Michael Novak hits a home run with this.
Left flank to base. Left flank to base. We have lost radio contact with the right flank. Please come in. We have lost contact with the right. Please come in. Give us your bearings. Over.”
In six succinct paragraphs, some leading Jesuits and other professors and staff members at Georgetown University upbraided Congressman Paul Ryan, one of the more serious Catholics in the Congress, for “misrepresenting Catholic social thought.” That is, they simply made no contact with his arguments, couldn’t understand his basic Catholic principles, and did not recognize that he was fighting on their side, only that he was advancing from the opposite flank.
The letter begins kindly enough: “Welcome to Georgetown. We appreciate your willingness to talk about how Catholic social teaching can help inform effective policy in dealing with the urgent challenges facing our country.” This is a refreshing break from those institutions that ban, hoot down, and refuse to listen to anyone who has a different starting point. Thomas Reese, S.J., the Jesuit author of the letter, is to be commended for this approach.
continue at National Review
6 comments:
Can you explain how Ryan's "plan" is consistent with social teaching or is the USCCB's critique completely off-base because it does not conform to your political world view?
*sigh* Did you even read the Novak article which explains exactly that?
You are the same people that said welfare reform was against Catholic social teaching until Clinton championed it, and then it was a-ok.
Ebay.com search word "clue"
*sigh*
I did read the article. It still doesn't explain how his "plan" will help the least among us.
So they will no longer be dependent on the government for food. Will the lower tax rates (which we don't know who will pay what in the "plan") necessarily equate to more charitable giving that will make up the difference? Will the poor suddenly pull themselves up by their 'bootstraps' because the government isn't there anymore?
Will lower taxes mean that jobs will begin to materialize, even though demand doesn't exist?
What loopholes will the "plan" close? The mortgage interest deduction? Maybe the student loan interest deduction? Those would be great for the working and middle class. What about the charitable giving deduction? That would be fantastic! Again, we don't know.
You keep defending a plan that you don't know the specifics of. Your only response is that it is the only alternative, so it must be the right answer.
*sigh*
Will the lower tax rates (which we don't know who will pay what in the "plan") necessarily equate to more charitable giving that will make up the difference?
When Reagan lowered taxes, tax revenues went up.
Will the poor suddenly pull themselves up by their 'bootstraps' because the government isn't there anymore?
Isn't that the goal? Why would government promote lifetime poverty? (the point Novak makes)
Will lower taxes mean that jobs will begin to materialize, even though demand doesn't exist?
I don't understand, please explain. The only control government has over the economy are interest rates and taxes.
What loopholes will the "plan" close?
Novak doesn't mention any loopholes closing. You are putting "plan" in quotation marks because you disagree with the contents?
The mortgage interest deduction?
Maybe the student loan interest deduction? Those would be great for the working and middle class. What about the charitable giving deduction?
Isn't this nit picking a bit? Capping federal spending increases and repealing Obamacare are the big bucket items. Obamacare would cripple small business, which is the foundation of Distributism.
Your only response is that it is the only alternative, so it must be the right answer.
No, I do think it's a good plan. I am totally willing to look at other plans though. If you are for Obamacare, do you support raising taxes to a point that would pay for it? I can at least respect that position even if I don't agree with it. I think it boils down to I think the European model failed, and you think it is successful.
Ryan's plan isn't perfect, it makes no defense cuts. But it is a step in the right direction.
I suspect Ryan has read what the Catholic Church actually teaches in its social doctrine. I am willing to bet these Jesuits haven't, just the books promoting their views of it.
PS Hasn't Ryan consulted with his Bishop on this?
When Reagan lowered taxes, tax revenues went up.
Oh my. Population growth and inflation account for most of the revenue increase during his administration. Economists have shown that tax cuts only produce additional revenue to offset maybe a third of the total cut. That is a thoroughly debunked myth.
I believe you are a faithful Catholic. But the Ryan "plan" has more to do with personal politics than it does living the Catholic faith. I would be willing to accept overall cuts in social services if there were additional monies provided to job readiness programs, education, and other programs that help reduce poverty. Sadly, that is not the case.
Post a Comment