The sacramentality of oaths

Dean Obeidallah is apparently one of those people who believe that, if you say “separation of church and state” over and over long enough, the “free exercise” clause will disappear from the First Amendment. Just read his latest post on CNN.com if you don’t believe me.

Obeidallah, if you’ll remember, is the guy who accused Rick Santorum of wishing to impose a “Christian Sharia” with such overwrought language that I almost forgot he’s a comedian — or at least he’s been billed as a comedian. This post is more lucid and more thoughtful than the Santorum nutty — perhaps he’s finally getting the hang of this mug’s game — so we can and should do him the courtesy of taking him seriously.

Obeidallah doesn’t believe Pres. Obama should use any Bible, let alone two when he swears in for the second time. He points out, quite correctly, that Article IV prohibits the government from imposing religious tests for public office or trust. He points out, again most correctly, that Theodore Roosevelt and John Q. Adams did not use Bibles at their own oaths of office. 

For the record, I’ll provide the information Obeidallah was lacking about TR’s motives: like Adams, Roosevelt believed in a fairly strict construction of the “establishment clause”, going so far as to try to have “In God We Trust” stricken from our money. Also for the record, both Roosevelt and Adams were devout, churchgoing mainline Protestants.

“Some will argue,” Obeidallah writes, “that swearing on the Bible ensures the president adheres to his oath. But let’s be honest: We have seen presidents and other elected officials swear to uphold the laws of our country with their hands on a Bible and go on to break many laws and ethical rules. It comes down to the person’s moral code, not a 30-second oath.”

The next fiscal battle (Part IV)

Here we go with what I hope will be the last installment on the budget war coming up next month:

If nothing else, I’ve been trying at least to convince you that cutting the federal budget is nowhere near as simple a task as slicing a few hundred billion dollars off defense or transfer payment spending — or at least, not if you want to do it right — and that doing it in the middle of a weak, uncertain recovery has insidious potential for pushing us into another, more severe recession.  But yes, we have to start paying on the national debt; it’s poor stewardship to allow debts to go unpaid when you have the funds to start paying them off.  If you don’t have the funds, then you strip off non-essentials until you do.

There’s the rub: What spending is essential, and what spending isn’t? 

Because the transfer of wealth from the top to the bottom isn’t intrinsically or necessarily a government function, it doesn’t follow that for the government to do so is wrong, or that it can’t be done on a limited, even ad hoc basis.  That’s not consequentialism; that’s simply asserting that the Austrian school is wrong: capitalism doesn’t need an absolute right of property to thrive.  The common defense, on the other hand, is not only a necessary and intrinsic function of government but one of the reasons we junked the Continental Congress in favor of our Constitutional government: the Continental Congress simply couldn’t collect any taxes the states didn’t want to pay, so they couldn’t pay either the Army or the Navy.

Nevertheless, it’s true that these two categories, put together, transfer payments and defense make up most of the budget.  Since 1959, they have never comprised less than 74.97% of current federal expenditures; as of July 2012, they were 85.9%, the highest they’ve been in twenty-five years.  The other 14.1% is worth $538.1 billion, which is still a lot of money … but it’s only 20.14% of $2.671 trillion dollars in current federal receipts.

The next fiscal battle (Part III)

Sometimes we bring missiles; sometimes we bring medicine.

In the first part, we looked at the two major targets lined up in Republican crosshairs for spending cuts, asked why they’re targets, and asked why cutting them aren’t good ideas. 

What I left out is that, in classic economic model, decreasing expenditures and increasing taxes are both recessionary measures: they slow down a booming GDP and decrease a stagnant GDP.  At least in theory; analysis of the effect of marginal tax changes over the last forty years doesn’t give us confidence that tax cuts do anything towards job creation plus or minus.[*]  Theoretically, if we’re looking to boost the economy, then the last thing we should do is cut spending … in fact, if anything, we should spend more.

In the second part, I stopped to answer the question, “What’s specifically Catholic in your position?”  The answer is that, beyond some rough outlines, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church gives no specific policy directives.  On the one hand, it can be argued that a balanced budget is good and proper stewardship of the people’s money.  On the other, while the Church doesn’t mandate a statist answer to the problems of unemployment and business regulation — in fact, she has long rejected socialism and communism — she does encourage the State’s active participation in both. 

I also argued that too much dependence on deficit spending encourages an unhealthy closeness between government and the finance industry, facilitating cronyism and regulatory capture, and creating a “government of the 99% by the 1% for the benefit of the 1%”.  Enlightened self-interest is, in the end, still self-interest; if financing transfer payments requires massive government borrowing, will the banks say, “No, no, no, that would be harmful in the long run”?

In the first part, I also promised that we would delve a little further into defense spending:

The next fiscal battle (Part II)

Despite the facts that 1) the money the DoD spends puts a lot of civilians in the private sector to work, and 2) a period of high unemployment/underemployment (with decreased real wages to boot) is hardly the time to start tearing holes in the safety net, national defense and transfer payments are the first two areas everyone wants to start with when budget-trimming begins. 

