When Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential candidate, announced that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would be his running mate, Republicans steeled themselves for a full-scale war on the congressman’s controversial budget plan, which proposes cuts in a range of social programs designed to provide health care, food assistance and other subsidies to the needy and seniors.
Already, Ryan is being accused of decimating social entitlements, and, as the November 2012 election looms just a couple of months away, Democratic activists and ad campaigns are warning vulnerable beneficiaries that Ryan’s policies leave them unprotected.
Catholic leaders and activists have expressed their own strong reservations regarding the budget’s impact on the needy.
This year, Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif., and Bishop Richard Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, have issued open letters protesting proposed cuts in specific programs.
Sister Simone Campbell, the executive director of the social-justice lobby Network, has been speaking against Ryan’s policies in television and print media interviews.
“The bishops have said Ryan’s budget doesn’t pass the moral test,” she told the Daily Beast, “and we stand with the bishops on that one.”
While some of Ryan’s Catholic critics affirm a holistic view of Church teaching on moral and social issues, pinpoint specific budget priorities in the Ryan budget and explain why they think they are wrong, more often the candidate is attacked in a blanket way for violating Catholic social teaching by simply proposing spending cuts.
In these latter instances, the naysayers assert that his intentions are wrong: He’s giving tax cuts to the “rich” and refuses to tackle the military budget.
The partisan diatribes ignore a host of inconvenient truths, from massive ongoing cuts in military spending to the limited impact of raising taxes for the wealthy. Another would be that, when a government massively overreaches itself, cuts to programs for the poor shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s part of exercising prudence.
Ryan’s message: Let’s have a serious conversation about fiscal responsibility and the national debt now, or you’ll be forced to do it when entitlement programs go broke.
Ryan remains good-natured through all the pushback — in the rough and tumble of election-year politics and with regard to critiques launched by some Church leaders and lay Catholic activists and commentators.
Some of the naysayers freely employ their Catholic bona fides to pummel Ryan’s integrity, while ignoring or justifying the pro-abortion voting record of his opponents. Sister Simone, for example, cites the bishops’ concerns about Ryan’s plan, but, as a strong advocate of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, she clearly believes the organization is under no obligation to uphold Catholic teaching on life issues, traditional marriage or religious liberty.
It’s easy to become antagonized or cynical about the morphing of legitimate debate on the application of Catholic social teaching into partisan smear campaigns.
But the furor Ryan’s candidacy has generated in the public square and in the Church also provides an opportunity for a deeper reassessment of how Catholic leaders and many well-intentioned activists tend to approach the budget debate.
The truth is: We won’t identify just solutions by attacking the messenger — whether it’s Ryan or any other politician asking the electorate to grapple with some tough calls.
We are free to disagree with his judgments, but national debate about inconvenient realities is long overdue.
Our government continues to spend money we don’t have, steadily increasing the national debt to be paid off by future generations.
Thus, the demand for fiscal responsibility is not “social Darwinism,” as some have called it, but a deeply moral and courageous response to an unsustainable reality.
This summer, the Kansas Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement that addressed the debt problem. “The United States has become a debtor nation with an unsustainable national debt. Most of this debt burden is unjustly transferred from one generation to the next. The potential for a collapse of our economy, resulting from a failure to address our spiraling debt, imperils everyone, but places the poor at the most serious risk,” the bishops of Kansas stated.
“As we expect individual households to live within their means, we have the right to expect that the government will also live within its means as an indispensable part of our nation’s economic recovery. It is irresponsible for those elected to positions of political leadership to fail to address realistically and effectively government debt and unfunded obligations.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also will be developing a letter addressing a range of moral, social and economic concerns posed by the recession and the debt crisis.
As Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore and others have noted, serious ethical lapses, fostered by moral complaisance and greed at the highest levels of our government, financial and corporate sectors played a significant role in our economic collapse.
Across broad swathes of the middle class as well, a culture of consumerism distracted Americans, leading families to put off hard choices until it was too late.
The Church can help lead the way out of this quagmire first by providing its own flock with the formation that provides a sturdy compass for navigating difficult choices in family and political life. Further, we can approach the Ryan budget as an opportunity to reassess established positions on government spending and to secure the survival of the Church’s own social agencies.
