Paul Ryan: Faith in the budget plan

Bubba Switzler · #1 Apr 10, '12, 2:13 pm

Quote:

House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) says his Catholic faith helped shape the Republican budget plan by stressing local control and concern for the poor, according to an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network released Tuesday.

“A person’s faith is central to how they conduct themselves, in public and in private, so to me, using my Catholic faith, we call it the social magisterium, which is: How do you apply the doctrine of your teaching into your everyday life as a lay person?” he said.

Ryan said that the principle of subsidiarity — a notion, rooted in Catholic social teaching, that decisions are best made at most local level available — guided his thinking on budget planning.

“To me, the principle of subsidiarity, which is really federalism, meaning government closest to the people governs best, having a civil society … where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that’s how we advance the common good,” Ryan said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74990.html

**ProVobis** · #2 Apr 10, '12, 7:33 pm

Has he named which deductions he wants to cut to balance the budget? Mortgage deductions, charity, local taxes, medical? How about foreign spending and the military? How's he going to pay for all that?

_Abyssinia · #3 Apr 11, '12, 2:51 am

mary bobo · #4 Apr 11, '12, 4:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Has he named which deductions he wants to cut to balance the budget? Mortgage deductions, charity, local taxes, medical? How about foreign spending and the military? How's he going to pay for all that?

There are already big cuts happening in the military. Mortgage deductions may be eliminated. Don't think other countries have that. We are going to have to pay for the mess we are in somehow and all will suffer in the effort. But we better start somewhere, and soon.

Trader · #5 Apr 11, '12, 6:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary bobo

There are already big cuts happening in the military. Mortgage deductions may be eliminated. Don't think other countries have that. We are going to have to pay for the mess we are in somehow and all will suffer in the effort. But we better start somewhere, and soon.

Every one of the tax preferences in the encyclopedia length tax code is there because someone thought it was important. Then the backers of each one traded votes with supporters of another special interest to get their pet credit or deduction into law. Even the few items I use, like state tax and charitable gifts deductions, could go in order to get the code to a manageable size that treated everyone equally and truly served the common good. Call me cynical, but that will never happen from the professional polticians who have grown up in the political horse trading business.

Note that I did not include the special rate on dividends because the earnings distributed to me as a stockholder have already been taxed at the corporate rate. Besides, figuring out which dividends actually qualify for the lower rate is so complicated that I don't even try to do it. I just file my return and let IRS send me a small refund after they figure it out. I am sure that some years they return more and some years less than the law actually requires.

Swiss Guy · #6 Apr 11, '12, 7:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74990.html

http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blo...did_not_endor/

I'm not yet convinced.

http://usccb.org/about/justice-peace...under-2012.pdf

From the above link:

Quote:

The nation needs to substantially reduce future deficits, but not at the expense of hungry and poor people. Funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut. It should be made as effective as possible, but not cut.
We urge our leaders to protect and improve poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance to promote a better, safer world. National leaders must review and consider tax revenues, military spending, and entitlements in the search for ways to share sacrifice and cut deficits.
A fundamental task is to create jobs and spur economic growth. Decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out of poverty, and restoring growth is a powerful way to reduce deficits. The budget debate has a central moral dimension. Christians are asking how we protect "the least of these." "What would Jesus cut?" "How do we share sacrifice?"
As believers, we turn to God with prayer and fasting, to ask for guidance as our nation makes decisions about our priorities as a people. God continues to shower our nation and the world with blessings. As Christians, we are rooted in the love of God in Jesus Christ. Our task is to share these blessings with love and justice and with a special priority for those who are poor.

His plan cuts spending to programs intended to help the poor. But at least he thinks things should be done at more local levels, which is a problem our welfare system has.

mary bobo · #7 Apr 12, '12, 6:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiss Guy

http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blo...did_not_endor/

I'm not yet convinced.

http://usccb.org/about/justice-peace...under-2012.pdf

From the above link:

His plan cuts spending to programs intended to help the poor. But at least he thinks things should be done at more local levels, which is a problem our welfare system has.

I believe that these programs that really help the poor will be less costly on a local level than going thru the large DC programs where there is so much room for dishonestty. I think Ryan also wants to cut out those programs that have not shown themselves to be successful and only syphon money out of the treasury. Whatever he recommends, I can't be as bad as what we have been doing. We are now at the brink of financial collapse and we better take the bull by the horns now or end up like Greece. That is not the example I wish to adopt for my children and grandchildren.

