Category Archives: Thinking

A Rare Union Victory; It's Nice to See

Posted on by
Reply

Football has always been an interest of mine. For as long as I can remember the Washington Redskins were a staple on Sunday TV. My memory goes back to the 1968 season when Otto Graham coached the Redskins to a 5-9 season, and was fired for his troubles.

In the last 44 years I’ve seen countless games and while not all my memories are good, I have to say that the referees have done an outstanding job. They don’t get it right 100% of the time, but it’s pretty close.

This year the NFL locked them out over a labor dispute. It was pretty silly and the lockout had more to do with intimidation than money. The NFL decided that they could employ “replacement referees” and none of us would notice. We did. The replacements came from small colleges and high schools and frankly, they couldn’t keep up. On national TV we saw that it’s not as easy to referee a professional NFL game as it looks.

On September 24th the game between the Green Bay Packers and the Seattle Seahawks was marred by a call none of us could defend. Suffice it to say that the Packers’ season could go down on this play. The next day the real referees were back in place.

For those of us who favor labor unions this is a good day. Workers with skills who group together with others with the same skills know that management always think that their skills are not as valuable. In truth I’ve never belonged to a union, but I had a job where my boss told me that “any idiot” could do my job. When I quit he hired any idiot. He lasted almost a year and they had to hire two people to replace me.

Look around you. If you think the person who picks your crops or bathes your grandmother in the nursing home, or washes your dishes in your favorite restaurant is unskilled, think again. They may make less money that you, but their labor is every bit as skilled as yours.

You may not notice until they don’t show up for the job, but when they do show up, you should notice. None of us are going to suffer because the real referees weren’t there for the first few weeks of the season, but it should remind us that union workers improve our lives every day.

Vote union.

The Money Chronicles, Volume 7: Reflections on the 47% vs. the 53%

Posted on by
Reply

Last week a video surfaced of Governor Romney speaking at a recent private fundraiser. This is what he said:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. My job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

I lifted this quotation from Yahoo; please tell me if it’s not accurate.

Several things trouble me about this quotation, and I’ll list a few here (and perhaps add to it as I think more about it).

  • Governor Romney was speaking at an event where he assumed everyone there supported him and he didn’t think it was being taped. It’s an old adage that character is developed when we think nobody is watching us. This quotation is dramatically different from what he says in public and it tells us a great deal about his character.
  • The 47% draw from a large and diverse group of people, and Governor Romney wants to put them all in one camp: they are dependent on the government, they believe they are victims, they believe someone else is responsible for their care, and they are entitled to health care, food, and housing. The meaning is clear: they are doing nothing productive and expect the 53% (of whom I belong) to care for them.
  • They believe that they only way they can keep this cushy arrangement is to vote for the President and nothing will convince them to take responsibility for their lives.
  • Lastly, it is not his job to to worry about these people.

OK, so who are these 47%? Good question. Governor Romney acquired this number from the Tax Policy Center; there are those who think it has a liberal bias, but Governor Romney must not as he quotes them. They describe the 47% here:

  • The poor: In 2011 if a family of four made $26,400 or less, their income was too low to pay taxes. To be fair, I can’t imagine them putting food on the table, let alone paying taxes. They don’t sound like freeloaders to me, and I’d guess they’d give anything to make enough money to pay taxes. They are half of the 47%: I’m guessing they’re not heartened to learn that Governor Romney’s job is to not worry about them because they are freeloaders.
  • The elderly: If you and your spouse receive less than $32,000 in Social Security benefits ($2666.67 per month) or other income, you don’t pay taxes. If you live on that much money and pay taxes, you have a point. Otherwise, move on because these are people who worked hard for their entire career, paid into Social Security, and don’t have pensions, 401(k)’s, or 403(b)’s and they are not freeloaders.
  • The disabled: Again, if you are disabled and poor, you don’t pay federal taxes. Think this is a free ride? Talk to someone who depends on this. Ask him or her if he or she would rather be able to work and pay taxes. Nearly 100% would like to be productive.

You can’t read this blog without knowing my political views. But let’s face it: Mitt is choosing the path of pandering to the wealthy. Vote for him at your own risk.

The Money Chronicles, Volume 6: An Economics Rap Anthem? Believe It!

Posted on by
Reply

For a year or so I’ve been listening to a podcast called Planet Money from National Public Radio. I look forward to listening a few times per week and it’s taught me a great deal about what is happening in the economy.

