their doors due to ‘equality’ issues. What’s more important, caring for the poor or, who does it?
Let me restore my good image. I’m not a jackass, but I’m sure as hell not a pro-robber baron, exploitin,’ and hopelessly cheap tight-fisted scalawagin’ pachyderm, either.
How true, Jesus didn’t say boo about capitalism, socialism, mercantilism, Fascism, or dog-eat-dog Ayn Randism for that matter. Nor did he have anything to say about whether it’s moral or not to allow armies to use the crossbow, pistols, rifles or “Greek fire.” There are lots of things Jesus didn’t talk about, so does that mean they’re “not on the table”? Hey, Jesus didn’t talk about Social Security in specific terms by actually vocalizing the words S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y.
Did Jesus talk about cars, planes and trains? Did he talk about the radio and television? ‘Tis shame one has to resort to ridiculous questions to make an obvious point. There are lots of things Jesus didn’t talk about, even regarding the Romans. So are we to presume there’s a huge vacuum of subjects that are taboo to talk about or even ideas to use and promote because Jesus didn’t address them in his time?
Hello out there! This is a Catholic or at least a non-“Bible Christian” website I’m posting a reply for … right?
Even though during Jesus’ time, Caesar’s citizens and conquered subjects didn’t have access to Medicare. For the moment, let’s pretend they did, and just like in our supposedly “more enlightened” era, there were plenty of politicians who seriously think the proles would settle for almost anything. Bread n’ circuses worked for several more centuries afterwards until they ran out of animals to kill, and those killjoy clerics put a stop to it all before they ran out of slaves to kill for “entertainment purposes.”
What would the proles think of a politician who instead of actually working harder to fix the problem by putting even some modest taxes on the books to help keep Caesar’s Medicare in business (instead of giving his wealthy barons more tax savings to pay for more estates and slaves to work them (slavery was legal then) … this same pol told Caesar he had an “bold and courageous idea” to turn Medicare into a voucher system. So what if the empire’s biggest (and only remaining) health insurance companies that became oligarchic monoliths thus stifling competition that’d bring prices down … if these companies set a price of 100 denarii a month … those who aren’t well off could get “premium supplements.”
One day in Caesar’s court, one of his aides asked his highness in front of the petitioners (okay, lobbyists in today’s lingua) how much is the premium supplement for the poor, disabled and elderly Romans and conquered subjects, going to cover. The nerve of that aide to ask in public what should only be set in private! Graciously, Caesar says, “Let’s have it … “ and the “petitioners” admit to only a half of what the existing Medicare would cover (85 percent.)
In my dreams, the petitioners would be hauled off to the Mamertine Prison and later sentenced to a good donkey-kickin session in the Circus Maximus following their clean-up duties after the PAC-y-derms have paraded before their rich admirers in the most splendiferous bottom-row seats,—then— life without parole working in some sulphur mine on the island of Stromboli; whereas the more noble aide would be rewarded handsomely and a far more joyous imperial population would find within themselves a deeper source of patriotic zeal to fight off the dual mortal enemies of corruption and the don’t give a damn attitude which corruption surely fosters.
Yep, in my dreams.
Ohhhhh, we don’t need any “petitioners” on behalf of a half-baked voucher (“premium support” scams) for handy villains. Not when Paul Ryan’s chief backer for President (give us a break ... Eddy Munster for Prez LOL big time!) no less than House Majority Ldr. Eric Cantor of cushy suburban No. Virginia, stuck it to tornado-ravaged Joplin, MO ... telling the wiped out city it wouldn’t get any federal relief funds unless, in so many words, the money could be carved out of somebody else’s hide.
Such “compassionate conservatism.” Hell’s bells, that’s gone straight to hell long ago anyway in this era of MUCH leaner n’ meaner GOP control of the House under John “Boo Hoo” Boehner’s speakership.
It takes a lot of low stoopin’ to get any lower than Cantor managed today. http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/24/cantor-disaster-relief/
Let’s see; none of the thinking Republicans want to run against President Obama next year and the rest of he crowd can only repeat talking points and work on keeping their hair intact and teeth bright. Now with Cantor’s sudden demonstration of what the GOP has done with the words compassion, shared solidarity and spirit of togetherness with fellow Americans in dire straits ... well, who can blame any thinking Republican for NOT wanting to run next year?
