Draconian Cuts in Social Spending are Immoral and Will Not Solve Budget Problems
May 11th, 2011 | 47 responses
Here is something interesting, from the National Catholic Reporter. John Boehner is a devout Catholic, but it seems that not all Catholic leaders are down with Boehner’s understanding of Catholic social teachings, and in the light of those teachings they would like him to reconsider his support for laws that eliminate programs that help the most vulnerable members of society. The following is part of a letter that a group of Catholic academics have sent to Rep. Boehner on the occasion of his invitation to give the commencement address at Notre Dame University the Catholic University of America:
Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings. 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. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.
The 2012 budget you shepherded to passage in the House of Representatives guts long-established protections for the most vulnerable members of society. It is particularly cruel to pregnant women and children, gutting Maternal and Child Health grants and slashing $500 million from the highly successful Women Infants and Children nutrition program. When they graduate from WIC at age 5, these children will face a 20% cut in food stamps. The House budget radically cuts Medicaid and effectively ends Medicare. It invokes the deficit to justify visiting such hardship upon the vulnerable, while it carves out $3 trillion in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. In a letter speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Stephen Blaire and Bishop Howard Hubbard detailed the anti-life implications of this budget in regard to its impact on poor and vulnerable American citizens. They explained the Church’s teachings in this regard clearly, insisting that:
A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.
Specifically, addressing your budget, the letter expressed grave concern about changes to Medicaid and Medicare that could leave the elderly and poor without adequate health care. The bishops warned further:
We also fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to escape poverty, especially food and nutrition, child development and education, and affordable housing.
NCR editor Michael Sean Winters observes “that the signatories do not call on Boehner to decline to give his address, nor on CUA to revoke its invitation, as many conservatives called on Notre Dame [University] to revoke its invitation to President Obama in 2009. They understand that a university should be a place where all voices and viewpoints are heard. But, they are well within their right to ask Boehner to explain how his budgetary proposals do, or do not, conform to traditional Catholic social teaching.”
Meanwhile, on a purely pragmatic level, James Rowley and Mike Dorning point out, over at Bloomberg, that the House Speaker’s “prescriptions for growing the U.S. economy and reducing the nation’s debt [are] built … on several assertions that are contradicted by market indicators and government reports.” And a Reuters survey reveals that “17 out of 29 fund managers and economists representing major Wall Street bond dealing firms said the Republicans’ favored option of spending cuts alone would not … work” to reduce the deficit, and that “tax increases must be part of the mix.”
47 Responses to “Draconian Cuts in Social Spending are Immoral and Will Not Solve Budget Problems”
Who cares if he is a devout Catholic, Jew or Muslim. Separation of church and state in this country.
Interesting to see this group of Catholic academics chastise Speaker Boehner. I think it needs to be kept in mind, that while our current economy lends itself to talk of cuts, the GOP was all about making cuts to important social programs long before the economy went south. This economy only plays into their bogus “govt is bad” mantra at least from a certain POV. Btw dd, that sep of church and state talk suggests you may be a bit of an idealist.
Actually, Spence, I am, but more importantly, I am anti-big religion when it over controls lives and is used as an excuse to abuse each others religion.
Uh oh… more common ground!
Wow, g, it’s mind-blowing that you think there is anything remotely similar between what Kathy has written here and what you wrote yesterday on the other post.
Not to hijack my own thread, Greg, but saying it is immoral to cut spending on social programs is not even in the same universe of meaning as saying that an opinion expressed by one of TMV’s contributing writers is immoral. It really is difficult to understand how you could possibly see a similarity there.
Kathy
In any case, Kathy, it’s an interesting tidbit you’ve dug up here. One of the very large differences between Catholicism (at least the modern version thereof) and most Christian/Evangelical churches in the US, from a dogma point of view, is that Catholics do tend to put a huge emphasis on the shepherding and caring parts — help for neighbors, help for the poor. I have many times heard this aspect of Catholicism being derided by members of other Christian sects (many of whom do not even consider Catholics to be Christian).
It is an interesting letter, from a purely religious point of view, and I will be very curious to see if Boehner addresses it, and if so, how.
Furthermore, and tying in with the other little distraction going on on this thread, I think it’s safe to say that from a Catholic dogma point of view, cutting the social programs does seem to be out of phase with the morals of that religious viewpoint. From the point of view of the dogma of most other Christian/Evangelical denominations in the US, it most certainly is not.
Of course, if you’re an athiest like me, whether something is morally solid or not has nothing to do with what the church says.