Diocesan Catholic Charities and other outreach programs heavily depend on government funds, but it may well be past time to identify solutions that leverage volunteers and in-kind donations.
While we put our own house in order, let’s retire the smear tactics, assume Ryan’s good intentions when he states his case and take up a creative, honest discussion of Catholic social teaching in matters of prudential judgment.
Print Edition: May 19, 2013
Comments
Post a Comment
Two things: First, Ryan voted for all the Bush tax cuts, which created a huge deficit out of whole cloth. Clinton, if you remember, left office wiht a budget surplus that Bush, aided by Ryan and other “conservative” represetantives, quickly vaporized on tax cuts for the wealthy and two wars.
Second, Ryan’s proposed (new) tax cuts will add over $4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, while Ryan’s proposed spending cuts will only cut about $1 trillion. Thus, Ryan’s budget adds another $3 trillion to the debt.
It’s clear that Ryan is not taking his cues from church teaching, but from his heart-felt mentor, Ayn Rand, and the worn-out GOP playbook.
I agree with this critique. It works both ways, however. The National Catholic Register was NOT a prominent voice when the Bush team decided to invade Iraq; allow torture to become commonplace; and continued to raise the national debt, albeit at a slower pace than President Obama. Those actions seemed to go over just fine with teh folks at NCR.
Also, anyone who thinks Paul Ryan is serious about bringing down the debt should look at his voting record during those Bush years. He is more interested in keeping taxes low. That is arguably a worthy goal, but anyone who suggests he has an interest in getting the country out of debt isn’t paying attention. He has an interest in lowering taxes, and will do so AT THE EXPENSE OF the national debt. That is where I take issue with him. If his interest were the debt, a more reasonable solution would be to simply keep taxes at the same rate they are now (instead of proposing cuts) and, in addition, cut budgets for the entitlements. Doing both exacerbates the debt burden. It isn’t too difficult to see that.
No thanks. There aren’t enough volunteers and in-kind donations to help everyone that needs it. First, people are too selfish. Second, the problem is much too large.
All the screaming about the “social budget” where have these voices been protesting the slaughter of the unborn, the obamacare, the vast unemployment? There have been small whispers from so many church authorities. A nation kills their own children doesn’t truly hear “the cry of the poor”!
Thank you for this frank and insightful editorial, it compliments Archbishop Aquila’s article from earlier this week. I so often find myself so cynical and fed up when I hear people ranting and raving about “social justice” issues, completely ignoring the unsustainability and irresponsibility of such staggering national debt and its implications for the future of this great nation. It’s good to know that others out there think along the same lines. As you’ve stated, we have to assume Mr. Ryan only means the best and is thinking of future generations. (and besides, just because “his” budget has certain cuts does not at all mean that a new budget under a President Romney would be the exact same. At this point it’s the intent, not the nit-picky facts that matter.)
The Catholic hierarchy’s criticism of Paul Ryan’s budget proposal came in the form of an open letter to the US Congress from the Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops wrote that the Ryan budget was “unjustified and wrong” and that the federal budget “must protect poor, vulnerable people.” Will their new letter show a way to do as they suggest or will they give in to Ryan’s plan based on an un-Christian philosophy just because he is anti-abortion?
This what Ryan’s bishop had to say on the mater at hand.
http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/bishop.html
The truth is: We won’t identify just solutions by attacking the messenger — whether it’s Ryan or any other politician asking the electorate to grapple with some tough calls
THIS STATEMENT OF YOURS IS SIMPLY WRONG! HE OR OTHER POLITICIANS ARE NOT JUST MESSENGERS THEY HAVE THE POWER TO PUT THEIR MESSAGES INTO LAW! HE IS SUUPOSED TO BE A DICIPLE OF JESES CHRIST NOT AYN RAND! WAKE UP!
Excellent points.
Its time for individuals to live more temperate life styles and support the many organizations willing to serve the poor with personal donations and personal involvement. Handouts can be enabling whereas personal involvement can be growth for all persons involved.