Whow knows, just maybe the “bold and courageous” Eddy Munster will step up and run, with Eric Cantor pulling his strings. Seems only appropriate since Munster’s just as compassionat towards the elderly, disabled and poor as Cantor is towards victims of killer tornadoes. Actually a Ryan/Cantor ticket would be my ideal year of yuks campaign team for the GOP.
“BOLD CALLOUSNESS AS YOU’VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE!” Don’t put it past that pair.
Ah, but back-up dream ticket, Palin and Bachmann. It’d be Biden’s too: not once would he have to open his mouth to provide the gaffes.
To me it is always a joy and so edifying to read Archbishop Dolan’s teachings in these Websites. He expounds, protects and explains the Teachings of the Catholic Church on Faith and Morals so clearly and with so much humility - a truly and genuine imitator of His God and Master. May God continue to bless and guide him in his divine Call as the Shepherd of His flock.
In stepping back and following this thread, I have made the following observations. First and foremost, it appears that most, if not all of us state that we share a common objective, which is, to provide for those less fortunate. Second, the degree of that provision and its vehicle are the subject of great debate, often reflecting, not the Catholic identity of the writer, but his political identity. This is especially notable in comments that reflect anger, distortion of others comments, and even the fantasies of left leaning propaganda. You are able enough to find your own examples.
The difference is important- not for the needy, but for us. How many of us actually give of ourselves? I suggest that the sincerity of our professions for the needs of the less fortunate is diminished the further removed we are from its application. Or, stated another way, the further we are from the application of charity, the more political our motives. The more diminished is our grace.
I asked the following question of the priest who instructed me on my return to the Church. “Father, what is more important, that a person who is hungry receive food, or that a person gives of the food he has to someone who is hungry?” While one of our commentators might consider it a blasphemous teaching, the priest responded that it was the latter, because, ultimately the hunger of our soul, trumps the hunger of our bodies. The needs of eternal life trump the needs of the ephemeral.
The assumptions of the extreme are 1. That removal of Federal social programs will leave the needy uncared for. 2. That without Federal social programs all needs can be met locally. Somewhere in between lies the reality. The reality that is not faced is 1. That Federal programs cannot meet all the needs of all the needy. 2. All Federal and other government programs grow what they subsidize.
This is a great debate to have. I hope it gets people to reflect on the need for their own personal charity, and the efforts of politicians to take that away to foster their own ambitions.
Mr. Cote, in the wake of Eric Cantor’s condescending remarks following the Joplin disaster, all talk about charity and the GOP might as well be tabled until this debt ceiling debate is put behind us. The GOP is really showing its fangs and gross insensitivity towards the working people of this country. If the Democrats are on the ball, they’ll turn Cantor into the next James G. Blaine, and deservedly so.
Stephen, your bias is blinding you to the truth. It is difficult to debate the issues with someone who is incapable of recognizing truth. I support House Leader Cantor’s efforts to have the federal government exercise restraint when it comes to spending. Nothing condescending in that, that I can see. Certainly, that lack of restraint has had devastating effects on the welfare of this nation and it is likely that the severity of those effects has not been reached. There are any number of things that could be eliminated from spending so that relief to tornado victims can be supplied. How about the 73% increase in the number of government limousines in the past two years? How about reducing the pay of the 77,000 federal government employees who make more than the governors in their states? How about firing the Czars, whose existence represents an end run around the Constitution? How about using some of the unspent “stimulus” dollars? I could go on and on and on and on… Eric Cantor plows fertile fields when he requests an offset for new spending. Or do people in this administration feel too tied to their limousines and other perks? If you want to talk about fangs and insensitivity you need look no further than the party which has owned Congress since 2006. While you may wish to play the politics of personal destruction (there are many more recent examples-Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, to name just a few), it practically achieves nothing and in this case would turn our noses from what we need to face, a run away government careening down the path to bankruptcy.
@David P. Cote. I just love your “non-condescending” opening sentences: “Stephen, your bias is blinding you to the truth. It is difficult to debate the issues with someone who is incapable of recognizing truth. I support House Leader Cantor’s efforts to have the federal government exercise restraint when it comes to spending. Nothing condescending in that, that I can see.
