Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wynnejj said:
The problem with the US Bishops is that they allow the USCCB committee chairman to send political lobbying letters on their behalf with language that suggests that they are acting on behalf of the US Bishops in plenary assembly. When will the US Bishops act in plenary assembly and tell their USCCB committee chairman to knock off the act.
Click to expand...
Actually I don’t have a problem so much with the committee chairmen issuing letters, provided they are careful with their language (“As chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Peace…”)

Where I have my major problem is with the media, particularly the Catholic media, taking a letter that is properly worded and then report “US BIshops…”

I would expect the secular media to mess it up. They never get anything right in their reporting of the Church anyway. But when the National Catholic Register or CNA News mess it up…that is a HUGE problem.

Having said that, I would have hoped that the chairmen would attempt to correct the media (at least the Catholic media)…but, alas, no joy.
 
JimG said:
Admiral Mullen noted that the $600 billion in interest on the debt in 2012 equaled one year’s worth of defense budget.
Click to expand...
Yep. And in case anyone tries to claim that it is defense spending which is bloating the budget and increasing debt, I invite them to look at the following:

CLAIM: Defense spending is near an all-time high.
RESPONSE: During the War on Terror, it’s averaged about 4 percent of GDP, around half of the post-WWII average. Fifty years ago, national defense made up 48 percent of the budget, while entitlement spending accounted for 26 percent. Next year, entitlements will account for 60 percent and defense will amount to 19 percent of the overall budget.

CLAIM: We can balance our budget with steep cuts at the Pentagon.
RESPONSE: Over time, entitlement obligations will consume an ever-larger share of federal spending. In 2030, entitlement obligations will be as much as six times greater than defense spending, rising from there. Even eliminating defense in its entirety would not come close to balancing the budget.

CLAIM: Defense spending has seen the fastest growth in our budget.
RESPONSE: While the Pentagon’s base budget has increased 10 percent since 2008 (3 years), non-defense discretionary spending increased 24 percent, and that does not even include the stimulus package or the bank bailouts, during just the first 2 years of the Obama presidency. Over the last three years, Medicaid has increased 37 percent. Spending at the Department of Education grew 70 percent over 2009–2011 compared to the previous three years. Food stamps have seen a 300 percent increase since 2001.

CLAIM: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been leading contributors to our deficit. RESPONSE: While the War on Terror has imposed substantial costs, this year’s deficit alone—$1.3 trillion—equals the entire cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. War spending represents only 4 percent of total government outlays over the last ten years.
 
jwinch2 said:
Fifty years ago, national defense made up 48 percent of the budget, while entitlement spending accounted for 26 percent. Next year, entitlements will account for 60 percent and defense will amount to 19 percent of the overall budget.
.
Click to expand...
What specific budget items are you including as “entitlements”?
 
Michael_Mayo said:
What specific budget items are you including as “entitlements”?
Click to expand...
Stuff from the OMB budget that I linked earlier that people do not pay into.

In any case, its largely irrelevant in the context of my post since the point is that defense spending is not what is driving the national debt and neither are the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
jwinch2 said:
Stuff from the OMB budget that I linked earlier that people do not pay into.

In any case, its largely irrelevant in the context of my post since the point is that defense spending is not what is driving the national debt and neither are the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
They certainly are not helping.
In fact they cost almost as much as Social Security, the single largest expense (20.3%) followed by defense and then Medicare (13.5%).

I like this site because it lists arguments for and against different aproaches. So often each side presents only the “for” while distorting the “against” of other approaches. We need to have honest discussion about the true pro and con, benefits and burdens of possible approaches and then prioritize values.

publicagenda.org/pages/the-federal-budget#approach1
 
jwinch2 said:
Stuff from the OMB budget that I linked earlier that people do not pay into.

In any case, its largely irrelevant in the context of my post since the point is that defense spending is not what is driving the national debt and neither are the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
The wars definitely grew the deficit in the early years of Bush’s administration. However, it got smaller and smaller so that in 2007 the deficit was about $163 billion annually, about a tenth what it is annually now. Obama walked away from Iraq and will walk away from Af/Pak as soon as the election is over. But we will still have horrific deficits unless something is done about domestic spending.

Some blame the Bush tax cuts, but that’s just not it. Those cuts were there when the deficit was $163 billion and two wars were going on in full.

Tax income is down from the Bush years. No question about it. But most of that time we had full employment, whereas now we don’t.