Kathy,
Thank you for making the distinction, and I don’t want to hijack your thread either and promise I’ll bring it back around. But I need to clarify the assertion that Mr. Cotharn made that he has been banned from commenting on my articles. I have no authority to ban anybody. Mr. Cotharn agreed to discontinue commenting on my articles. The exact exchange was.
From me, “I think it best that you and I cease communications. For my part, I will no longer read or respond to your comments and request that you no longer post comments to my articles.” May 10, 2010 at 6:10 am (emphasis added)
Mr. Cotharn’s reply, “I will respect your wishes.” May 10, 2010 at 12:07 pm.
Based on his agreement I did delete one subsequent comment from him. If Mr. Cotharn believes his agreement was made in haste and wishes to retract his agreement, he may do so. As I said, I have no authority to ban anyone.
Back to your piece. I agree that it would best if church/state separation were honored, but we have long ago passed that marker. Those of all faiths, sects and denominations have become deeply ingrained in our political processes. That Catholic academics express their views is no more offensive than any other religious group expressing theirs.
It’s perfectly appropriate that the Catholic bishops are calling Boehner out prior to his Notre Dame address, similar to the way Obama was called out for his views on abortion. As far as I can tell no one is suggesting they should have any disproportionate influence on legislation.
And if gcotharn and Elijah Sweete are ever in Iowa you are invited to a beer summit at my house.
Agreed. I would add that I don’t even see this as a church-state separation issue. I mean, it’s not like with the health care reform battle, when Bart Stupak and others were actually meeting with Church officials (the Catholic church) to actually write actual legislation. It’s not like these Catholic academics are saying they’re going to urge their Catholic colleagues not to vote for Republicans. All they did was write a letter to him, for goodness sake, asking him to reconsider his support for cutting social programs, or at least his single-minded crusade to cut social programs as opposed to finding any other way of addressing the government’s budget problems. Yes, they are asking for that reconsideration as Catholic university leaders in the context of Boehner’s expressed devout Catholicism, but in my view it’s a much more broad soul-searching that they’re requesting — not specific legislation.
As Rodrigo Borgia, could have said: Forget about all those little boys, sex outside of marriage, all that stuff, and let’s have our guys give their opinions on taxes and all the other programs; maybe we can influence a couple of the politicians that are sober this Sunday.
There is no such Christian doctrine. There are specific Christian groups and sects that interpret Christianity this way, but there is no doctrine inherent to Christianity as a whole that states objective truth exists and that an act is either moral or immoral.
You did not mention the term “Christian doctrine” when you told Elijah his position on OBL was immoral. You just told him his position was immoral. You did not put that into any religious or Christian frame.
Your comment was deleted. I did not cheer that deletion. One day later (today), I published a post with the title “Draconian Cuts in Social Spending Are Immoral and Will Not Solve Budget Problems” (this post). I did not cheer Christian moral doctrine in this post.
You were not polite. Telling Elijah that his position on OBL is immoral is not a polite thing to say. Saying now that you only called Elijah’s position immoral, not Elijah himself, is sophistry. When you tell a person that his or her opinion or belief is immoral, you are in fact making a statement about that person’s morality as a person.
1. When two people hold diametrically opposite opinions about the morality of killing OBL, both of those opinions can, in truth, be moral. That is not necessarily the case with regard to opposite opinions on ALL issues or on ANY issue, but it IS true in the instance of THIS issue. It IS possible for one person to hold the opinion that it is immoral to kill an unarmed man, even when that man is OBL, and for a second person to hold the opinion that it was NOT immoral to kill OBL even though he was unarmed, and not label one of those positions as moral and the other as immoral.
2. You were NOT requested to back down or characterized as contributing to the deterioration of a thread because you refused to repudiate or disavow Christian doctrine. That is, in fact, not what you did, and it’s not why you were asked to back down or told you were contributing to the deterioration of the thread.
3. KathyK did not cheer anything in this thread or that other thread.
Kathy
DaGoat,
I have plans to be in Omaha for a few days this summer. Would I be anywhere close to the site of the beer summit should I have a rental car?
In the meantime I’ll email Mr. Cotharn to see if he has a set of dueling pistols.
As I recall, there are many churches in Iowa. Are they politically active? Weren’t some state supreme court judges removed there with heavy church involvement because of a gay marriage ruling? Or am I thinking of the wrong state?
I read it, Greg. I read it the first time. It hasn’t changed.
Kathy
ES, I’m on the other side of the state from Omaha right across the river from Illinois.
