Archbishop Flynn wants higher taxes

[miguel]

Lisa N:

Ya know I did NOT say every single person in this country who struggled financially did so as a result of bad choices. What I did say is that you can look at ANY social services organization, profile the clients and you will find a majority who have one or more of the four factors mentioned. There are exceptions to every rule. There are kids who come from good families who turn into seriel killers and there are kids who grew up in extreme poverty without good parental guidance who grow up to be supreme court judges.

But the POINT of this discussion is to suggest that simply throwing money at a problem (Archbishop wants higher taxes) will not have any positive effect. Again if you look waaaaaaaaaaayyyyy back to one of the early posts I pointed out how the huge expansion in social programs have created an entitlement mentality amongst some. Our ‘war on poverty’ destroyed the black family and has not reduced poverty just as our ‘war on drugs’ hasn’t done much to reduce drugs. The government has not proven itself very effective in dealing with these issues and I do not have much faith that if I dole out more to Uncle Sam and Governor Tax and Gouge Me, that suddenly all will be well in my fair state.

Do you suggest that the majority of people utilizing social services are clean and sober, hard working, married folks with good educations? I don’t think that is the profile of the average recipient of Food Stamps, Medicaid, or DHS intervention.

Your BIL is an example of situational, not generational poverty. His family is struggling due to problems BEYOND their control. I do maintain though that many folks’ problems are within their control and our goal should be to figure out how to point them in the right direction, not just pay them to keep doing what got them into a pickle in the first place.
Lisa N

Lisa, you go girl.

 

[Lisa_N]

dwc:

No one has addressed 2 points made earlier in the thread;

1. The New Deal started during the depression because private charities could not address the needs of the poor, and;?

It’s not the Depression now so the New Deal mentality (that not all agree was a totally good thing) may not be necessary anymore. Do you have any idea of the incredible escalation of non-profits NOW versus at the time of the Depression? We don’t know if “private” charities (many receive govt funds although not govt affiliated) could address the needs of the poor.

dwc:

1. Why don’t those so opposed to the government programs devote energy to correcting the abuses instead of arguing for the abolition of the programs??

In all fairness, what can we do? Do I walk into DHS with a suggestion list and expect to be heard? What abuses can the average taxpayer correct? We are not privy to the folks taking these benefits fraudulently. We don’t know if a DHS office orders $300 chairs for all its employees. We just don’t KNOW or have access to this information, much less have the power to change it.

The ONLY power we have as taxpayers is to vote against increased taxes. Any surprise as to why we often do so?

dwc:

To this, I’ll add my own question. The thought seems to be that if government social welfare programs were eliminated and taxes reduced accordingly, then people would have more money and donate that money to private charities, which would then replace the government programs. On what is this belief based? How do you have any reasonable expectation that a sufficient number of people would donate sufficient amounts of this newly available money to charities, instead of buying a new SUV, bigger house, whatever?

I have not seen anyone suggest we eliminate programs. I have seen a call for accountability. If a business ran the way a government program often runs it would have been bankrupt years ago. One of the more positive trends is ‘outcomes based funding’ which requires a program to be effective to retain funding. For example a large youth program in our city receives millions in government funding. In the good old days, all they had to do was say “we have XXXX number of beds for homeless and transitional youth” Now they have to follow up those youth, see whether or not the program had some kind of lasting impact on getting the youth off the streets, maintaing sobriety, and getting some kind of education or employment. I know that many grantwriters hate these new requirements but I think not only will they have better results but will also hopefully improve taxpayer confidence.

As to charity, quite honestly I wish there were better educational programs to encourage charitable giving, volunteering, etc. I grew up with very uncharitable parents. It never occurred to me to even put coins in the Salvation Army’s bucket at Christmas. I had to get involved with a church to become educated on charitable giving. I suspect many kids now, particularly as so many are totally unchurched, are not learning anything about public service or what we owe our brothers and sisters. It’s too bad but that’s what our secular culture has brought us.

Lisa N

 

[dwc]

Lisa, if everyone votes to cut taxes, every time, the end result is that programs are eliminated, yes? And if you agree that many people in our secular society have no understanding of their responsibility toward their fellow human beings, then the result is that donations are not made to charities, and the charities are unable to assist even those everyone agrees are truly deserving.