Lawdy, the man wants to cut down on all the perks. Glory be, isn’t that wonderful. But when his party puts up the social safety net for future seniors and people on disability who are under 55, you’re talking about an entirely different level of budget cutting. I’m not blind to what will happen to many people if and when the Ryan plan ever takes hold.
You have some nerve lecturing me (or anybody who, like myself, has his eyes peeled on the ultimate target the GOP is really gunning after, its Political Mother of all Holy Grails for bean-counting fiscal conservatives like yourself who preach charity out of one side out your mouths while the other side is telling the poor how it must be delighted to have such “bold and courageous” leadership pulling the economic safetynet foundations from underneath them. And why? The party of oligarchy has decided that the hard-earned-and-paid-for lifestyles American Middle Class should be sacrificed on Wall Street’s altar of stockholder profits and scandalous bonuses. But somehow, these new experts in economic efficiency in the Republican-dominated House, the various conservative think-tanks and Fox “News” ... believe this kind of “belt-tightening” by so many millions of innocent economic victims whose misfortune in life was not to have “cracked into” or become part of the GOP’s inner circle of economic geniuses so they could have better prepared for the economic hurricane that was to hit them after the floorboards of hell fell out from under their 401Ks in 08. See, if only the vast millions in the Middle class had been more economically foresighted enough to have caught on to the deregulation of the once safe American banking system (with help from Reagan to Clinton.) Maybe they might’ve said “wait a minute” and put a stop to that oily couple Phil and Wendy Gramm and their successful dismantling of the New Deal protections against Wall Street and corporate shennanigans. Lots of “maybes” here I’ll admit, but one word the economic Right used over and over to justify plant-closures, selling pensions, deregulating banking, relaxation of miner and other safety regulations, and so forth: “competitiveness.” Oh, we had to become more “competitive.” With what, another third world nation with its perpetual cheap labor supply, minimal safety regulations, and union rights? No wonder the economic Right has such a horrific record in being wrongfully in love with third world oligarchs.
Well, the Somozas and Batistas are gone, but now they’re trying hard as hell to make themselves the next batch of that ilk. They’d better also pay attention to what happened to guys like that, and their pals down in Chile with that failure of its privatized social security scam. At least the Middle and Left can’t hang that on the Right’s old pal, Agusto Pinochet. This happened after he left office.
There’s lots of private charities working down in Oligarchyland, and we should all be thankful for that minimalist vestige of the 19th Century Mr. Cote and his fellow thinkers would like to impose on this country. Seeing they have little else, why not establish armies of charity workers there and of course, here. We can have more elephants pulling out the debris from the wreckage in Joplin. (Hmmm, was one of those pachyderm’s name Eric, by any chance? Appropriate enough.)
Another reason the wealthy love giving to charity is because the right hand never fails to give their left hand when their tax returns are prepared by accountants with a much deeper insight as to how to spread some of that charitable spirit around in such ways that it can’t help to put so many smiles on peoples’ faces from the givers to the preparers and back to the givers.
And you’re wasting your time pointing to the use of limosines? I was an intern at the National Journalism Center in Washington in 1983 and damn few conservatives in Reagan’s Era of the return of In-Your-Face-Glitz, as practiced by both high level public servants and the usual assorted perpetual DC fatcat lobbyists, et al, were whining about the use of the vehicles.
Are you serious with that reference to the “politics of personal destruction”? With the exception of Robert Bork, who was indeed trashed, the rest of the cast of characters are fair game. In fact, all of them are or were (when they put themselves before the public during their respective hearings and campaigns.) Harry Truman had a line for the cooks of namby-pamby, goo-goo politics who start fainting the moment they realize their foreheads are getting a little moist from added perspiration, and I’m sure you know full well what it is. To be charitable, I’ll remind you, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
I’ll agree with you that politics doesn’t have to be a bare-knuckled affair every election season, but you might want to run that by your sweetheart, Sarah-the-Barracuda, or self-described “pit bull with lipstick.” You might want to run this by Limbaugh, Hannity and that fruitcake Beck. (Even Fox’s bunch is eager to see him leave, as of yesterday.)
