Abortion v. Supporting the poor, the criminals, the immigrants, and the environment

Who Will Protect Catholics from Rick Santorum?

By Regina Small | February 7, 2012 LINK

The Awl

Rick Santorum, eager to show that he will stand up for Catholic values, has been saying things about the recent Health and Human Services regulation that now requires Catholic universities and hospitals to provide access to contraception and the morning-after pill. Santorum has accused the Obama administration of being "hostile to people of faith, particularly Christians and specifically Catholics.” He's even gone so far as to vow that he "will make it an issue every day of this campaign," until the Obama administration reinstates conscience protections. Santorum has also spoken up forcefully against same-sex marriage, which the Pope has—yes, again—recently condemned (in some really extreme terms, too).

Santorum further complained that "[The current administration] are folks who are trying to use their power to force people to do things that they believe they should do and are right. They don’t care about their religion."

But you know who does care about religion? Rick Santorum! In fact, let's take a look at how most of Rick Santorum's stated political views are truly representative of the Catholic Church and Catholic voters!

On man-made climate change:

"I for one never bought the hoax. I for one understood just from science, there are 100 factors that influence the climate, to suggest one minor factor of which man’s contribution is a minor factor.... And yet we have politicians running to the ramparts, unfortunately politicians that happen to be running for the Republican nomination of the president who buy into manmade global and bought into cap and trade. Congressman Gingrich and Gov. Romney both supported the idea of manmade global warming and in fact cap and trade; I never did. And unless the science is such that it is a heck of a lot better than what we see today, I won’t.” —Rick Santorum

"I hope that all members of the international community can agree on a responsible, credible and supportive response to this worrisome and complex phenomenon, keeping in mind the needs of the poorest populations and of future generations....In fact, it is by now evident that there is no good future for humanity or for the earth unless we educate everyone toward a style of life that is more responsible toward the created world." Pope Benedict XVI

On intelligent design:

"Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate." — -Rick Santorum

"If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science...Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation." — -L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.

On the death penalty:

"When there is certainty, that's the case that capital punishment can be used. If there is not certainty, under the law, it shouldn't be used." —Rick Santorum

"There is no room for supporting the death penalty in today's world." — -Tommaso Di Ruzza, desk officer at the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

and

Addressing the Sant’Egidio Community in Rome on November 30th, 2011: Pope Benedict XVI stated that he hoped their discussions (organized under the theme "No Justice Without Life") "will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty.”

On illegal immigrants:

"You can't be here for 20 years and commit only one illegal act ... because everything you're doing while you're here is against the law....I understand Congressman Gingrich saying, 'Well, you know, people have been here and they've been good citizens and paying taxes.' Yeah, under somebody else's Social Security number because you stole it." —Rick Santorum

"The Catholic Church’s approach to immigration is not about politics or economics. It is rooted in the vision of human society that was taught to us by Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church, from the time of the first Pentecost, has been a family of nations. By definition, the Catholic Church is universal, one family of God drawn from all nations, peoples, and languages....The point is that in the Catholic Church and in the eyes of God, no one is a stranger or an alien. As a pastor, I am deeply concerned about the costs of this impasse in the lives of millions of men, women, and children. Not just the souls of the 12 million without papers who are living at the margins of our society. I am worried about their physical, moral, and spiritual health. When you are a stranger in a strange land — and unwanted — you are easy prey for exploitation. But more than that. When you are a stranger who is despised, it gets harder every day to hold onto your cultural identity, your moral compass, your religion, your dignity. You start to believe what people say about you — that you are no good." —Archbishop Jose H. Gomez

On diplomatic relations with Iran:

"I would be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes." —Rick Santorum

"Vatican officials have said privately that on the question of Iran the Holy See supports the position of the IAEA, which has called on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, allow more international inspections and work more cooperatively with the international community to certify that its nuclear development is strictly for peaceful purposes. The officials have also said the Vatican would view outside military intervention in Iran as morally unjustifiable and impractical." —Catholic News Service Report