Before we go further, though, I should address a couple of odd concerns.  First, one might say, “Y’know, Layne, for a guy who professes to write a Catholic blog, you’re awfully shy about saying what’s specifically Catholic about your position.  So far, we haven’t seen anything that an irreligious person couldn’t write.” 

Exactly.  You might stop and ponder that observation for a while.  Especially if you think being religious means constantly introducing some weirdo spin that no “reasonable” person could dream up to a social or political position, or if you think it means being unable to justify an argument without constant resort to holy scriptures.

Truth is, while Catholic social doctrine does allow for some limited government intervention in poverty and business, the Church has no formulaic approach to the problem … it isn’t, strictly speaking, part of general revelation.  In general she prefers that government action be taken at the lowest practical level; the principle is called subsidiarity.   

But while the Church doesn’t mandate a statist approach to the matter, she does frown on laissez-faire economics as an abandonment of responsibility.  Had Bl. Pope Leo XIII, the author of the landmark social-justice encyclical Rerum Novarum, heard Benjamin Franklin’s sentiment that property in excess of a man’s duty to himself and his family belongs to the public,[*] he might have winced and said, “That is too drastic a formula; say rather that the right of property is not absolute, but may be called upon by the people according to reasonable need.”

The next fiscal battle (Part I)

Is this a trick question?

As should have been expected, Congress and the White House shook hands on a thirteenth-hour fiscal deal that makes almost nobody happy.

It takes the kind of perverse genius that emerges only within committees to strike a “grand bargain” that hacks off both neo-conservatives and progressives in equal measure.  “The certain result will be an economic pie that doesn’t grow fast enough,” Michael Goodwin grouses, “which will lead to new demands for more redistribution under the guise of ‘fairness.’  Always, the government redistributes by taking the first bite for itself.”  But David Rothkopf counters, “While many in Washington are breathing a sigh of relief and some are trying to spin the outcome as a win for the president, those who characterize this bill as a genuine victory for anyone at all have clearly lost perspective.”

On the income side, taxes go up for everybody, though largely for the well-to-do:  the top tax bracket goes from 35% to 39.6%; estate taxes increase 5%; capital gains and dividends taxes increase from 35% to 40%; and the SSI tax rebate sunsets, returning to 6.2%.  Somewhat offsetting these increases are extensions of Obama’s child, earned income and college tuition tax credits, “bonus depreciation” on new business property and equipment investments, and credits for R & D costs and renewable energy.

On the expenditure side, though, nothing much was really accomplished beyond the usual don’t-put-off-until-tomorrow-what-you-can-put-off-even-longer approach to the deficit.  Except that doctors took it in the shorts and lost some incentive to serve Medicare patients, which should please everyone who grumbles about the undeserving poor taking advantage of entitlement programs … and ignores that it hurts the deserving poor as well.  (Unless they’re Randians, who think that “deserving poor” is an oxymoron.)

Happy freakin’ New Year.  No, there’s no gift receipt for this; we’re stuck with it.  And I do mean stuck.

Am I my boss’ keeper?

On December 21st, the Iowa Supreme Court decided that male employers can fire female employees for being too attractive.

At least, that’s the dominant media interpretation of the state high court’s decision in re Nelson v. Knight (11-1857, 2012).  Much of this interpretation has been fueled by the revelation of certain undisputed facts Justice Edward Mansfield reveals in his written opinion, facts which were “set forth … in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Melissa Nelson” because the lower court’s decision had been a summary judgment rather than a jury verdict.

What facts are these?  Nelson worked for the defendant, dentist James Knight, for ten years; in the last year or so of their professional relationship, Knight started complaining that Nelson was wearing clothes that were too tight; once, when he texted her (!) that the shirt she’d worn that day was too tight and she replied (!!) that she didn’t think he was being fair, “Dr. Knight replied that it was a good thing Nelson did not wear tight pants too because then he would get it coming and going [bold font mine].”  Another time, when Nelson made a statement indicating she and her husband were having infrequent marital relations (!!!), Knight commented, “That’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

In essence, then, the decision presents James Knight as a right old pig engaging in objectification, and local women have reacted to the decision by bombing him in Yelp with negative reviews.  “I went to this dentist when I first moved to Iowa,” wrote one woman, Caroline D.  “While his staff was mostly friendly and his office was somewhat clean, HE really gave me the creeps … trust me, don't go to this weirdo, unless you want to feel verrry uncomfortable.”

The post-Sandy Hook conversation we should be having

How long after release of the news of the tragedy in Newtown did it take the Usual Suspects to start arguing about gun control?  Was it more than thirty-six hours?  Had the names of any of the children been released?