I don’t have the answers. I would just like people to keep in mind that while all this heated rhetoric about the slothful, substance abusing, willingly uneducated welfare recipients is going on, there really are people who did everything right and still ended up in poverty. If you take the safety net away, you take it from them, too.

I believe the welfare reform enacted during the Clinton administration was a good start. I have witnessed a very slow and painful adjustment in many women as they learn they can’t just live on welfare forever, but have to work. It’s a bumpy road, but I believe the work ethic is being reinstated. As far as charitable giving, I focus my giving toward shelters which require those living there to engage in education, job training or substance abuse, and toward charities which provide their recipients a means to earn money as opposed to a simple hand out.

 

[Philip_P]

miguel:

I really don’t like your tone here, Philip. It sounds envious. Envy is one of the 7 deadlies. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods. If people worked hard, creating their businesses, AND JOBS, can’t their children benefit from that?

Just trying to provide some perspective here. But you’re right, taking this too far is ultimately counterproductive. So how’s this - no one makes any more insinuations that the poor are shiftless and lazy, and I won’t point out that there are plenty of shiftless, lazy rich folks as well.

I guess what I object to is this Calvinistic idea that the virtuous are materially blessed and the non-virtuous cursed - i.e., the poor deserve to be poor. The fact is that there are virtuous people and knaves across all incomes, classes, and cultures. However, if you start off poor, you have to work much much harder than if you start off rich. The deck is stacked, yet so often discussion on poverty assume a level playing field.

 

[fix]

Lisa N:

The “get” mantra": Get married, get a job, get off drugs, get a high school education. You will not be poor in America. How hard is that?Lisa N

In my city in the depression area when there were many European immigrants I have always heard the stories about welfare in those times. Coal was dumped in the driveway and one had to bring that into their house for heat. If a radio was in the home, the state removed it. There was a social stigma to being on relief among these folks who were literally just off the boat. The worked hard, obeyed Church teachings as best they could and sacrificed for their children. Even the truely poor had an incentive to get off relief ASAP.

Fast forward to today. What has happened? To be sure, there are many factors, but we cannot discount the moral decay. To focus exclusively on social work and taxation is to do a terrible disservice to our neighbors.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Tell me about 1930-1935 and how successful the churches were in providing charity to all the homeless and jobless.

You say, “private charity OR government charity,” I say, “private charity AND government charity.” I believe that the government represents me and can indeed act in my place for many things.

Government charity that supports all kinds of pro-death causes?

 

[buffalo]

otm:

Ah, yes. Forced distribution of wealth.

It has such a nice ring to it!

At least the government is trying to do something morally right; what makes you think the wealthy would do it on their own?

To use your political language - so politically correct for the conservatives - governments have been doing social engineering since the first government collected tax.

Get over it.

So you agree with the social engineering that has taken place for several generations affecting minorities?

 

[Richardols]

Anna Elizabeth:

How much first-hand experience have you had with the “poorest of the poor” in the US?

Working with the Catholic Worker movement in New York City when I was in high school and college.

What do you know about the state of welfare spending in Minnesota?

Nothing. I do, however, thank God that Minnesota is a blue state…

What gives you the idea that you can pass judgment on how much “contact” the rest of us have had with people who ask for welfare help??

I see all the judgmentalism that is the very soul of the conservatives on this Forum, and I think, “them yes? Me, no?” So, I give my opinion.

And I’ve observed that it’s always the “conservatives” who complain about having to help the poor, but the liberals who jump in and do the helping. This is based on the pro bono legal work I’ve done around here, and the people I’ve met who volunteer at the food bank and at some food kitchens.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Working with the Catholic Worker movement in New York City when I was in high school and college.

Nothing. I do, however, thank God that Minnesota is a blue state…

I see all the judgmentalism that is the very soul of the conservatives on this Forum, and I think, “them yes? Me, no?” So, I give my opinion.

And I’ve observed that it’s always the “conservatives” who complain about having to help the poor, but the liberals who jump in and do the helping. This is based on the pro bono legal work I’ve done around here, and the people I’ve met who volunteer at the food bank and at some food kitchens.