Was the above ‘graf a bit too rough n’ tough on your heroes? At least I didn’t say “lock n’ reload” or pull some other dumb pseudo-macho nonsense the low-brows dominating the “Conservative press” (LOL!) I used to be tough in the past. But at least I was honestly tough, and yet I don’t believe for a moment I could crack into today’s crowd. (And damn sure don’t want to, either.) Newt’s bagged a line o’credit at Tiffany’s ... but where does Ann Coulter get her brass knuckles?
You want to lecture me about charity, Mr. Cote? I’m not an uncharitable person, but I sure as heck won’t suffer the stuffingly condescending kind you’ve ably demonstrated yourself to be.
Also, as you can probably tell by now, I’m not a fiscal conservative. My special fields of interest involved foreign policy and higher education.) But I sure as hell don’t want anything to do with what is passing now for “movement conservatism” today in Washington. You want to point to mean-spiritedness? Just think back on the callousness of Cantor’s remarks and their timing.
By the way, when it comes to practicing fiscal “restraint,” you can even take a break from that and spring for an eye doctor’s appointment for yourself. (Take your greenshades off for the doc, though.)
Not to be “condescending” as you can (hopefully) see, just maybe you’ll get a new prescription that’ll help you tell the difference between S T E V E N and “Stephen.”
Yes, I’ll admit to being biased. Honestly and openly biased. (Oops, I forgot, that kind of writing’s not approved of in Namby-Pamby-Goo-Goo-Land-Political-Theme-Park. As for being “blind,” do yourself a favor and think that one over.
S-T-E-P-H-E-N, other than making ad hominum attacks on anyone and everyone, did you have a point, or have you, too, come to realize that you don’t?
@David P. Cote:Hmmm. Talk about ad hominems when you deliberately continue to misspell my name. Do you do extend this treatment to others, or just those you prefer to pull your Pharisee act on?
Let me get back to Mr. Cantor. Explain how, as a Christian, you can support Eric Cantor and the rest of the GOP House Leadership’s robust backing of Ryan’s budget which would decimate Medicare as we’ve known it, and that millions of American taxpayers under the age of 55 have paid into it, only not to receive it, should this abomination become law? Don’t you smell even the slightest whiff of grand theft here? Or can’t you connect the dots?
Being a conservative, I’m sure you’re a staunch upholder of even the most basic principles of contract law. Don’t you think there’s even the slightest bit of a con-job being pulled by the GOP with Ryan’s budget and dismantling of Medicare, only to replace it with a voucher system? Ryan, protesting like a little child before the President yesterday had the (surprising) nerve to think he could “correct” Pres. Obama by insisting that his Medicare idea wasn’t a voucher system, but a “premium support.” http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/A-guide-to-the-Obama-Ryan-smackdown-1405522.php
He talked too much and let all the beans spill out. The “premium support” idea is worse because the money would go directly to the big private companies first, not the taxpayer. What’s the matter, have fiscal conservatives stopped trusting the American taxpayer?
Shamelessly, the GOP “leadership” wants to shortchange America’s future seniors and disabled citizens while this party continues on insisting on giving millionaires a hundred thousand dollar tax break they don’t need! Have you guys forgotten your world history? Remember the Bourbons and Romanovs? Let’s get a little closer to home. At least our Founding Fathers and Constitution’s Framers had the sense to see something had to be done in the wake of Dan’l Shay’s Rebellion. Do the Republicans and their Tea Party allies want to risk this with all the firepower we today?
By the way, the next time you want to bellyache about big shots having an inflated sense of entitlement with limos, perks and the woiks … let’s not forget the GOP’s latest poster child in this racket: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/christie_takes_state_helicopter_yERZJdk3PPuHmNMQcaC5fM
The big fella paid the state back, but did he need to pull this in the first place? Well, as talk show host Randi Rhodes put it today, Christie pulled such an obnoxious stunt in front of the delegation of Iowa’s GOP perhaps in hopes of shaking them off his back in their attempts to get him into the presidential race. Such a dedicated father, too. But I also can’t help wondering how embarrassed his son must’ve felt to see his father, the stingiest man in Joisy, pulling this stunt off in front of some of his teammates and kids on the other team…many of whom no doubt had their dreams crushed by his budget cuts in the state’s already university system.