On poverty:

"I don't want to make [black or possibly 'blah'] people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families." —Rick Santorum

"We've gotta block-grant [food stamps] and send it back to the states, just like I did with welfare reform — do the same thing with Medicaid, including housing programs, block-grant them, send them back to the states, require work, and you put a time limit on it....We'll help take these programs, which are now dependencies, and you help people move out of poverty." —Rick Santorum

"We remind Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum that Catholic bishops describe racism as an 'intrinsic evil' and consistently defend vital government programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits that help struggling Americans. At a time when nearly 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty, charities and the free market alone can’t address the urgent needs of our most vulnerable neighbors. And while jobseekers outnumber job openings 4-to-1, suggesting that the unemployed would rather collect benefits than work is misleading and insulting." —Letter signed by over 40 Catholic leaders and theologians.

So: Rick Santorum is succeeding in standing up for two stated values of the Catholic Church, while ignoring or outright contradicting most of Catholic social teaching. Is it that these two issues (reproductive freedom, same-sex marriage) actually weigh more heavily in the minds of Catholic voters? Is that why Santorum feels so comfortable identifying as a Catholic politician? Or does the prominence of these two issues in the public discourse about Catholicism have more to do with the Church's inability to communicate its message about social responsibility and diplomacy? HEAVY QUESTIONS. What we do know is in 2008, 52% of Catholic voters cast their ballots in favor of Barack Obama, a pro-choice candidate, maybe in part because his campaign was more in line with the vast majority of the issues outlined here—in a way Santorum's isn't and likely never will be. If Santorum wants to protect the Catholic conscience, it might benefit him to think about what the Catholic conscience actually is.

AZ Legislature and the New Testament

Thou shalt take your Bible class

by E. J. Montini - Feb. 5, 2012 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

An Arizona legislative committee last week approved a bill to create an elective high-school class called "The Bible and its Influence on Western Culture," a divinely inspired proposal that needs only two minor changes.

First, the class should not be elective but mandatory. Second, it should not be taught to high-school students but to legislators.

Can I get an "Amen!"?

Given their behavior, Arizona lawmakers must have been absent at Sunday school when a few relatively important topics came up.

For example, caring for their fellow man. Remember how legislators refused to extend unemployment benefits to Arizona men and women who had been out of work for a long time even though the money would have come from the federal government?

Would they have done that if they were familiar with a Bible passage like Acts 20:35? It says, "In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "

Likewise, would they continue giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us if they were familiar with 1 Timothy 6:17? That's a passage reading, "Tell those who are rich not to be proud and not to trust their money, which will soon be gone, but their pride and trust should be in the living God who always richly gives us all we need for our enjoyment."

In fact, lawmakers might actually start thinking more about the underprivileged than the wealthy if they were familiar with Proverbs 19:17, which says, "Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed."

And citizens like us might not have to worry about the influence of highly paid lobbyists working for special interests if our politicians were familiar with Matthew 6:24, which reads, "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

Would our lawmakers cut or limit health care for children if they'd studied Mark 10:14? It says, "But when Jesus saw (it), he was much displeased, and said unto them, 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.' "

Would there have been a Fiesta Bowl scandal if they were familiar with Proverbs 16:19? It tells us, "Better it is to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud."

Would they wage war against police and firefighters and try to deny their rights to bargain collectively if they'd been at Sunday School during the discussion of Isaiah 10:1-2? It reads, "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people. ... "

Or to Proverbs 22:16, which reads, "He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want."

Would we have all the ugly negative campaigning in every election if our politicians read Matthew 5:5? It reminds us: "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

Nor would candidates trash one another if they had any understanding of Matthew 23:12, which says, "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

For these reasons and many more the state must create a Bible class and require elected officials to take it. After the final exam -- assuming any of them pass -- we could present each lawmaker with a plaque that will have on it this quote from Galatians 6:3:

"For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself."

