Subsidiarity is Conservative

[JamesD]

Hi jlw,
Here are my thoughts regarding your interesting thoughts and observations.
PART 1

jlw:

When I read subsidiarity, I, for some reason, associate the word with ownership. Sharecropping farmers, for example. Ownership implies self-sufficiency and automatically thrusts the person (or family) into the need to be responsible. It creates a “at-stake-ness” for the common good.

In general I agree. Ownership encourages responsibility. However, I am not so sure about what you mean about the common good. If you mean that allowing private ownership contributes to the common good I agree. If you are saying that an individual or family that has ownership of money or property makes them more interested in or dedicated to common good I am not so sure. The person with property may feel that the common good (as someone else defines it) might be harmfull to the value of their property. For ex. opposing a local shelter, road, or a power plant.

jlw:

I think Bush is more Catholic than protestant. He cut taxes across to board, took the lowest tax bracket OFF the taxrolls, he doubled the child tax credits (profamily, prolife), He thinks church organizations are beter suited for helping society than government. He wants to create a “ownership society”. Yes, Yes, his policies are profitable to big corporations and overpaid CEOs on Wall Street. BUT, he is a big advocate of small businesses!! The tax cuts were great for home businesses, too! He wants insurance to be more affordable for small businesses by allowing them to come together to afford insurance rates the big dogs get. Ownership over private medical accounts. Ownership over a portion of your social security investment.

DOn’t know if these are more catholic than protestant. I think there is enough diversity of protestant denominations that you could probably find an almost perfect fit for some protestent denomination.
I personally think that most of the tax cuts are a good and moral thing. I do have some reservations. I really am suspicious of the attempts to eliminate the cap gains and dividend taxes. This it seems to me is a gift to the wealthy. I believe that the benefits to the economy (common good) could be acheived in some different ways.
The depiction of fareness of these cuts is questionable when the alternative minimum tax is hurting so many middle class folks and the most regressive tax (social security tax) is excessive as it is being used for general gov spending and not SS.

 

[JamesD]

Part 2:

jlw:

I think of this “third way” as a society that makes ownership of property desirable and affordable, that encourages family (and large ones at that), that self-suffiency in the form of home industry or small business and community involvement decentralizes the corporate factories as well as the government leviathan.

I would agree that personal ownership is an important part of subsidiarity. However, there are many other things that I think are as or more important.
The family has sertain functions and responsibilities. These include feeding, sheltering, clothing, teaching and generally caring for family members. It seems to me that subsidiarity requires that the government (higher order) must not interfere AND must support these functions. Allowing private ownership is probably essential. But, unfettered ownership (no taxes) interferes with the government in fulfilling it’s responsibility of supproting the community of the lower order. Therefor, the extreme, as you indicated is not appropriate.
So, we have something in the middle. What is the level of ownership and what can/should be done by government is prudential and open for legitimate debate.
IMHO, what I think is more important in our debate is things like:
Government preventing parents from decisions about education (vouchers vs. making home schooling illegal)
Hindering children from taking care of parents vs. assisting this. (Providing tax credits or medicare payments to families who take in their parents instead of nursing homes.)
Prohibiting parents from a say in their childrens use of fertility services &/or abortion.
Enforcing an appropriate minimum wage that encourages work and helps families become self sufficient.
In the case of small business I agree that the government is way out of line with preventing coop purchasing of insurance and this is a very good example of violation of subsidiarity.
As we all might agree but not say because it is hard to translate to policy: When I think of subsidiarity I think of personal responsibility. Families are responsible for their own, parishes are responsible for their own and so on (not that we are abbrogated from responsibility as also being member of higher ordered communities like the world).
I think I disagree with decentralization of factories (unless you mean gov ownership).
I think we all generally agree that subsidiarity would probably reduce the influence, size, & responsibility of our current federal government.

And, I hope I haven’t rambled too much.
Jim

 

[JamesD]

Thank you, Katherine2

www.usccb.org.