Oh yes, the party of “family values” hard at work, stiffing the nation’s future elderly and college kids, while in the meantime seeking tax breaks for programs designed to attract intelligent talent from overseas. Gee, during the Eisenhower Administration, during the immediate aftermath of the Sputnik scare a truly bipartisan government forged the National Defense Education Act which helped to create a whole new generation of (home-grown) scholars. We wouldn’t have to insource talent from abroad if the House’s majority wasn’t so keen on outsourcing commonsense to the dogs and shoveling tax breaks to the already over privileged.
In the meantime, do yourself a favor and stop with the deliberate misspelling of my name while calling for an end to “ad hominems.” From the looks of things above, at least I managed to pay enough attention to the proper spelling of your first name.
Like I said Steven, it is difficult having a discussion with someone who misrepresents facts. As Ronald Reagan once quipped, “It’s not that our Liberal friends are so ignorant, it’s just that they know so much which just isn’t so.” Here is are the facts on Ryan’s Medicare plan:
1. It will save Medicare (and thus the U.S. government) from bankruptcy.
The current Medicare system is in drastic need of reform. It is the second largest federal program and the fastest growing with long-term liabilities in excess of $38 trillion. Medicare spending is expected to double over the next decade. Doing nothing to fix Medicare will ultimately result in bankruptcy, rationing and benefit cuts. The plan offered by Rep. Ryan will help to ensure Medicare solvency for current retirees and future generations without rationing or benefit cuts. Unfortunately, President Obama and congressional Democrats vehemently oppose the Ryan plan, yet they have failed to offer a plan of their own to save Medicare. In effect, their plan is to let Medicare “die on the vine.” Rep. Ryan’s plan would save Medicare.
2. It will allow patients to choose their Medicare plan.
The Ryan plan transforms Medicare from a misguided “one-size-fits-all” program into a consumer choice system. The plan empowers seniors to choose the coverage that best meets their individual needs from a list of competing health plans. These health plans are privately run but regulated by the government to ensure seniors get what they’re promised. The consumer choice model is a proven success, working well for patients and taxpayers alike. Two well-known and highly popular examples of a consumer choice model are the Medicare Advantage program (currently chosen by 25 percent of Medicare seniors) and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (the health plan enjoyed by Members of Congress and federal workers).
3. It will introduce competition in Medicare.
Increased competition will improve the quality of health care. Many seniors are dissatisfied with their “one-size-fits-all” Medicare. The Ryan plan will force health care plans to compete with each other, which in turn will incentivize health coverage providers to serve their consumers better than their competition. The result will be better quality health care benefits at a lower cost.
4. It will increase patient satisfaction.
People are happier and better off when they are free to choose how they will provide for themselves. Federal bureaucrats cannot possibly know all of our unique health care needs. The Ryan plan allows each person on Medicare to have more control over their health care decisions.
5. It will not affect current seniors.
The Ryan plan does not touch Medicare plans for anyone currently 55 years or older. Its improvements will put Medicare on a sustainable path for American taxpayers while protecting the benefits of current seniors.
6. It will help to slow the growth of health care costs.
Health care costs are growing out of control. The average American household spends more than $25,000 annually on health care. This is nearly 50 times more than what a family spent in 1960. The Ryan plan would force health coverage providers to keep costs low in order to stay competitive. This would help make health care more affordable for American families and help reduce the enormous burden Medicare places on the federal budget.
7. It will give future seniors the same kind of coverage that Members of Congress enjoy.Starting in 2021, the Ryan plan would enroll new Medicare beneficiaries in the same kind of health care program that Members of Congress enjoy today. Members of Congress are not trapped in a “one-size-fits-all” system; instead — unlike most Americans — they are allowed to choose from a wide variety of health care options. Everyone deserves to have more options.
8. It will stop President Obama’s rationing plan.
President Obama plans to set up a panel of 15 unelected bureaucrats, known as IPAB, to cut out hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare spending. Highly controversial, IPAB was created as part of the President’s health care law to make deep cuts in the amounts the government pays to those doctors and hospitals who agree to treat Medicare patients. (The reason for his deep Medicare cuts: to help fund his hew health care entitlement, popularly known as ObamaCare.) IPAB-style cuts in doctor and hospital payments will unavoidably lead to rationing and reduced access to care, because fewer doctors and hospitals will be willing to treat seniors. In fact, the experts within President Obama’s own Administration have admitted that if the planned Medicare cuts take effect, Medicare will end up paying less for care than even the troubled Medicaid (welfare) program does today, causing 15 percent of America’s hospitals to go out of business. We must not let the unelected IPAB board ration seniors’ care. The Ryan plan would keep doctors and hospitals in the Medicare program by making the system more modern, efficient, and consumer-driven.