It’s also become a bit of a political football as President Obama is a follower of the economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) while Governor Romney is a follower to the economist Friedrich A. Hayek (1899-1992).

Keynes believed that in times of dire economic depression the government needs to pour money into the economy to stimulate it and raise itself out of its troubles. Hayek believed that governments can’t do this effectively and it is better in the long run to allow the economy to fix itself. This rap does an excellent job of explaining their positions.

An Anniversary That Means a Great Deal to Me (if not anyone else)

Posted on by
Reply

On this date in 1980 I had an eventful day: I entered the seminary of the Stigmatine Fathers and Brothers. I moved from my home in Woodbridge, Va. to Watertown, MA; actually the Stigmatine House of Studies at 229 Watertown St. in Watertown. I transferred from George Mason University to Boston College and changed my major from Government to Philosophy. It was quite a change.

I write this because as I look over the grand sweep of my life (so far) this is a pretty big day. Previous to this I had visions of graduating from George Mason, going to University of Virginia Law School and spending my career as an attorney. By my sophomore year at George Mason I began to understand that this wasn’t going to fulfill me. The idea of switching to becoming a Catholic priest seemed unbelievable, but somehow attractive. I entered the Stigmatine seminary that day convinced that God would take care of me and prevent anything bad from happening.

He did (take care of me) and didn’t (prevent anything bad from happening). But from that day I’ve never seriously thought about becoming a lawyer, and I’ve never thought about a career away from being a public person of faith. Since that day I’ve been a seminarian (with both the Stigmatines and the Paulist Fathers), a priest with the Paulists, a Director of Religious Education (running a CCD or Sunday School program), a Youth Minister (working with teens), a resident manager in a home for teen mothers, and (finally) a hospice chaplain.

When I look back on the person I was 32 years ago I barely recognize myself. On the other hand I recognize I would not be the middle aged man I am today if my younger self hadn’t taken that step on that day, in that place.

I’m also grateful for all the brave men and women who have crossed my path. Not all of them would predict I’d be where I am now, but all of them had a part in who I am now. My thanks.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 7: Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday we learned that Governor Mitt Romney has chosen Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. There is lots to talk about, and I’ll be doing more talking in the next few months. Right now I want to focus on Paul Ryan’s views on the role of government.

When he was in college Paul read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (1905-1982) and was immediately taken by it. Much of his political philosophy comes from her views: what she calls “Objectivism.” She holds that:

  1. Reality exists as an objective absolute–facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears
  2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s sense) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
  3. Man–every man–is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
  4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but historically, had not yet been) a complete separations of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Religion composes the only true difference in their beliefs: Paul is Catholic and Ayn was a strong atheist. In an interview in 1964 she was asked: “Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?” This is her answer:

Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy.

Paul wishes us to believe that you can be a follower of Ayn Rand and a Christian, but can we? How do we square an entire philosophy based exclusively on self interest when Jesus gave his life to save all humanity? How does the pursuit of one’s own self interest find any common ground with a faith that demands that we be our brother’s keeper?

This is not just academic discussion. Paul has proposed a federal budget that is very much in agreement with Objectivist views. He calls it The Path to Prosperity and you can download a copy here. It is clearly a path to prosperity if you are already rich. It makes horrific cuts to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs that provide basic services to the poor while providing generous tax cuts to the richest among us.

If this budget plan aligns with Objectivist values, what does Christianity say? In 1986 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a document called Economic Justice for All: A Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy. This is their opening paragraph:

We are believers called to follow Our Lord Jesus Christ and proclaim his Gospel in the midst of a complex and powerful economy. This reality poses both opportunities and responsibilities for Catholics in the United States. Our faith calls us to measure this economy, not only by what it produces, but also by how it touches human life and whether it protects or undermines the dignity of the human person. Economic decisions have human consequences and moral content; they help or hurt people, strengthen or weaken family life, advance or diminish the quality of justice in our land.

In paragraph 8 they state: “As a community of believers, we know that our faith is tested by the quality of justice among us, that we can best measure our life together by how the poor and the vulnerable are treated.”

The election is 84 days from now and we have a clear choice to make. More later.

Nomination Update

Posted on by
Reply

A few months ago I set up a grid to keep track of the Republican delegate count. It appears that tonight Mitt Romney wrapped up the necessary delegates. I have therefore removed the counter. I’ll no doubt resurrect something like that in 2016.

What Happens to Rick's Delegates?

Posted on by
Reply

The long primary season several candidates gain delegates, but not enough to secure the nomination, and they drop out. Rick Santorum is the latest. OK so what happens to his 250 to 280 delegates? Well, that depends. States pick their delegates differently and have varying rules about them.

