Paul Ryan's Catholic faith helped shape the GOP budget plan
House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) says his Catholic faith helped shape the Republican budget plan by stressing local control and concern for the poor, according to an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network released Tuesday.
“A person’s faith is central to how they conduct themselves, in public and in private, so to me, using my Catholic faith, we call it the social magisterium, which is: How do you apply the doctrine of your teaching into your everyday life as a lay person?” he said.
Ryan said that the principle of subsidiarity — a notion, rooted in Catholic social teaching, that decisions are best made at most local level available — guided his thinking on budget planning.
“To me, the principle of subsidiarity, which is really federalism, meaning government closest to the people governs best, having a civil society … where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that’s how we advance the common good,” Ryan said.
The Wisconsin Republican said that he also drew on Catholic teachings regarding concern for the poor, and his interpretation of how that translated into government policy.
5 comments:
So he's using the principle of subsidiarity as the reason to push his view of Federalism? Surprise, surprise, it conveniently fits his world view. Let's not forget about those other pesky social teachings.
Can you justify increasing military spending in that budget, while cutting social programs including Medicare, Pell Grants, Food Stamps, etc? Paul Ryan will lower tax rates, yet cannot specify which loopholes he will close? 62% of his cuts directly cut services to the poor, yet he will lower taxes and further reduce revenues below what spending is. Remember what happened when Bush did that? Huge deficits.
Economic and social recklessness. Plain and simple.
What's the alternative Anon?
By the way the last time congress passed a budget was April 29, 2009.... but that's not reckless?? How is Ryan supposed to cut military funding when President Obama is supporting two wars and wants to start another one with Iran?
My alternative would be not to further decrease revenues. We did that twice under Bush, have continued those policies under Obama, and have been left with a lot of red ink to show for it, not growth or increased revenues as claimed. Advocating reduced revenues when we have a multi-trillion dollar debt is reckless and does not even resemble economic conservatism.
Not to defend Obama, but I thought we were winding down Iraq? Also, Obama wants to start a war with Iran? The only sabre rattling I have heard is from the GOP. Do you realize how much we spend on the military compared to the next 10 nations combined?
Let's not forget the moral problem with reducing benefits for the least among us while giving massive tax breaks to the most fortunate.
Finally, your talking point about days without budgets holds little water. Non-binding budget resolutions and appropriations bills are not the same thing. It's a good sound bite for the masses, that's about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011, by President Barack Obama.
The Act authorizes $662 billion in funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad."
----
Defense cuts while at war seems a bit counter-intuitive. I'm in favor of withdrawing from all three venues, but I think military cuts can happen when we do not have over 100,000 troops overseas.
Speaking of talking points which hold little water, what part of the tax code are you proposing changes, or what individuals are you considering confiscating from? I'm no capitalist but not cutting irresponsible spending because someone somewhere has money that we can grab isn't solving the problem.
Also, you forgot that Paul Ryan oppresses women with archaic beliefs like the government should not pay for reproductive rights like abortion and contraception. Isn't that oppressing the poor too?
Post a Comment