**ProVobis** · #8 Apr 12, '12, 7:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary bobo

There are already big cuts happening in the military. Mortgage deductions may be eliminated. Don't think other countries have that. We are going to have to pay for the mess we are in somehow and all will suffer in the effort. But we better start somewhere, and soon.

Reagan tried to eliminate mortgage deductions but he didn't have much luck there with Rostenkowski and Packwood. They have since limited the amount but not that much. It's still a sizeable deduction.

Charitable contributions should definitely be looked into. Either that or political organizations like Planned Parenthood should not count.

And another thing. I see they haven't learned anything from 9/11. What if we get attacked again? Are there provisions to raise revenues to be able to fight back the aggressors? Seems like this is where the Bush tax cuts in 2001 left the country vulnerable to people like Bin Laden, whose main objective was to bankrupt the super-powers of the world.

Bubba Switzler · #9 Apr 12, '12, 2:11 pm

Quote:

Just as the left thought the regulating reach of the Commerce Clause was beyond serious challenge, it long ago decided that none dare question the moral case for public spending. That social Darwinism speech Barack Obama is giving now in defense of federal programs isn't merely a public-policy statement. It's a Democratic encyclical. Paul Ryan's ideas are worse than wrong. They are heresy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...580242292.html

Swiss Guy · #10 Apr 12, '12, 6:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary bobo

I believe that these programs that really help the poor will be less costly on a local level than going thru the large DC programs where there is so much room for dishonestty. I think Ryan also wants to cut out those programs that have not shown themselves to be successful and only syphon money out of the treasury. Whatever he recommends, I can't be as bad as what we have been doing. We are now at the brink of financial collapse and we better take the bull by the horns now or end up like Greece. That is not the example I wish to adopt for my children and grandchildren.

I agree, but I'm still not for cutting spending on ways to help the poor. If he cuts entire programs and readjusts the entire welfare system to make it more local, then

, as long as spending doesn't get cut.

As you said, almost anything can't be as bad as what our problems are now.

**ProVobis** · #11 Apr 12, '12, 8:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiss Guy

I agree, but I'm still not for cutting spending on ways to help the poor. If he cuts entire programs and readjusts the entire welfare system to make it more local, then

, as long as spending doesn't get cut.

As you said, almost anything can't be as bad as what our problems are now.

Well, at least no one's running around saying "deficits don't matter."

EmperorNapoleon · #12 Apr 12, '12, 11:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary bobo

I believe that these programs that really help the poor will be less costly on a local level than going thru the large DC programs where there is so much room for dishonestty.

People, especially right wing politicians, tend to exaggerate the federal government's involvement in the every day operation of these programs. The federal government's involvement amounts to little more than writing a check to the States in exchange for compliance with federal regulations to make these programs uniform throughout the nation. Ryan's grandiose vision of entirely State funded social welfare programs can only lead to higher State and local taxes. The principal of subsidiarity only applies as long as the least common denominator CAN support these programs on their own. The Federal government wouldn't be handing out checks if that were the case.

Swiss Guy · #13 Apr 13, '12, 4:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Well, at least no one's running around saying "deficits don't matter."

very true.

mary bobo · #14 Apr 13, '12, 6:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

People, especially right wing politicians, tend to exaggerate the federal government's involvement in the every day operation of these programs. The federal government's involvement amounts to little more than writing a check to the States in exchange for compliance with federal regulations to make these programs uniform throughout the nation. Ryan's grandiose vision of entirely State funded social welfare programs can only lead to higher State and local taxes. The principal of subsidiarity only applies as long as the least common denominator CAN support these programs on their own. The Federal government wouldn't be handing out checks if that were the case.

Management on the local level does not preclude funds from the federal government. But it does not need to come with federal government mandates and guidelines as to how the money should be allocated. One size does not fit all and problems are different state by state. But since you indelicately mentioned "right wind politicians", I point out that "left wing politicians" think the federal government is the be all and end all of all solutions. If they give up some of that, they give up power.

mary bobo · #15 Apr 13, '12, 6:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiss Guy

I agree, but I'm still not for cutting spending on ways to help the poor. If he cuts entire programs and readjusts the entire welfare system to make it more local, then

, as long as spending doesn't get cut.

As you said, almost anything can't be as bad as what our problems are now.

IMO, I don't think he said anything about cutting the aid to the poor. But if the programs were administered on a local level, it would be easier to stop the problems that plague these programs. I do think he said he was for stopping programs that do not work. I don't think that included programs that help the poor.