I took a look at thefirst 10 documents after doing a search of “food stamp”. What I found were documents requesting/endorsing changes to the program. I think this is reasonable considering that the USCCB commitee does not have the influence to push for new or vastly different programs. I did not find any indication that the food stamp program was superior to other existing or potential programs.

katherine2:

Faith Based Initiative.
I would think that federal funding would be the most sustainable. As the charities themselves would be the first to admit, private charitable giving is very unsustainable and undependable. I think Catholic Social Theorists have tended to like the idea of federal or national funding as it avoids injustices of locals – Morris County New Jersey could solve all of the poverty in that locality and more while it is hard to imagine how a community like West Philadelphia could possibly finance and run social service efforts.

I will defend my beliefe that Fed funding is not sustainable. First I agree that in todays circumstances it is possible that private charitable giving is not sufficient for what we wish to accomplish. Therefor public assistance of private charitable organizations is good and is preferable to government actually providing the services. My problem is allong the lines of what Trelow said: “not Fred Jones paying 35% of his income to the feds to give a fraction of it to Lance Smith hundreds of miles away.” The fed is far away from the comunity of West Philadelphia (I don’t mean distance). The fed does not control many of the factors related to the development of West Philidelphia. I mean things such as law enforcement, local law & taxes, infestructure, education etc. West Philidelphia has the ability to affect these things and should do so to work in conjuction with the FBI program to greatest efficacy toward the common good. This means also the distribution (priority) of funds between these and other things. I agree that communities of higher order should assist in times of need. This should start from the lower order and work up. Perhaps the brunt of the assistance should come from Pensillvania and if needed lesser assistance from the Fed.
In Wisconsin our state pays for 80% of school building construction and additions. Guess what happened? Having to pay only 20% most of the local school districts began building palaces. The cost of the program became many times what was planned. It has been a tremendous amount of money wasted. This has put a big hurt on our state gov finances. This program is an example of a program that is unsustainable.
Perhaps the FBI program would not break the feds budget but if all programs were run this way it would be a disaster. Again, assistance should be temporary based on need, less than 50% of a lower order communities contribution.
One must also keep in mind that the goal is to assist in times of special need with the goal of making that community self sufficient as quickly as practical.

katherine2:

I think it would depend on the issue. The Church, for example, teaches that the freedom or ability to preform these responsibilties comes through community and association. Certainly a parent performing his duties towards family life desires a stable work situation. In association with other workers he can negotiate regular hours, overtime producers, family and medical leave, sickness insurance and other traditional Catholic (and Democratic in these cases) initiatives through collective bargaining.

I respectfully disagree with the notion of labor unions contributing to the common good. I agree that a working must be able to take care of the family. And I agree that a family leave program and appropriate work hours are helpfull in facilitating the worker in this endevour. However, I personally prefer the establishment through law of minimum standards. Such as an appropriate overtime regulation and minimum wage. I think that a corporate monopolies are bad for the common good (price fixing, barriers to competitin etc). In the same way I think that monopolies of labor is bad for the same reason. Minimum standards can be legislated and additional pay and benefits are achieved through an open marketplace. My wage is based on my skills and abillities and the availability of same. I might get more if I was part of a collective but that would probably hurt the industry and others who wish to do my type of work.

Thanks again,
Jim

 

[katherine2]

JamesD:

Hindering children from taking care of parents vs. assisting this. (Providing tax credits or medicare payments to families who take in their parents instead of nursing homes.)
Jim

Just a minor correction here. Medicare does not cover nursing home care. I think it should, but it doesn’t.

 

[JamesD]

katherine2:

Just a minor correction here. Medicare does not cover nursing home care. I think it should, but it doesn’t.

Does medicaid?

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

Just a minor correction here. Medicare does not cover nursing home care. I think it should, but it doesn’t.

Just a minor correction here. Medicare does cover nursing home care under some very limited circumstances. And I agree that it should more often.

medicare.gov/Nursing/Payment.asp

nursinghomeinfo.com/finance.html

http://www.nursinghomeinfo.com/finance.html:

Medicare: Does it Cover the Cost of Nursing Home Care?

Medicare covers the cost of a nursing home stay only under certain circumstances. The criteria are as follows:

1. The individual requires skilled care (i.e., nursing care other than general custodial, intermediate or personal care).
2. The care is provided only after a three (or more) day hospital stay for treatment of the same illness or condition that was treated in the hospital.
3. The nursing home is a Medicare-approved skilled nursing facility with a registered nurse on duty 24-hours a day.
4. The patient is assigned to a bed that is Medicare-certified for reimbursement.
5. Only a nursing home can provide the skilled care required.