Yes, we were the state that voted out the 3 state supreme court justices because of their ruling on gay marriage. That was kind of unusual actually, as I don’t remember the church having much pull otherwise.
Overall Iowa is pretty moderate – the state went for Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004, Obama in 2008. The Tea Party does have a foothold up in Northern Iowa, though.
DaGoat,
Anywhere near Cedar Rapids? I dated a young woman who attended Coe College while I was at the University of Wisconsin…which, by the way, is where I learned to enjoy beer summits.
[...] Draconian Cuts in Social Spending are Immoral and Will Not Solve Budget Problems (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
The real question is…
Is Boehner really Catholic or does he just play Catholic on TV? I think many politicians are make-believe religious….including Obama.
One step further… is he really Christian? Going to church and professing your faith on tv does not make one a Christian.
Personally, I think the letter was a waste of paper. Boehner could care less about doctrine…he just wants their votes.
I don’t think anyone can say there is any concrete church teachings that requires govt to provide charity. Obviously giving and social support is a very important part of being catholic but I fail to see why you can’t believe in Charity and giving, be a Catholic, and still feel it isn’t the govt place to do everything it currently is doing, especially on a national level. More BS politics with people using any lever they can to get what they want regardless of honesty.
“I fail to see why you can’t believe in Charity and giving, be a Catholic, and still feel it isn’t the govt place to do everything it currently is doing”
Very True.
In the end, it is about who controls where the money goes. Personally, I like the idea of a government that chooses charity based on public will as a whole and individual charity based on a persons direct environment.
You would hope that government charity would be a blanket mechanism that would cover the needs of many and that individual charity would support those causes that either fall through the cracks or niche charities that still need support.
Obviously, I would put medicare into the blanket category that should be government run. Pulling medicare out from under our senior citizens imho is an immoral act.
ShannonLee,
Social justice is not “charity.” If it were only eellis using this term, I’d ignore it, but you should know better.
Kathy
I agree that it would best if church/state separation were honored, but we have long ago passed that marker.
This might seem strange coming from someone like me, but I don’t actually think this is a matter of church/state separation at all. Everyone has a moral compass they got from somewhere, and for many that’s church, and for many others, it’s just what they learned growing up.
My problem with all this is not that Boehner proclaims to take his morality from Catholicism, as it’s a fine and valid place to get such a base. What I have a problem with is that Boehner upholds his Catholic morality by voting against the rights of women to choose (for example), and then ignores it in order to vote away the social safety net that makes it safer for those women to have unplanned kids in the first place. It’s like he’s picking and choosing when to go with Catholicism and when to “separate church and state” based on what’s going to cause the most pain and furthest limit good choices for poor people and women in general. That kind of sucks, in my view.
It’s actually interesting to see the Religious Left back in action.
They left the stage pretty much after opposing Reagan and the USA and the West in the 1980s, with (US) nuclear weapons, though there is a tiny remnant of the slimy “sanctuary” (for illegal immigrants) movement and continued immigration “reform” (amnesty) activism. The best known example of the continued Religious Left was (and with his blog, still is) Roger Mahony:
http://cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/
There’s a new Religious Left contingent that is pro-GBLT (Joe Windish has written about his experience with such a thing in rural Georgia).
Then there are all those black (Democratic) Baptist Churches.
* * *
It’s not “immoral” to reduce social spending, of course, nor “heartless,” etc. Spending will eventually have to be controlled and yes, reduced; there is no serious question about that fact. The question is where or how the spending will (or “should”) be controlled and reduced.
EJS: And you were on a good highway for that 160 miles (between Madison and Cedar Rapids). The terrain in SW Wisconsin-NE Iowa (including Dubuque at the river) is also really, really interesting.
E. Ellis wrote:
“[I]t isn’t the govt place to do everything it currently is doing, especially on a national level.”
Nor is it in Jesus’s teachings or in the Old Testament, despite what some on the Religious Left would argue. (The same who were all enamored of Marxism during the years of “liberation theology” as well as opposed to nuclear weapons when Reagan was in office)
I’m thinking that maybe I should start posting passages from the Hebrew Bible and from the Christian gospels, a different one every day.
What do you guys think? Are you up for that?
“There is no such Christian doctrine. There are specific Christian groups and sects that interpret Christianity this way, but there is no doctrine inherent to Christianity as a whole that states objective truth exists and that an act is either moral or immoral.”
With regards to Christianity expressing an objective moral code, you can’t be serious Kathy.