9. It will prevent otherwise inevitable benefit cuts.
Today, the average senior gets “back” in Medicare benefits more than three times the amount he paid into the system through payroll taxes during his working years. That is a “great deal” for today’s seniors; but such a huge imbalance is unsustainable and must eventually end, lest it bankrupt the entire government. Doing nothing today will simply force Washington to make big benefit cuts in coming years. If current trends continue, young people who paid into the system will likely never receive full Medicare benefits. The Ryan plan would introduce a modern, patient-centered system that would avert the coming benefit cuts through more efficient delivery of care.
10. It’s a big step in the right direction.
The Ryan plan is not a cure-all. We still have a long way to go before we solve our health care problems. For example, most American seniors are involuntarily dependent on Medicare, because current law does not permit them to keep their own private insurance when they turn 65 or to opt out of the government program. That’s wrong. Individuals should be free to opt out of the compulsory Medicare system altogether. While Rep. Ryan’s plan unfortunately does not address this problem, it would set us in the right direction. We can no longer afford to let our representatives in Congress continue to bury their heads in the sand (or whatever other convenient cavity they have)on this issue. rather than kill the messenger, we should at least make these men and women earn their pay, get off their duffs and turn this floundering ship of state around.
Well David, there’s nothing like being called a liar in so many words.
Sir, I just don’t have the time, or inclination, to WASTE on this matter. Dealing with supercilious and unctuous defenders of the wealthy folks’ political water-carriers has become a pure aggravation. There, you have your ad hominems to whine about, too. But you’ve earned every one of ‘em.
I’ll repeat what I wrote above; THIS RYAN IDEA IS NOTHING LESS THAN GRAND THEFT. Remember, anybody who doesn’t reach the 55 marker but whose paid into the system for 30 or more years has been ROBBED PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Wake up: In Ryan’s world, and that of his colleagues, this is their worldview: life is a dog-eat-dog, I’ve got mine, and I don’t give a rat’s tail about anybody but my family, my caste, my crowd, my party, my tax bracket and so forth. And this is as much as we can EVER expect from a fan of a publicly acknowledged admirer of Ayn Rand. And to think this guy Ryan gets away with packaging himself off as a good concerned Catholic family man and public servant, ALL THE WHILE HE’S PUSHING AYN RAND TO HIS STAFF. Hell, that’s like a high level civilian official in the Pentagon going out and proclaiming the virtues of Benedict Arnold.
I’ve no more stomach for this debate. However, since you’ve seen fit to build this guy up to be some genius of political/social/fiscal planning (nevertheless a hell of a far cry from another Ryan, Msgr. John Ryan, who helped Frances Perkins create Social Security during the Great Depression) … it behooves me to leave with you and the Register’s readers interested in this topic with this story/and VERY TELLING VIDEO about Ryan. http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/03/paul-ryans-ayn-rand-problem/?xid=huffpo-direct
Too bad he didn’t take the young man’s offer up on accepting the Bible and read Luke’s Gospel. Heck I could’ve offered Ryan just one verse to read and ponder on since he’s so pressed for time. Important guy that he is: “Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.” Prov. 16:19.
I’ve been pondering about something too; as to where you’re really coming from. In the interest of public disclosure, do you work for Ryan, or any fellow Republican Congressmen or Senators or any think-tank, etc. in Washington? If you do, and you haven’t reexamined what I wrote above explaining the wholly unnecessary sinking of Medicare (“in order to save it”) and seen it for what it is, nothing less than GRAND THEFT; I’ll close out my involvement with this thread and my debate with you by quoting this one single question put to another notorious Republican from Wisconsin, Sen. Joseph McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Stealing from the elderly just to balance the books is as cold as telling tornado victims they’ll have to wait for Federal assistance (that they’ve already paid for in taxes) … until the powers that be can find a suitable back up program or politician they want to gouge and/or “punish” respectively, first and foremost. If not, tough luck, eh? Have you guys no damned decency?
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.