An exchange of letters between G.O.P. budgetary whiz-kid Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and N.Y. Archbishop and U.S.C.C.B. President Tim Dolan may offer some political cover to Republican Catholics like Ryan and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) as they make their case for the House budget and provisions on Medicare/caid that Presidential Candidate, fellow Catholic, Newt Gingrich, called radical (well, at least for one news cycle he did). (Hat-tip to The Hill.)
Boehner and Ryan both released copies of the letter from Archbishop Timothy Dolan; Boehner perhaps in the belief that it may also deflect some of the heat he endured after his selection as commencement speaker at the Catholic University of America provoked a scolding on basic Catholic principles like the preferential option for the poor from national Catholic academics.
Some may try to use Dolan's letter as an endorsement of the Ryan plan, but a careful read indicates a series of endorsements not for the House budget but for statements in Ryan's letter that it was/is his intention is to remain in line with Catholic teaching in crafting his budget proposals. For instance, note how Dolan directs his comments to Ryan's letter, not the budget he put together: "I commend your letter’s attention to the important values of fiscal responsibility; sensitivity to the foundational role of the family; the primacy of the dignity of the human person and the protection of all human life; a concrete solicitude for the poor and the vulnerable, especially those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty; and putting into practice the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, here at home and internationally within the context of a commitment to the common good shared by government and other mediating institutions alike."
In his initial missive Ryan's essentially argues that he is attempting to attend to the church principles on the treatment of the least by preventing a future fiscal/social meltdown which would surely hurt the poor worst of all. No question (I guess, though a Greek-style meltdown followed by looting in the streets seem about as likely as the CDC's Zombie Apocalypse), but this propostion relies on a basic fallacy that the country faces two stark choices—cutbacks now that will hurt the poor or fiscal/social collapse that will hurt the poor. Isn't it possible to set the nation on the path to fiscal sanity in a measured way, as the bishops argue, that doesn't add more burdens onto the poor and the unemployed during a period of intense economic uncertainty?
In closing, Dolan invites himself, along with Stockton Bishop Stephen Blaire and Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard, to a sit down to further discuss all things budgetary and Catholic. Since both Blaire, head of the Committee on Domestic Justice, and Hubbard, chair of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, have already issued several letters of concern regarding many of the budget cuts proposed by the House fiscal plan, it will be interesting to see if Ryan agrees to hear them make their case in person. Dolan may have to play the role of cajoler in chief to see a cordial conclusion to that encounter.
See Ryan's letter here, Dolan's here, and Boehner's reaction here.
For more:
Hubbard and Blaire on the budget here and here.
''In any transition that seeks to bring new proposals to current problems in order to build a better future, care must be taken that those currently in need not be left to suffer. I appreciate your assurance that your budget would be attentive to such considerations and would protect those at risk in the processes and programs of such a transition. While appreciating these assurances, our duty as pastors will motivate our close attention to the manner in which they become a reality.''
The left might look at this and say that Dolan implies that he is not supporting Ryan and might have doubts. I would say that we need to apply Dolan's statement to the current treatment of the poor by government. If we pay ''close attention to the manner in which'' poor have been benefited by the Great Society can we conclude that the benefit to the poor has ''become a reality''? The unintended consequences of the Great Society have been harmful to the poor. We need to have courage and look to alternatives. Paul Ryan has bravely taken charge. People like Gingrich, in my opinion, are cowardly looking out for his own political interest rather than the interest of the poor.
The bishops need to leave Ryan and Boehner alone so that they can get back to protecting unnecessary subsidies for profit-burdened oil companies and deficit-doubling tax cuts for wealthfare recipients.
Reminder: trickle down failed. Both times.
Oh, and when she needed them, Ayn Rand certainly enjoyed the benefits afforded her by both Social Security and Medicare. Speaking of empty words.
I think the measured way is what you are seeing being proposed by the Republicans. The false choice the author and the Catholic theologians wrote about and being demagogued by the Democrats does not exist. It is a legend in their minds to scare people into believing we are all going to be living a Spartan life eating 1500 calories a day if you follow the Republican recommendations. If you get an adult behavior by the Democrats and reasonable plans put on the table to take care of the long term problems, the poor will be handled. The real cost are in unsustainable entitlement payments, nearly all in medical expenditures. But because the Democrats are smelling blood and they believe they can use rhetoric to create unrest, they are creating witches where none exists and a lot of people are falling for it.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/572938/201105201846/Tax-And-Scare.htm
And here is a link to more toddler behavior by the left in support of Democrat scare policies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U
If you disagree with Republican policies then propose a reasonable alternative or point to one. If you say that raising taxes on the rich will be the answer then one has to respond to the information from the past that this has a negative effect on the economy and jobs and will probably produce less tax revenues and not more. You want the rich people's money but not in taxes but in investment in job producing activities. The question is how to achieve that objective. Taking it from them is not a viable answer.
The germans are making drastic cutbacks in their military. We should do the same. To talk of cutting benefits for the poor and middle class while running two wars is despicable.
But other areas don't need to be done by the federal government. Why give this bloated federal structure more money to waste? If we can't trust the feds with our own defense then why trust them with educating our children, healthcare, etc?
"people who disagree with that proposition aren't going to be sent to hell"
Is that what they told Dives?