First, there is the concept of Sin. Literally an act that is bad in the eyes of god. That in itself refutes your statement.
Second, there is a heaven, an eternal afterlife and if you don’t behave well and live by a code, you don’t get in. They are quite clear on that topic. Not saying all can’t be forgiven by Jesus, but still, there are acts you can do or not do to prevent you getting to paradise. Another example of an objective set of rules.
Third, and most specific, there are the 10 Commandments. Literally a set of rules of sins, stated clearly as objectively bad things you aren’t supposed to do.
Now, all three of these things are common to all branches of Christianity not just some sects. They may harp on various topics more than others, but they certainly, without a doubt, proclaim an objective set of rules.
slamfu, many Christian factions do, in fact, believe that the *only* way to get to heaven is through believing that Jesus died for our sins. That’s it. Most Christian sects do set out a code of conduct, but you’ve got to be kidding if you think that that code of conduct has much similarity sect-to-sect, or is in some way closed to interpretation. And certainly a code of conduct is in no way unique to Christianity or, further, to any religion. Nor is relativism precluded by Christianity, as evidence by the wide variety of interpretations.
The idea that gcotharn was specifically being called out for his Christian doctrine after he said that tidbits must think him immoral since he disagreed with him is ludicrous. To try and take that to the statement that “it is a Christian doctrine that objective truth exists” is not only a wide stretch, but is fully illogical.
Ok, so lets take a hypothetical based the branch of Christianity you mentioned. I believe that Christ died for my sins. Its logged in my brain as a fact similar to my knowledge that George Washington was our first president. Also, on the weekends, I torture and eat children. Merely acknowledging that Jesus died for my sins, even though I plan on continuing them till I die, I am assured entrance into heaven? Obviously its not that simple. Because the branch you listed is really simple, and apparently has no opinions as to the goodness or badness of torturing and eating children. Or do they?
With great trepidation, I’m going to take a swing at this (and probably anger everyone on all sides in the process – as usual)
First, there are certain things that are objective truths. Outside of a religious context, some might refer to these as scientific truths, or verifiable truth. The grass in my backyard is green, there are more days of sunshine than days of rain in Scottsdale, I breathe and am able to speak, etc. For Christians, there are beliefs that rise to the level of objective truth. Jesus is the son of God, belief in the diety of Jesus is necessary to eternal reward, etc. Atheists and those of other religions would not accept these as objective truths, but for Christians they are so fundamental as to take on that flavor. [Don't give up. I'm going to get to the topic of the article.]
Once one passes the realm of objective truth, whether scientific or religiously based, one enters the realm of opinion or interpretation. Opinion, by definition, is not, and cannot be, objective truth. Opinion cannot be objective truth either within the context of scientific provability or religious belief. Thus, you have religious “truth” and religious opinion. Religious “truth” is what slamfu talked about, the common demoninators. Religious “opinion” is what roro80 discussed, resulting in differing interpretation and sects.
This next part will be critical of the Christian right for those who care to skip it. We have seen on this thread those from the Christian right who argue that addressing the needs of the poor, though Christian, is not necessarily a government function. The same folks who make that argument will turn around in a heartbeat and tell you that abortion is an issue that requires a full on assault for government action. Here’s what the life and teachings of Jesus are in a nutshell, according to the gospels that describe his life and teachings. His most prominent topic was faith (John3:17). The social issue issue most commonly raise by Jesus and second only to faith? Helping the poor. What issue did Jesus never mention? Abortion.
In other words, if one is a devotee of Jesus, and one believes in his life and teachings, addressing the needs of the poor should be far, far, far more important than abortion in terms of either government action or personal action. If one, who believes in the life and teachings of Jesus, should advocate anything in terms of government involvement it should be assistance for the poor, his second favorite teaching subject after faith. And for those who believe that accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is all that is required, or that helping the poor is not necessary, or that one can ascend to Heaven on faith alone, may I recommend the second chapter of the Book of James…”faith without works is dead” which would address the torturing and eating of children argument raised above, but which is so often ignored by the religious right.
There. Full of personal bias, perhaps some objective truth, and a whole lot of opinion. My two cents. Fire away.
I find it hard to believe the Catholic church is more sympathetic to the poor than other Christian sects. Look at the riches of the Vatican vis a vis the poverty of South America for eg.