Reach Montini at 602-444-8978 or ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

Reaganomics: Appropriate in early 80s, but not now

Why the GOP should stop invoking Reaganomics

Bruce Bartlettfor The Washington Post LINK

In their debates, ads and speeches, the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are vying for the label of most Reagan-esque.

On taxes, “I take the Reagan approach,” former senator Rick Santorum said at a recent Florida debate.

On the economy, “under Ronald Reagan, we had . . . the right laws, the right regulators, the right leadership,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich said in a debate before his South Carolina primary victory.

Judging from the candidates’ tax proposals, they seem to believe that the most Reagan-like candidate is the one with the biggest tax cut. But, as the person who drafted the 1981 Reagan tax cut, I think Republicans misunderstand the premises upon which Reagan’s economic policies were based, and why those policies can’t — and shouldn’t — be replicated today.

I was the staff economist for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) in 1977, and it was my job to draft what came to be the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which Reagan endorsed in 1980 and enacted the following year. Kemp and Sen. Bill Roth (R-Del.) proposed cutting tax rates across the board by about a third, lowering the top rate from 70 percent to 50 percent and reducing the bottom rate from 20 percent to 8 percent. (Though when the Reagan tax cut was enacted in 1981, the bottom rate was reduced to 11 percent.)

While our aim was to increase growth and employment, we were intent on doing so in a way that did not exacerbate inflation, which was the nation’s top problem at that time.

After all, growth was not particularly sluggish in the late 1970s — the economy grew at 5.4 percent in 1976, 4.6 percent in 1977 and 5.6 percent in 1978. (We haven’t seen three consecutive years as good since.) But people didn’t feel very prosperous because inflation and unemployment were high. The unemployment rate was around 7 percent during those three years, and inflation accelerated, going from 4.9 percent in 1976 to an astonishing 13.3 percent in 1979.

We believed that inflation contributed to unemployment because when workers got cost-of-living pay increases, they were pushed into higher tax brackets. In turn, this required them to ask for bigger pay increases to try to maintain their after-tax income. This cycle increased the cost of employment for businesses and discouraged them from hiring more workers.

According to the Tax Policy Center, the total federal tax rate (including both the employer and employee share of the payroll tax) for a four-personfamily earning the median national income more than doubled between 1965 and 1979, from 11.5 percent to 23.1 percent. The marginal tax rate — the tax on each additional dollar earned — rose from 17 percent to more than 36 percent. This “tax wedge” — the difference between a business’s cost of employment and the employee’s after-tax reward — also explained why unemployment was high despite robust growth.

Keynesian economics, which was the dominant theory at the time, said that higher taxes would curb inflation by reducing people’s disposable income and spending, and that any tax cut would exacerbate inflation. Our thinking, by contrast, was that lower taxes would increase the incentive to work, save and invest; if that led to an increase in the supply of goods and services, then the impact would be anti-inflationary.

Mainstream economists also argued that the cost of bringing down inflation, even a little bit, would be extraordinarily high. In a May 1978 paper, Brookings Institution economist Arthur Okun calculated that bringing the inflation rate down by just one percentage point would cost 10 percent of a year’s gross national product.

If Keynesian theory was correct, the 1981 Reagan tax cut, which reduced revenue by close to 3 percent of GDP per year, should have been massively inflationary. But in fact, inflation dropped like a rock, from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 8.9 percent in 1981 and 3.8 percent in 1982, where it basically stayed for the rest of the 1980s.

Of course, the Federal Reserve’s tight money policy did the heavy lifting on reducing inflation. But if Okun’s estimate had been even remotely correct, we should have gone through another Great Depression. Although the 1981-82 recession was painful, it was brief and not very deep. Real GDP fell 1.9 percent in 1982 but bounced back nicely, rising 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984.

Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan’s eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent.The average unemployment rate was actually higher under Reagan than it was during the previous eight years: 7.5 percent vs. 6.6 percent.