The clearest article I’ve read on this is from the Washington Post. It starts with Rick having 281 delegates. Of these, 84 are from states with nonbinding delegates: delegates from Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, and North Dakota have always been free to vote for whomever they want. You can imagine they have been contacted by other campaigns by now.

The remaining 197 delegates are bound to vote for Santorum at the convention unless Santorum releases them, and of this writing he has not. He did not end his campaign but only suspended it; had he ended his campaign that would have released his delegates.

His decision to suspend his campaign essentially gives the nomination to Mitt Romney. To the extent that Rick did not have enough delegates to block Romney’s election, Rick’s bound delegates will likely go through the motions of voting for him in the convention.

Thoughts on Rick Santorum's Departure

Posted on by
Reply

We got word today that Rick Santorum has suspended his campaign. I’ve been thinking for several weeks that I wanted to post something on his campaign and why this Catholic won’t vote for that Catholic. Now it seems it doesn’t matter.

He suspended his campaign for several reasons: he was well behind in the delegate count, he was in danger of losing the primary of his home state of Pennsylvania, his daughter’s health continues to weigh on him, and he’s realizing that he can’t assume the Catholic vote.

Before saying anything else I have to say that I respect his decision to stay close to his daughter. She is living with Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder. It’s normally fatal fairly soon after birth and the fact that Bella is still alive at age 3 is a testament to her strength, her family’s support, and (frankly) her access to the health care that Rick Santorum would continue to deny to 15% of our population.

As a Catholic I’m most interested in his assumption that he had the Catholic vote in his back pocket. He has made some public stances that he assumed would garner my support, but in fact had the opposite effect. I proudly declare myself Catholic, think of myself as faithful to the True Faith, attend Mass, participate in the life of my parish, and think the nut case far right is out to lunch on the issue of birth control and other Catholic issues.

I’ve written recently about the fact that the Vatican, the American Bishops, and Timothy Cardinal Dolan have opposed President Obama’s directive that some Catholic institutions provide birth control as part of their health coverage. They have framed this as an assault on the Catholic Church and religious freedom. Married Catholics like me frame this as the ongoing war on married couples. We applaud women like Sandra Fluke who speak from a place of truth and integrity. We pray for the day the Catholic prohibition on birth control goes in a direction that makes sense beyond the celibate male clergy.

Additionally, I’m astounded by his attack on President Kennedy. For many of use who grew up in the 20th Century, John Kennedy was our Catholic icon. Among other things he was able to articulate to the United States a Catholic belief that was true to our traditions without claiming that a Catholic President is an agent to the Pope. As a candidate in 1960 John Kennedy was perceived by many as just this: the Pope would call and the President would follow orders. Catholics like myself have always found this preposterous, but many non Catholics of that time needed reassurance.

On September 12, 1960, Senator Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association and said this:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

Frankly, I find this articulate and accurate, and enough non Catholics thought so in 1960 to elect him president. Mr. Santorum (who was 2 years old at the time) said this to George Stephanopolous on February 26th:

To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

This is troubling on a few levels. First and most obvious, how can a man running for President be so unable understand another person’s speech? At no time did Kennedy claim that he wasn’t a man of faith, only that he would not take orders from the Pope on how to run the county. Second, does he equate faith with the inability to think independently? In other words can I, as a Catholic, discern my own views, or do I have to lockstep with the Pope on all issues.

I guess that means Mr. Santorum and I are very different Catholics.

And I’m praying for his daughter.

Coming out of Florida

Posted on by
Reply

I’m writing this as the results are coming in from the Florida Republican Primary. It’s been a tough few weeks for the candidates, and it points to more months of negative campaigning, Super Pacs, and unlimited bloodletting.

Coming out of the South Carolina primary it appeared that the Gingrich campaign had some momentum, and this was of great concern to the Republican establishment. The Romney campaign came out with strong negative ads and won Florida.

I’ve update the table and you can see there is no more agreement than before.

The race is still on. Nevada is next.

The Republican Delegate Race: 2.0

Posted on by
Reply

Four years ago I tried to keep track of the delegate count for the Republican and Democratic primaries and it gave me a headache. That headache has already returned and I’m taking a new strategy. My headache was caused by the fact that several news organizations keep a delegate count, but none of them agree. This year I’ve decided to take a different track. I’m setting up a page to keep track of the counts of a few different organizations. We’ll see how it happens. You can access this page here.