Hi tidbits,
Nothing about what you said upsets me at all. I agree with it whole heartedly. The one thing I would like to point out is that, even among religions that are Christian, what rises to the dogmatic level of “truth” is still up for debate. The fact that there exists something called the 10 commandments that were God’s instructions to Moses is Christian fact. Whether those are a necessity to get into heaven – and even whether they are valid at all after Jesus’ new testament deal with humankind that he was now the only path to heaven – is still a deeply contentious issue among the religions. So, is it “truth” as slamfu says, that one must follow these rules to get to heaven? And further, does this indicate that “truth” is somehow a Christian value, with the effect on morals implied by gcotharn? My answer is still an emphatic no.
Slamfu, I’m an atheist so I’m not the best person to ask, and I would not be so presumptuous to speak for a group (Christians) to which I not only do not belong, but with which I am frequently antagonistic. However, I know that prostheletizing to save the souls of those on death row is extremely common.
Furthermore, I still maintain that even if you were to prove without any doubt that there are codes of conduct among Christian sects that are somehow standard, even given that, it says nothing about whether or nor objective moral truthf exists, and it certainly does not make the very philosophy of objective truth a “Christian value”, any more than it is a Muslim value.
And not only Jesus. Abortion is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible at all. Not even once. By contrast, the Hebrew bible is filled with commandments to treat the poor and the sick with justice and compassion, to feed, clothe, and comfort every person who is in need. Oppressing the poor, the sick, the refugee, the exile, is treated as a profound evil throughout the Hebrew bible. There is just no way that anyone can reasonably argue that the Bible does not require or call for social justice.
Wow, roro so many questions of such depth.
I would disagree with slamfu about the Ten Commandments. I’m veering off target here, but when Christians go the Old Testament for their authority they are on philosophically shaky ground given Jesus’ teaching that “The old law is passed away, and I give you a new law. Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor even as you love yourself.” While I can accept that the Ten Commandments might be morally instructive for Christians, they are not decisive re the Heaven/Hell dichotomy. [now I'm really inviting abuse, but that's what Jesus said according to the gospels]
Duh – clicked submit before I finished.
AQs to the question of whether “truth” is a Christian value. It would be my opinion that truth is a universal aspiration not restricted to any one religion or philosophy. The easier distinction to draw is that between fact and belief. Facts are verifiable, beliefs are not. too many people use the word “truth” to express their opinions which they believe are of such importance that they must be phrased in a context that seems to relate them to fact.
The timing out of the edit function on this new comment system really sucks. Do the best you can with the prior.
Because I was timed out before, I’d like to be clear about one thing before hustling off to bed. I make no claims to being a Christian…probalby somewhere between agnostic and undiagnosed theist.
What gcotharn says is correct. Religion offers no instruction on HOW to help the poor, we’re just supposed to help them. It all depends on how each person views economic theory. I remember Jesus saying something about giving your coat as well to a person who merely asks for your shirt, but I don’t remember Jesus asking for medicare! I personally believe these things are best handled by the gov’t, but the bible does not say that.
Well crap I had a lengthy post that apparently timed out. It’s pretty much summarized by the JFK quote “I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me”. It should be the same for Boehner and any other politician.
I do not agree with this; there are many specific issues and/or acts that are in a moral gray area — moral complexity is quite real, but your philosophy does not allow for it.
Furthermore, even if it is true that every specific action is either moral or immoral, but you cannot know which it is with certainty, then you have no business declaring — with certainty — that another individual’s belief about a specific choice made in a specific situation is “an immoral position to take.” Your words are actually in contradiction to your stated beliefs.
Great point, Kathy. Furthermore, the fact that it is g’s “take” on Christianity does not mean that it is a Christian principle that absolute moral truth exists. It’s just not there as a philosophical concept.
I don’t know, but it looks like we might need a fainting couch or some pearls to clutch over up in here.
The point, g, in case you missed it, is that you’re throwing a temper tantrum, and it’s not pretty.
Greg — Amen to 151 from Dubuque to Madison.
I’ve also been north from Dubuque through “Is this Iowa?” up to Prairie du Chien and La Crosse. I wish that whole part of the nation (from Savanna, IL at the bridge to Red Wing, MN, approximately), sometimes called the “driftless region” (not quite, but yes, largely spared of scraping down to the rest of Iowa by the glaciers) were its own state or parts of it even some kind of reserved lands. (Did you know that the other, earlier Pike’s Peak is located in that place?)
Yes, it’s completely clear that you are sharing your personal opinion that Elijah’s beliefs are immoral.
Look up the word “sophistry,” Greg. You’re practicing it.
Kathy
No, it doesn’t. You are absolutely, 100 percent wrong. And that is the truth.
Kathy