Liberals argue that the real economic effects of Reagan’s policies show that they failed. However, I believe that these critics overlook the enormous importance of breaking the back of inflation at a relatively small economic cost — certainly far less than any economist would have thought possible in 1981. Reagan’s results should be measured against the (incorrect) expectation that a far more severe economic downturn would be needed to reduce inflation. On that basis, his policies were overwhelmingly successful.

When comparing Reagan’s policies with Republican proposals today, several things stand out. Inflation is low now. We are not looking at “bracket creep” or sharply rising taxes, as we were in the late 1970s. The top income tax rate is 35 percent, half the rate Reagan inherited. And federal revenue is at a 60-year low of about 15 percent of GDP, compared with a post-World War II average of about 18.5 percent.

These differences are essential to understanding why Reagan’s policies worked when they did — and why they are not appropriate today.

All of the evidence tells us that the economy’s fundamental problem today is not on the supply side but the demand side. According to a recent study by Credit Suisse, two-thirds of the difference in growth at this point in the business cycle, compared with previous cycles, is due to slower consumer spending. And low inflation — as well as widespread unemployment, vast stocks of unsold houses, empty factories and other indicators — tells us that money is tight, not loose, as was the case in the late 1970s.

“Low interest rates are generally a sign that money has been tight,” economist Milton Friedman wrote in 1997. Yet, absurdly, Republicans continually berate the Federal Reserve for being too easy; some even insist, insanely, that the United States should return to the gold standard, even though it was a key cause of the Great Depression.

Because inflation and interest rates are low, Fed policy is constrained today in ways it was not in the early 1980s. Back then, the Fed could bring down the federal funds rate to a little less than the inflation rate and create negative real rates, thus stimulating borrowing, investment and consumption. It can’t do that now because it can’t reduce market interest rates below zero.

Economic conditions are entirely different today than they were in Reagan’s era, and different conditions demand different policies. Those who say otherwise are simply engaging in cookie-cutter economics — proposing whatever was popular and seemed to work once, without regard to changing circumstances.

bartlettbruce@verizon.net

Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official during the George H.W. Bush administration. His latest book is “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform — Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”

Only in America...

“Only in America can you be Pro-Death Penalty, Pro-War, Pro-Unmanned Drone Bombs, Pro-Nuclear Weapons, Pro-Guns, Pro-Torture, Pro-Land Mines, AND still call yourself ‘Pro-Life.’”—John Fugelsang (via andoneheadcanneverdie)

Ayn and Jesus: Mutually exclusive

Column: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus

6/5/2011 USA Today LINK

By Stephen Prothero

The new darling of the Republican Party is pro-choice and anti-religion. She once wrotethat, since "an embryo has no rights," abortion "should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved." And when asked by Playboy magazine whether religion "ever offered anything of constructive value to human life" she answered "no," adding that "faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life."

Her name is Ayn Rand, and though she died in 1982 this novelist, philosopher and anti-communist crusader is the hot new thing in the GOP. The American public may have met the April opening Atlas Shrugged, a film based on her novel of the same name, with a collective shrug, but Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tout her books, and her genius. And the opening line of "Atlas Shrugged" ("Who is John Galt?") pops up regularly on handmade signs at Tea Party rallies.

Among Rand's adoring acolytes on Capitol Hill is Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who at a Library of Congresssymposium held in 2005 on the centenary of the Rand's birth called her "the reason I got involved in public service." Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who announced his third presidential run last recently, has invoked Rand in the House on matters as disparate as NASA and the post office. His son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, used her novel Anthem in Senate hearings in April to argue against government regulations to phase out the incandescent light bulb.

When asked to name his favorite political philosopher,George W. Bush named Jesus Christ. But Ayn Rand is the GOP's new savior, and no one seems to be taking notice of just how opposed their two philosophies are.

Individualism vs. collectivism

In Rand's Manichaean world, it is not God vs. Satan, but individualism vs. collectivism. While Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor," she sings Hosannas to the rich. The heroes of Atlas Shrugged (which, alas, is only slightly shorter than the Bible) are captains of industry such as John Galt. The villains are the "looters" and "moochers" — people who by hook (guilt) or by crook (government coercion) steal from the hard-won earnings of others.