The big need is employment. But that’s just not happening because small employers in particular are afraid to hire because they can’t pencil out their costs. They can’t because they don’t know what their health costs (or taxes) are going to be. They don’t know what their income taxes are going to be. They don’t know what their energy costs are going to be. They don’t know what their regulatory environment is going to be. The only thing they know is that Obama promises to make all of them increase to some unknown level. So they don’t hire or invest.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I like this site because it lists arguments for and against different aproaches. So often each side presents only the “for” while distorting the “against” of other approaches. We need to have honest discussion about the true pro and con, benefits and burdens of possible approaches and then prioritize values.
publicagenda.org/pages/the-federal-budget#approach1
Click to expand...
There can’t be an honest discussion about the true pro and con, benefits and burdens of possible approaches because the Left does not acknowledge the truth about the Bush approaches of the recent past. The Left’s approach is simply to allege that Bush is at fault for the mess and that Ryan’s proposed approach is immoral. Honestly, now, which of those approaches is really immoral?

Consider this: The day the Left took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was January 3 ,2007, the day the Left took the House and the Senate-- the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

On January 3rd, 2007:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77;
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%;
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%;
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD OF 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS OF JOB GROWTH;
Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee;
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES.

Thereafter, 5-6 TRILLION dollars of toxic loans were dumped on the economy from Fannie and Freddie. Bush had asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie and Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. Who prevented reform of Fannie and Freddie? The Left.

Bush, after the Left took control, never had a budget to veto! Budgets come from Congress, but the Left controlled Congress in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and would not agree to a budget in 2010 & 2011.

The 2007 deficit, the last of the Right’s budget approach, was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight DECLINE in deficit spending. That’s what the Left inherited, and proceeded to put into effect its approach-- expanding that deficit four-fold. We were promised that the deficit would be cut in half. We got instead an economic horror and culture of death that hits the poorest the hardest; an honest to goodness immoral approach.
 
KSU said:
There can’t be an honest discussion about the true pro and con, benefits and burdens of possible approaches because the Left does not acknowledge the truth about the Bush approaches of the recent past. The Left’s approach is simply to allege that Bush is at fault for the mess and that Ryan’s proposed approach is immoral. Honestly, now, which of those approaches is really immoral?

Consider this: The day the Left took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was January 3 ,2007, the day the Left took the House and the Senate-- the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

On January 3rd, 2007:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77;
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%;
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%;
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD OF 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS OF JOB GROWTH;
Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee;
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES.

Thereafter, 5-6 TRILLION dollars of toxic loans were dumped on the economy from Fannie and Freddie. Bush had asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie and Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. Who prevented reform of Fannie and Freddie? The Left.

Bush, after the Left took control, never had a budget to veto! Budgets come from Congress, but the Left controlled Congress in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and would not agree to a budget in 2010 & 2011.

The 2007 deficit, the last of the Right’s budget approach, was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight DECLINE in deficit spending. That’s what the Left inherited, and proceeded to put into effect its approach-- expanding that deficit four-fold. We were promised that the deficit would be cut in half. We got instead an economic horror and culture of death that hits the poorest the hardest; an honest to goodness immoral approach.
Click to expand...
You are right about the Dems, Barny, Fannie & Freddie.

But the economic downturn is only part of the story

Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan account for half of the deficit.

That being said, I think the Ryan budget is not austere enough.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
You are right about the Dems, Barny, Fannie & Freddie.

But the economic downturn is only part of the story

Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan account for half of the deficit.

That being said, I think the Ryan budget is not austere enough.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Michael, but it’s simply not true that tax cuts and war costs account for half of the $15.7 trillion, and growing, deficit. We’re not even in the same ball park on that. We wouldn’t even be able to agree on basic meaning of words. For example, most folks on the Left would argue that tax cuts (allowing the people to keep their own money and spend it on THEIR families) is a “cost” to the government.

I’m not aware that any tax cut ever failed to increase revenue to the government or failed to increase either the amount or the percentage of taxes paid by the “rich.” In any case, the pros and cons about the budget, deficit and economic theory are so esoteric and technical* that it simply is far beyond the competence of our favorite committee to pronounce the Ryan approach “immoral.” Nor has the politicking stopped: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14885

And please don’t even get me started on the committee’s CCHD activities. :rolleyes:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
 
jwinch2 said:
That was very good. Thanks for posting this. I hope the original report is published online at some point in the near future.

Peace,
Click to expand...
Thanks, Jason. It’s a shame that the great majority of US Catholics will never read articles such as that or even want to understand what’s going on in sectors of the most important institution in their lives–the Church.
 
KSU said:
Thanks, Jason. It’s a shame that the great majority of US Catholics will never read articles such as that or even want to understand what’s going on in sectors of the most important institution in their lives–the Church.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more.

Peace,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top