Conservatives do believe in helping the poor. It’s the method of delivery.

How about this - the government gives us a line item choice of where our money goes on the tax return?

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

Conservatives do believe in helping the poor. It’s the method of delivery.

Sure, a dollar or two extra in the collection plate when the priest reminds you that there’s going to be an extra collection. Or a plate passed after a talk by a visiting missionary.

With those really big bucks, conservatives are helping to alleviate poverty.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Sure, a dollar or two extra in the collection plate when the priest reminds you that there’s going to be an extra collection. Or a plate passed after a talk by a visiting missionary.

With those really big bucks, conservatives are helping to alleviate poverty.

That’s pretty disengenous. But, you might want to factor in the fact that most of us already feel we contributed via taxation. and in addition to that we give more of our time, talent and treasure.

You didn’t answer my question of last post.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Richardols:

Sure, a dollar or two extra in the collection plate when the priest reminds you that there’s going to be an extra collection. Or a plate passed after a talk by a visiting missionary.

With those really big bucks, conservatives are helping to alleviate poverty.

Wow, I guess you can pick up a dollar bill out of the collection basket and surmise the voting habits of the donor.

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

That’s pretty disengenous. But, you might want to factor in the fact that most of us already feel we contributed via taxation.

Anyone who believes that he fulfils his obligation to charity by paying his taxes is a sorry case IMO. Not much of a Christian IMO.

and in addition to that we give more of our time, talent and treasure.

Even Bush noted how charitable contributions have dropped. How could that be if those who had supported him were the sort of good Christians who give so much of their time, talent, and treasure?

You didn’t answer my question of last post.

The Tax Code is complicated enough. You want to add more to it? Not me.

 

[Richardols]

StJeanneDArc:

Wow, I guess you can pick up a dollar bill out of the collection basket and surmise the voting habits of the donor.

No, but you might go out to the parking lot, count all the late model cars and then look in the church bulletin to see how much was collected the last week. That might give you a better handle on the voting habits of the donors.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

No, but you might go out to the parking lot, count all the late model cars and then look in the church bulletin to see how much was collected the last week. That might give you a better handle on the voting habits of the donors.

I agree with you here. We are accumulators. HMMMM! I wonder what tax policy fosters this?

 

[misericordie]

CatholicCorno:

What do ya’ll think of this? (I tried to link the story, but you have to register, so I just pasted it below)

**Flynn takes on Pawlenty **
**Patricia Lopez **Star Tribune Published May 20, 2005
After more than a decade of quietly leading the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Archbishop Harry Flynn has stepped into the spotlight on the most secular of issues, openly advocating higher taxes and taking the governor to task for his insistence on holding to a no-new-taxes pledge. Flynn has also spoken out against Catholic gay activists who have taken their protest to the very heart of Catholic ritual, holy communion. He discussed both issues during an interview with the Star Tribune’s Patricia Lopez this week. Excerpts:

On his decision to speak out for higher taxes:

“It’s so easy to make decisions on a budget without really knowing how that decision is going to affect a single mother, someone who needs assistance in health care, someone who needs child care. When I heard them [legislators] talking about cutbacks and no increase in taxes at all, I was compelled to do something. I pay taxes, you know, and my salary is about $2,200 a month plus room and board, so I’m not starving. I wouldn’t mind a tax increase. I would be happy to pay it if I knew a single mother was going to be assisted, to put her child in a day care center so that she could go out and do her work and not worry about that child. I’m not going to let this go. I’m hosting a meeting of religious leaders at my residence within the next month, simply to keep revisiting this, so we don’t let it get lost, this idea that the state budget is a moral statement.”

On meeting privately with Gov. Tim Pawlenty:

“I met with him earlier in the legislative session. I think the governor has a real good heart. I think he’s obviously made a promise of no increase in taxes. And we all like to stand with our promises. But I’ve made promises too in my life. Then when I hear the other side of the story … I’ve changed my mind. It’s my hope and prayer that the governor, listening to the stories of the many, will modify his position. I asked him to listen to the stories. Otherwise, the poor are out there, a nebulous cast of people who we don’t even know. How can he change? Do exactly … what I did. Walk to the day care centers, watch the mothers coming to pick up their children, ask a little child, ‘Did you enjoy your meal today, your hot meal, and what are you going to do when you go home for dinner? Are you going to help your mother get dinner?’ And listen to the answer, ‘Oh, we don’t have any food in our house.’ That’s the way to change hearts. And any heart should be able to be changed by that.”

