A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

A brilliant commentary on the ‘debt-ceiling’ debate July 14, 2011

Anyone even a bit plugged into current events knows that there is a huge debate political brawl ongoing between the Republican-controlled House and the demonrat controlled Senate and White House over the federal budget.  The core problem is that the US government is spending far more than it takes in – in fact, it is spending about $2+ for every one dollar it takes in.  This huge debt is a crushing burden on the economy, which cannot come back to life so long as government is sucking up so much capital for………all the foolish and largely counterproductive programs our federal government engages in.  Obama had a gambit all along – massively increase spending in order to force later tax increases, thus insuring the massive spending would be ‘institutionalized’ and form a new baseline for government operations in this country.  He’s taken the federal budget as a percent of GDP from around the historic 18-20% figure and blown it up towards (and likely above, in out years) 30%.  The economy cannot sustain this level of fiscal profligacy. But, morally, we are told that if we cut federal spending, it will devastate “the poor.”  And we are also told that it is only moral to highly tax “the rich,” who must pay their fair share.  Thomas Peters is having none of this false morality:

What concerns me as a Catholic is the false dichotomy that frequently comes up during this debate. It goes like this:

“America is spending more than it takes in. If America is to balance its balance sheet, it shouldn’t do so on the backs of the poor. Instead, the wealthy should pitch in their fair share.” [This is the starting point of the massive lie.  The bottom 48% of wage earners in this country pay NO, ZERO, NADA, federal income tax .  The top 10% pay about 80% of all federal income taxes.  Many of those in the top brackets are small business owners who may have income of $700k, 800k, even over a million a year, but they have expenses of $600k or $800k, which makes their net…….not so stinking rich.  When taxes are raised on these folks, they either have to lay people off or shut down their business.  Or, they look for creative ways to avoid taxes.  Repeated economic studies have shown that, no matter what the federal income tax rate is set at, the federal government will only net about 19-22% of GDP in taxes, at most.  Higher taxes lead to less economic development and more effort spent hiding income in offshore and other investments.  This ‘income hiding’ was a very large industry the last time we had ridiculously high federal income taxes – back in the late 70s.]

This argument is misguided on many levels.

First of all, neither rich people nor poor people got American into debt. The government got us into debt. It is the government that has spent more money than it has, time and time again. [Well, “we” have voted for the government that has gotten us into debt, and far too many Americans want to live way beyond their means, on both a personal and a ‘federal’ level. We are about to enjoy the pain of paying for the profligacy of earlier times.]

Second, saying that the government must take more money from the wealthy (both businesses and individuals) [Many of the ‘wealthy’ targeted by Obama and the democrats are small business owners who are not what one would normally consider ‘rich.’] to take care of the poor presumes that government is the most efficient way to take care of the poor. I disagree. In fact, in my view, the government is about the most inefficient (not to mention most expensive) way to take care of the needy. [YES!  Finally, a Catholic says this. So many in the Church, including, sadly, most of our bishops and many priests, are wedded to the idea that government is the best and almost only way to “help the poor (which, relatively speaking, often are not poor. The number of truly poor people in this country is quite small).”  This idea is wrong headed and, frankly, imbued deeply with socialism.  The government, especially the federal government, is exceedingly inefficient.  We’ve all heard the stories of ‘bridges to nowhwere’ and ‘$10000 toilet seats.’  These small items are indicative of the overall problem – government is wasteful and inefficient.  There are far better, and more efficient means, of ‘aiding the poor,’ when undertaken by private and locally based efforts.  Even more sadly, Catholic Charities and similar groups get over 90% of their funding from the government.  Many bishops are loathe to see that governmental income drop.]

On a deeper level, I have a profound problem with the way the debate plays out in the mind of Democrats right now who suggest Americans must prove why they shouldn’t owe more in taxes. Right now Americans have to say either they a) don’t have money to spare for taxes or b) will use their extra money to invest in creating more jobs and giving back to the country in other ways. This is just the reverse of what it should be: the government owes us an explanation for why it should be taking more of our money. [Democrats operate from the assumption, the profoundly socialist assumption, that all money earned by all people and businesses belongs, by right to the “the people,” that is, the government.  So, they often speak as though the government is doing us a favor by letting us “keep” 60% or 70% of our income.]

This is how I would like to see the debt ceiling debate conducted: before politicians and the President agree to allow the government to borrow more money, government should come back and demonstrate how it intends to solve our crippling rising debt. The fact that entitlements (constituting the bulk of America’s future debt crisis) remains a sacred cow to democrats makes it difficult for me to see how they can be trusted to right the ship of state. [They are also a sacred cow to many Repubnikans, who will likely force a cave-in and Obama’s so much desired tax increase.  We’re watching the Cloward-Piven strategy in play, folks.  This president is a committed socialist.]

In fact, even if Democrats successfully implemented the most draconian tax increases they could formulate the added “revenue” would not solve the entitlement crisis. If Republicans, however, were able to introduce the government spending cuts and entitlement reforms they want to see it is actually conceivable that America’s debt situation could be markedly improved. [Yep, but few Americans are aware of this, as they get their news-fo-tainment from the statist media, who fully support all democrat efforts to create a socialist empire and make any conservative ideals, ideals on which this country was founded and ran for it’s first 190 or so years, seem strange, draconian, and alien.  They’ve been remarkably successful, in spite of being fully discredited as ‘unbiased’ media].

How are we to understand this debate in Catholic terms? Currently the Catholic Left is fond of saying that we have a moral obligation to provide for the poor, and from that they argue we cannot morally make any cuts or reforms to entitlement programs designed to aid the poor.

I counter: there’s nothing moral about wasting money and endangering the common good of all Americans by following policies which are demonstrably failing to provide aid for the poor in a sustainable way. [This is what the ‘Catholic left,’ which policies many bishops seem to endorse, fundamentally fails to understand – the US economy is in dread shape.  We are teetering at the edge of an abyss from which we may not, will not be able to return.  We are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.  The US economy is fundamentally unhealthy due to unsustainably high levels of government spending – especially federal spending.  We cannot sustain the current levels.  This economy will implode.  We cannot continue the wealth transfer schemes instituted decades ago.  The reasons for this are many (including the fact that folks have contracepted and sterilized themselves to the point there aren’t enough new workers to support these schemes!), but are immaterial at this point.  Everybody is going to have to endure some pain.  Alot of pain, in fact.  I fully expect to pay into “Social Security” for my entire working career and get nothing out.  I fully expect to have no essentially no health insurance if I retire.  I expect to work until I die, because the social welfare net as presently constituted cannot be maintained.   Oh well, work is out lot in this life, we work now so as to enjoy the eternal pleasure of beholding God in His Glory later.  I could go on and on, but this post is already too long – fundamentally, the Church’s unfortunate alliance with government will have to cease (one way or another, it will cease, or very largely so), and the Church will have to return to doing what it did for 1950 years or so – aiding the poor as best it can through distribution of alms, etc, not being an engine of ‘social revolution’ and an arm of the government.  The sooner Church leaders accept this near future reality, the better they can begin preparing for it.