It’s the same bloody non-conversation we’ve been having since I wrote my first “letter to the editor” thirty years ago, the same tug-o’-war between those who want to give teachers permits to carry Uzis and those who want to register anyone who buys so much as a Super Soaker.  [Case in point: this loony screed on The Slate.  But then, this equally nutty proposal from the NRA's Wayne LaPierre didn't help either.]  A Boise writer named Liza Long did write a thought-provoking piece for The Blue Review; outlets like HuffPo, TIME, MSN and Yahoo all reprinted it, paused for a breath … and resumed the non-conversation.  (Although HuffPo for some reason wasted two or three posts on Asperger’s syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder which they finally admitted has no causal connection to violent behavior.  Typical — shoot first, do the research later.  If necessary.)

On the liberal side, the major failing is that the tragedy in se hasn’t inspired any policy suggestions that really, specifically address such mass murders … except for reinstating the ban on assault rifles.  On the conservative side, the major failing is the tendency to engage in amateur psychology: the Adam Lanzas all hit soft targets, like schools and malls, because no one is likely to shoot back at them and they can get their fifteen minutes of fame with no real risk, don’cha know. 

(Hitting vulnerable, low-risk targets for the sake of fame may be a motive for a certain kind of serial killer … but for a mass murderer who ends his rampage by blowing his brains out?  Bah-loney.)

God and the Holocaust

I tried writing a new post to capture my thoughts on the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.  It was, after two days' work, completely inadequate ... I wasn't saying anything new. This post, from August 17, 2010, comes closest to what I was trying to say.

*     *     *

I just recently re-read Salvation is from the Jews: The Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming, by Roy H. Schoeman (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003).  Schoeman, a convert to Catholicism, spends a good portion of the book analyzing the religious and philosophic roots of the German cultural anti-Semitism which Adolph Hitler and the Nazis manipulated and magnified with such malignant, satanic genius.  (This in turn led me to start re-reading William L. Shirer’s classic opus The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to see how that background mixed with the political and social semi-anarchy that characterized the Weimar Republic.)

It’s difficult to overstate the impact the Holocaust has had on both Jewish and Christian theology … but it can be done.  The philosophical influences responsible for the domination of secularism among the intellectual elite were making themselves felt among theologians even before Hitler rose to power, challenging the orthodox understanding of human suffering and the God who allows it to exist.  David Hume, the grandfather of modern secularism, made a stunning indictment of God’s mercy and benevolence in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:

[God’s] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness.  His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose.  Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these.  In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?

Why the rich should pay more taxes

The annual budget irresolution is getting to be like an ABC Family Channel Christmas special: You don’t want to watch because, no matter how it turns out, you know it’s gonna be bad. This year is even worse than the last two years because both the White House and House Republicans are playing chicken at the edge of the fiscal cliff.

Republicans have now pretty much conceded that nothing will be resolved without tax hikes of some sort and that the extra tax burden will have to fall upon the rich. So they’re willing to accept a deal that leaves the Bush cuts in place for families under $250k while allowing the Clinton levels to come back on everyone above that mark. This concession isn’t coming for free, though: they want entitlement cuts to be part of the bargain.

How likely are the Republicans to get what they want? Not very likely. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, writing in Politico, notes sardonically, “At present, any reading of the headlines over the past week indicates that Republicans are fighting to protect the rich and cut benefits for seniors. It may be possible to have worse political positioning than that, but I’m not sure how.”

Defense (blue) and Transfer Payments (red) as Percentage of GDP

This is something of an exaggeration … but not by much. Transfer payments by themselves consume 89% of federal receipts, and of that remarkable number about 74% is composed of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments.[1] However, these three programs alone contribute 11.11% to our gross domestic product, while federal transfer payments overall contribute 15.12% to our GDP. (By contrast, defense spending is only about 5.44%.) Granting that these three programs have been extended far beyond their original parameters, they’re still entitlements to which — having paid into them for so long — the people really are entitled.

The fallacy of the “‘Hitler card’ fallacy”

"One person with a hereditary disease costs the government 5.50 reichsmarks daily. RM 5.50 a day can support a whole genetically healthy family!"

“Death pathway”.  What an amazingly sterile, bureaucratic way to describe starving and dehydrating your loved one to death.

I had planned to write a third post tying up the loose ends in my previous two posts about the roles of science and philosophy in the “God debate”.  And I may yet write a reflection for tomorrow, the First Sunday of Advent.  But this story in the London Daily Mail’s MailOnline has left me sick with disbelief and disgust:  As part of an ongoing independent investigation into the so-called Liverpool Care Pathway, the ministers of Britain’s National Health System are learning that young people and newborns are also being “placed on the death pathway”.  Part of the “death pathway” is the stoppage not only of certain medications but also of food and fluids. 

NHS is investigating whether cash payments to hospitals for meeting “death pathway targets” influenced doctors’ decisions.  I don’t know if it’s occurred to them that  setting targets was bad enough, never mind creating a monetary incentive to meet them. 

But even when a prognosis of “no hope of recovery” is — you’ll pardon the phrase — a dead certainty, starvation and dehydration multiply the suffering.  Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice pediatric nurse, recounts: “I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube.  His death was agonizing for him, and for us nurses to watch.  This is euthanasia by the back door.”

Lloyd is too kind.  I’d call it medical murder.