Even if these criteria are met, Medicare only covers the costs of care for up to 20 days. An additional 80 days may be provided on a co-payment basis.

For more information on Medicare benefits, visit the Medicare web site.

Most nursing home costs are met by the state’s Medicaid program.

Ideally the oldest son would take the aging parent into his home to care for them. Granted that’s not always possible.

 

[Trelow]

JamesD:

Does medicaid?

Yes. You have to spend down your money, and have everything documented correctly. But yes. Medicaid cuts more checks to nursing homes that anyone else, including private pay.

 

[katherine2]

JamesD:

Thank you, Katherine2I took a look at thefirst 10 documents after doing a search of “food stamp”. What I found were documents requesting/endorsing changes to the program. I think this is reasonable considering that the USCCB commitee does not have the influence to push for new or vastly different programs. I did not find any indication that the food stamp program was superior to other existing or potential programs.

I’m not sure what you are looking for. The bishops website talks about their support for and improvements in the Food Stamp program. if you watn their original statement at the time of the creation of the program, check the Congresional Record.

My problem is allong the lines of what Trelow said: “not Fred Jones paying 35% of his income to the feds to give a fraction of it to Lance Smith hundreds of miles away.”

The main reason Mr. Smith gets a fraction is that much Mr. Jones taxes pays for things that are desiged to kill rather than things that are designed to heal.

In Wisconsin our state pays for 80% of school building construction and additions. Guess what happened? Having to pay only 20% most of the local school districts began building palaces.

Personally, I think our schools should be as beautiful as our churches should be, but that is just me. Under your system of each locality paying for school construction, I would imagine the schools in Shorewood or Whitefish Bay would be just as nice, if not better. In the City of Milwaukee or Cudahy, do you think they could provide safe, sanitary schools using only local revenue?

. Again, assistance should be temporary based on need, less than 50% of a lower order communities contribution.
One must also keep in mind that the goal is to assist in times of special need with the goal of making that community self sufficient as quickly as practical.

How long do you think it would take to make West Philadelphia self-sufficent without federal aid?

I respectfully disagree with the notion of labor unions contributing to the common good. I agree that a working must be able to take care of the family. And I agree that a family leave program and appropriate work hours are helpfull in facilitating the worker in this endevour. However, I personally prefer the establishment through law of minimum standards. Such as an appropriate overtime regulation and minimum wage.

This would seem to be contrary to subsidiarity. You would have federal laws covering all workplaces rather than each workplace negotiating for their workplace. Are you saying on this matter subsidiarity is a flawed theory?

My wage is based on my skills and abillities and the availability of same. I might get more if I was part of a collective but that would probably hurt the industry and others who wish to do my type of work.

Thanks again,
Jim

What about those whose wage is not based on their skills and abilities? How would raising wages hurt others of the same craft? I’m unclear on your point here.

 

[jlw]

JamesD:

Part 2:I would agree that personal ownership is an important part of subsidiarity. However, there are many other things that I think are as or more important.
The family has sertain functions and responsibilities. These include feeding, sheltering, clothing, teaching and generally caring for family members. It seems to me that subsidiarity requires that the government (higher order) must not interfere AND must support these functions. Allowing private ownership is probably essential. But, unfettered ownership (no taxes) interferes with the government in fulfilling it’s responsibility of supproting the community of the lower order. Therefor, the extreme, as you indicated is not appropriate.
So, we have something in the middle. What is the level of ownership and what can/should be done by government is prudential and open for legitimate debate.
IMHO, what I think is more important in our debate is things like:
Government preventing parents from decisions about education (vouchers vs. making home schooling illegal)
Hindering children from taking care of parents vs. assisting this. (Providing tax credits or medicare payments to families who take in their parents instead of nursing homes.)
Prohibiting parents from a say in their childrens use of fertility services &/or abortion.
Enforcing an appropriate minimum wage that encourages work and helps families become self sufficient.
In the case of small business I agree that the government is way out of line with preventing coop purchasing of insurance and this is a very good example of violation of subsidiarity.
As we all might agree but not say because it is hard to translate to policy: When I think of subsidiarity I think of personal responsibility. Families are responsible for their own, parishes are responsible for their own and so on (not that we are abbrogated from responsibility as also being member of higher ordered communities like the world).
I think I disagree with decentralization of factories (unless you mean gov ownership).
I think we all generally agree that subsidiarity would probably reduce the influence, size, & responsibility of our current federal government.

