Over the last couple of weeks, readers may have noticed that I'm wrestling with more than even my usual conflicts over the budget. The conflict is actually pretty simple. I believe the federal budget crisis is real and must be tackled by a radical reform of tax and spending soon. I also find it morally hard to deny vulnerable people healthcare that is available and far more effective than ever before in human history.
Hence my mixed response to the Ryan and Obama plans. I agree with Ross that the Ryan plan was indeed brave (perhaps insanely so) as well as deeply flawed (it seems absurd to me to rule out any net increase in tax revenues when the debt is this damaging, and loopy to insist still on supply-side fantasy when it comes to future growth). I agree with Ezra that the Obama plan is preferable in terms of suppressing healthcare inefficiency, but still doubt it's radical enough to save us from mounting debt without centralized and politicized rationing on a scale we've never seen before.
But the Catholic Church is pretty clearly in favor of Obama's vision rather than Ryan's. I don't need this April 13 statement to know that, but it is clarifying:
"The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated. Their voices are too often missing in these debates, but they have the most compelling moral claim on our consciences and our common resources. A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly."
This you won't find at NRO – because it sounds a lot like Obama's speech on Wednesday.
Now I don't believe Catholics should have their policy decisions made for them by the USCCB; that would be Christianism. But a humane concern for the poor, sick and elderly is integral to the Gospel message and spirit. And my own gut-unease about withholding available healthcare – perhaps more than any other good – from the needy is rooted, I think, in this Catholic admonition.
The Bishops are often cited by men such as Newt Gingrich as unquestionable authorities when it comes to questions of abortion, marriage and euthanasia. So it is perfectly fair to confront Newt with the stark distinction between his views on the budget and the Vatican's and the American Bishops'. Does he agree with the Bishops of his new Church? And was the social teaching of the Church one reason for his conversion? Or was it an issue he just agreed to disagree on?
FWIW, here's a blog-spat between a liberal Catholic and a priest in my own archdiocese of Washington. The latest foray is here. It's not as simple as the liberal Catholic makes it out to be – isn't debt reduction part of the common good? – but it's very hard to see how the Ryan plan (with no revenue increases and no cuts in defense) can pass muster even for the most conservative Catholic.
The Dish 