Turning the tables on traditional Christian morality, Rand argues that altruism is immoral and selfishness is good. Moreover, there isn't a problem in the world that laissez-faire capitalism can't solve if left alone to perform its miracles.

I first read Atlas Shrugged and her other popular novel, The Fountainhead, while festival-hopping in Spain after graduating from college, so I can attest to the appeal of this philosophy to late adolescents of a certain gender. As an adult, however, Rand's work reads to me like a vulgar rationalization for greed lying on top of a perverse myth of the right relationship between individual and community. So when Ryan says that, "Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism," I have to question his use of the word "explaining." "Duping" seems like the more appropriate verb.

As someone who has written extensively on the religious illiteracy of the American public, I am not surprised that few Republicans today seem to understand that marrying Ayn Rand to Jesus Christ is like trying to interest Lady Gaga in Donny Osmond. But there is nothing Christian about Rand's Objectivism. In fact, it is farther from Christianity than the Marxism that Rand so abhorred. Despite the attempt of the advertising executive Bruce Barton to turn Jesus into a CEO in his novel The Man Nobody Knows(1925), Jesus was a first-class, grade-A "moocher."

I am somewhat surprised, however, at how few GOP thinkers seem to see how hostile her philosophy is to conservatism itself. Real conservatism is first and foremost about conserving a society's traditions, including its religious and political traditions. But Rand's Objectivism rejects in the name of reason appeals to either revelation or tradition. The individual is her hero, and God and the dead be damned.

Real conservatism is also about sacrifice, as is authentic Christianity. President Kennedywas liberal in many ways, but, "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country" was classic conservatism. Rand, however, will brook no such sacrifice. Serve yourself, she tells us, and save yourself as well. There is no higher good than individual self-satisfaction.

One of the reasons we are in our current economic quagmire is that none of our leaders is willing to ask us to sacrifice. Democrats call for more spending and more taxes; Republicans call for lower taxes and less spending, and what we get is the most fiscally ruinous half of each: lower taxes and more spending.

A budget of too little Jesus

Over the last few weeks, various Christian groups have criticized Republican leaders for proposing a 2012 budget that in their view is both un-Christian and anti-life. First, dozens of professors, priests and nuns at various Catholic universities criticized House Speaker John Boehner for a legislative record on the poor that was, in their estimation, "among the worst in Congress." "Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church's most ancient moral teachings," they wrote. "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."

Then a consortium of evangelical and Catholic groups aired an ad scolding Ryan, who spearheaded that GOP budget, for his own "anti-life" stands. In this ad, Father Thomas Kelley, a self-described "pro-life" priest from Elkhorn, Wis., insisted that "God calls us to protect life at all stages," not just in the womb.

In short, these Christians are telling the GOP that there is too much Rand in their budget, and too little Jesus.

I don't see either Atlas Shrugged or the Bible as holy writ. I think the Bible is more wise, better written and, ironically, less likely to come across as holier than thou, but I have not come either to bury Ayn Rand or to lament her recent resurrection. My aim is to force a choice.

If you are going to propose a Robin Hood budget, you have to decide whether you are robbing from the poor to give to the rich, or robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Because you cannot do both. You cannot worship both the God of Jesus and the mammon of Rand.

I don't agree very often with the Watergate criminal and evangelical leader Chuck Colson, but he has it right when he refers to Rand's "idolatry of self and selfishness" as "the antithesis of Christianity"

Rand's trinity is "I me mine." Christianity's is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So take your pick. Or say no to both. It's a free country. Just don't tell me you are both a card-carrying Objectivist and a Bible-believing Christian. Even Rand knew that just wasn't possible.

Stephen Prothero is a religion professor at Boston University and the author of the bookGod is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World — and Why Their Differences Matter.