And, I hope I haven’t rambled too much.
Jim

Nope, no rambling, and I agree completely!! I would also add “less restrictive land use laws” so that selling and purchasing property is easier and less expensive.

Factories: less government regulation means more likely the factory stays in Lower 48, rather than overseas. I did say “decentralize corporate factories”, didn’t I?? Hmmm, I think what I meant to say was something different—that a community of persons/families that utilizes each other at the Goodwill, resale shops, car auctions, swapmeets, Costo/Sam’s, their own garden, or any other way can cut into the grab of our money by the corporate capitalist *as well as *the government socialist, as I alluded to. Does that make sense??

Minimum wage: Wages for minimun education/minimum mental requirements…What should that be???

 

[katherine2]

Trelow:

Yes. You have to spend down your money, and have everything documented correctly. But yes. Medicaid cuts more checks to nursing homes that anyone else, including private pay.

To be clear, Medicare is a social insurance program. it covers things that help you get better – doctor’s visits and hospital stays. A nursing home might provide “hospital services” – ie rehabilition until you get better, etc.

Long term care – the basic mission of nursing homes – i.e not someone with a particular illness they are recovering from but simply frail elderly or disabled persons who need on-going attention.

Medicaid is a program for the poor. Obviously, many elderly start off middle class but must spend most of their assests on nursing home care until they reach the point they are poor and then become Medicaid eligable.

We used to have the County Poor Farms for us old folks. Those were not plesant places and don’t think we were all being cared for by our families.

 

[jlw]

katherine2:The main reason Mr. Smith gets a fraction is that much Mr. Jones taxes pays for things that are desiged to kill rather than things that are designed to heal.

That is soooooo bogus. Over 90% of our budget goes to education and welfare/healthcare!!!

3-4% is spent on one of the two Constitutionally directed reasons for the existence of our national government: TO PROVIDE FOR A COMMON DEFENSE.

The REAL reason Mr Jones’s tax money is wittled away down to “nothing” by the the time it gets to Mr Smith is GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY that in neither efficient or effective.

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

To be clear, Medicare is a social insurance program. it covers things that help you get better – doctor’s visits and hospital stays. A nursing home might provide “hospital services” – ie rehabilition until you get better, etc.

Long term care – the basic mission of nursing homes – i.e not someone with a particular illness they are recovering from but simply frail elderly or disabled persons who need on-going attention.

Medicaid is a program for the poor. Obviously, many elderly start off middle class but must spend most of their assests on nursing home care until they reach the point they are poor and then become Medicaid eligable.

We used to have the County Poor Farms for us old folks. Those were not plesant places and don’t think we were all being cared for by our families.

Agreed. the system doesn’t work. I know too many don’t care for their own, I just wish more could. Some don’t have the time, some don’t have the money, some don’t have the skills. And you have those who do, but only so they don’t have to turn loose of momma money. The system needs rebuilt.

We could learn a lot from the Amish about taking care of our elderly.

 

[Trelow]

jlw:

That is soooooo bogus. Over 90% of our budget goes to education and welfare/healthcare!!!

3-4% is spent on one of the two Constitutionally directed reasons for the existence of our national government: TO PROVIDE FOR A COMMON DEFENSE.

The REAL reason Mr Jones’s tax money is wittled away down to “nothing” by the the time it gets to Mr Smith is GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY that in neither efficient or effective.

correct.

 

[katherine2]

jlw:

That is soooooo bogus. Over 90% of our budget goes to education and welfare/healthcare!!!

3-4% is spent on one of the two Constitutionally directed reasons for the existence of our national government: TO PROVIDE FOR A COMMON DEFENSE.

That not what the budget documents produced by Mr. Buish say. Is the president a lying son of a gun? if he would lie about this can we trust him on anything?

 

[JakeW]

katherine2:

That not what the budget documents produced by Mr. Buish say. Is the president a lying son of a gun? if he would lie about this can we trust him on anything?

Really?? Break it down for us then, k2.

Your statement was that we spend more money on stuff that kills, rather than stuff the heals. You still stand by that statement??