On helping the poor:

“We live in a society where if someone has a broken marriage, if someone is on welfare, if someone loses a job, we have a tendency to say you didn’t try hard enough. You were lazy and that’s why you’re unemployed. It’s your fault, whatever it might be. So added now to the misery of not having a job is the guilt that I didn’t try hard enough. And that’s not it at all. Generally speaking, if someone is unemployed, that person wants to make a living, to live a respectful life. We as a society should always ask that question, how is this going to affect the most vulnerable among us? I’ve been a priest for 45 years. My experience has taught me that the inner core of every person is good. Every human being. That’s something taught to us by God. We try to encourage that person along the right pathway, so people will not get so discouraged they feel like they cannot make it another day.”

**On who takes care of the poor: **

“I had one man who wrote to me and said, ‘How dare you speak before the committee on taxes. It is up to the church and the church alone to care for the poor. The state has no obligation and this is from the Bible.’ I wrote back to him and I said, would you please tell me where I could find that in the Bible? I never heard of that before. It’s every person’s obligation to care for the other. I don’t need the Qur’an for that. I don’t need scriptures for that, or the New Testament, nor do I need the Old Testament for that. All I need is the sense of the human and a sense of the dignity of every person. Born out of that should be the realization that I have an obligation to this person.”

Well many of these cardinals are plainly polititions and beauractrats, this is no surprise. The only two good cardinals (I here exercise my right to free speech as an American) Are Francis George of Chicago, and McKarrick of DC) all other s here in the USA, well… anyway.

 

[jlw]

otm:

OK, I looked at your location. Catholic Charities began their appeal about a month ago in all the parishes - and of course you stepped up to the plate and gave generously, didn’t you.

Didn’t you?

I mean, Vlazny did just what you asked; of course you responded, didn’t you!

And while we are at it, you certainly are not so naieve as to think that some charities don’t suffer from that same bureaucratic overload, do you? It was that bureaucratic government that required charities to publish what part of every dollar they collect actually goes to charitable work.

I think Catholic Charities comes in around 90 %, but you could call Dennis Keenan if you want; it is a local call.

Not too bad a use of the dollars you gave. You did give, didn’t you? Especially after sounding off that “your Archbishop” should start pushing PRIVATE charity…", which he just did…

OF COURSE we did. As we did witrh NW Family Services. And the dollar amount is irelavent, whether $5, $50, or $500. We put money where our mouth is. AND thanks for reminding me about Vlasny, because I applauded his appeal to CC. Perfect example of what I was calling for. I don’t remember, but was that appeal made in conjunction with all US Bishops???

 

[jlw]

otm: You may disagree about how the money gets to the poor, but unless you give more to charity when your taxes go down, your statement is more than a bit hollow.

Sooooo true. My words are hot air if I don’t back it up. Part of every tax refund we get we give to a charity. This year we gave to NW Family Services.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Richardols:

No, but you might go out to the parking lot, count all the late model cars and then look in the church bulletin to see how much was collected the last week. That might give you a better handle on the voting habits of the donors.

Hmmm-so apparently car models are the way to match voting habits to dollars donated. Keep going–I’m anxious to hear more.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

Just trying to provide some perspective here. But you’re right, taking this too far is ultimately counterproductive. So how’s this - no one makes any more insinuations that the poor are shiftless and lazy, and I won’t point out that there are plenty of shiftless, lazy rich folks as well.

I guess what I object to is this Calvinistic idea that the virtuous are materially blessed and the non-virtuous cursed - i.e., the poor deserve to be poor. The fact is that there are virtuous people and knaves across all incomes, classes, and cultures. However, if you start off poor, you have to work much much harder than if you start off rich. The deck is stacked, yet so often discussion on poverty assume a level playing field.

I don’t know if it’s a purely Calvinist notion that people with a work ethic tend to be more prosperous. It’s common sense don’t you think?