Yes, let’s retire the smear tactics. Let’s assume Nancy Pelosi’s good intentions when she states her case, admitting that arguing as she does that abortion should be kept legal—as flawed an argument as that is—is not the same thing as being pro-abortion. Let’s assume Kathleen Sibelius good intentions when she states her case for getting more and more Americans affordable health care, even though she doesn’t accept the argument that some of those medicines are abortifacients. Let’s assume the good intentions of all Catholic politicians and in fact all politicians who are people of good will, even as we disagree with their policies. Let’s assume—especially since it can be safely assumed on the basis of evidence—Cardinal Dolan’s good intentions in inviting both President Obama and Mr. Romney to the Al Smith Dinner. Pelosi, Sibelius, and Dolan may be wrong, but that doesn’t make them Satan incarnate. Then we can take up a creative, honest, AND CHARITABLE discussion of Catholic social teaching in all its manifold beauty and usefulness. Or does retiring the smear tactics only apply to Republicans?
Thank you for this balanced editorial. Respect for life issues are paramount as is also the sacredness of the marriage bond between one man and one woman.
Solving the conflicting problems that we face regarding the poor, the budget, and exercising fiscal restraint so as to not burden the future generations, is an issue that can no longer be ignored.
How do we resolve the problems of the poor among us? A strong economy is of paramount importance, as the best way out of poverty is a job. The spiritual and emotional well-being of humans requires self respect, a fact with which all of us, I am certain, would agree. If our country does not fix the imbalance in our economy (more spending than income), we are on the road to bankruptcy. This country is facing a calamity if we allow this to happen.
We have a Christian duty to help the poor in a personal way. We are saved individually and not en mass by the mercy of God through the saving grace of our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross. St. John’s Gospel proclaims Charity as the greatest of all virtues. To transfer all aspects of Charity to large centralized government agencies which are impersonal, is to deny the possibility of the Holy Spirit to work within our souls.
Perspective is necessary. While some social programs may work better through government, no graces can come to us by mandating high taxes on some segments of the population, and then claiming it as a substitute for personal charity. A vote is a civic responsibility, It is not a substitute for charitable acts.
The Church gave up hospitals, schools and now caring for the poor. It’s so much easier to let big government take care of our responsibilities.
Well said! It is time to look for justice, instead of a hand out.
When I was born the Church was the protector of the poor, the ill, the aged, the orphan, the pregnant unmarried and the those in hunger. Government has replaced most of these functions. With this also came regulations, and immoral restrictions on our Church agencies. Are we better for this?
Alot of words and yet no links to either Ryan’s budget or our current budgetary status quo! Google and read it and you’ll see that Ryan’s budget is not a CUT from current spending levels but a decrease in the rate of growth. In other words, under a Ryan budget, the entire Federal government would spend more next year than this year. Just not as much as the “continuing resolution” budget projects to spend.
So those claiming Ryan’s budget would “slash” help to the poor are wet. If I pay you $100 today and $110 tomorrow, that’s not a “cut”, even if someone else promised to pay you $120.
Let’s not let the budget debate obscure Ryan’s strong support for unborn babies and traditional marriage, as well as his opposition to euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. These are clear-cut Catholic positions, and they’re much more important.
What’s most important is that Paul Ryan is staunchly pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, agreeing with the ONLY Catholic positions on these 2 issues. The budget and the best ways to help the poor can be debated. If we care about our children, we won’t leave them with the growing $17 trillion federal debt. Ryan has the courage to try to create a responsible federal government.
The good thing is that Paul Ryan was rated 100% by the National Right to Life Committee, and he’s on the pro-Catholic side of the most important social issues of today.
I am a pro-life Catholic Democrat who knows that we end up with more abortions when we don’t get our economy moving and the economy moves better (and our debt decreases) when we work from the middle out and assist the poor with training and assistance than when we allow the wealthiest among us to hoard their billions. Prudence shows us that the economy is stimulated by strategic funding. Ryan’s proposals disproportionatey hurt the least of us while cutting taxes for those who are not doing their fair share. That’s not moral. It is not the messenger that I disagree with its the message.
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.