A Change in Republican Politics?

From The Washington Times: "GOP gets wake-up call on minority vote"

Virginia Republicans say the overwhelming support by blacks and Hispanics that led to big wins for Democrats on Election Day taught them a valuable lesson: The party must work harder to make minority voters feel included and involved or pay dearly at the polls.

President-elect Barack Obama became the first Democrat in 44 years to win Virginia, and Senator-elect Mark Warner scored even better than Mr. Obama among blacks and Hispanics in the state.

"That Obama and Warner were able to attract large numbers of minorities suggests to the Republican Party that we need to be better at getting out our message," said Chuck Smith, chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia's Welcoming Committee. "We are the party of values and freedom."

To get their message across, Republicans need to focus on a message of "inclusion and involvement," he said.

In Prince William County, for example, Corey A. Stewart, a Republican and chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors last year led one of the country's most stringent crackdowns on illegal immigrants, which sparked fear and flight among that Hispanic community.

Fabiola Francisco, chairman of the Virginia chapter of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, said the crackdown showed a huge messaging problem that the party must correct.

"The party has to do a rebranding campaign and make sure the truth is really out there, that we're not against immigrants or we're not against other minorities or anything like that," she said. "The Prince William campaign may have had good intentions, but it did cause an uphill battle for our groups."

The county this year had 23,500 new voter registrations while nearby Loudoun County had 16,903.

Mrs. Francisco also said that while Republicans have attempted to reach out in such places as churches and stores frequented by minorities, the party needs to cast a wider net with its grass-roots efforts to include such venues as community festivals and soccer tournaments.

Jeffrey M. Frederick, a Hispanic who is chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia and a Prince William County state delegate who backed the county's immigration crackdown, shared similar thoughts.

Republicans need to narrow their focus from a broader policy of inclusion to building one-on-one relationships in communities, he said, and emphasize stances on issues of which minorities and the party agree: small government, lower taxes and family values.

His party also has to overcome the anti-immigration label it's been given and the fact that many minority cultures associate themselves with the Democratic Party by cultural default, Mr. Frederick said.

"The fact of the matter is our values as Republicans more closely align with the values of these ethnic minorities," he said. "You name the issue, and they're going to agree with us more than with the Democrats."

Mr. Obama defeated Republican Sen. John McCain with roughly 53 percent of the vote in Virginia. Mr. Obama won the support of 92 percent of black voters and 65 percent of Hispanics in Virginia, according to exit polls used by MSNBC.com. In cities with large black populations, such as Hampton, Norfolk and Richmond, Mr. Obama earned a greater percent of the total vote than Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry did in 2004.

Mr. Warner, a former Virginia governor who is white, won a Senate seat with a higher percentage of black and Hispanic voters than Mr. Obama: 93 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

The number of Hispanics in Virginia increased from 329,540 in 2000 to 470,871 in 2006, according to the most recent census figures. And the number of blacks increased from 1.4 million to 1.5 million over the same period, according to the census .

Jared Leopold, a spokesman for the Democratic Party of Virginia, said his party focused on a program that included visiting different communities and using Spanish-language materials in some areas prior to this year's elections.

Mr. Frederick said his party also "reached out this campaign season, [but] I think we need to do more reaching out." And even Mr. Leopold said the battle between the parties to win minority voters isn't nearly over.

"If Republicans speak to communities about the issues that they face, I think that will be a battle for us," Mr. Leopold said. "I don't think that voting bloc is solidified for Democrats for all time."

Catholic Social Teaching and Healthcare Reform

In Matthew 25, Jesus paints an image of His return in glory. On the Day of Judgment, Christ will separate His sheep from the goats. The sheep are those that cared for "the least" of Jesus' brothers: the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, those sick, and those in prison. The goats didn't remember "the least" among them and as Christ foretold, "in all truth," they have "received their reward," in this life and will not in the next. Jesus’ teaching is unavoidable.

This message is especially relevant to the injustice of the American healthcare system. To call American healthcare—as a system—immoral makes no judgment on healthcare professionals or hospitals, but rather on the design itself. Many have advocated for universal healthcare in our country and have been rejected for proposing so-called "socialized medicine." I am personally a proponent of a universal healthcare system. We have the medical care, the financial resources, but we seem to lack the moral will to acknowledge that we are our brother's keeper.

Does the United States have the best healthcare in the world? It depends. In reality, there are at least five different co-existing healthcare systems in our country. They can be described as follows: first, at the top of the system are the wealthy and well-insured, particularly those with indemnity, fee-for-service health insurance. In this case, the United States has the highest quality, most technically advanced medicine in the world; second from the top is the private, employer-based insurance for the middle class, usually with some features of "managed care" and some restrictions on what the insurance company will cover; the third layer consists of insurance for lower-income workers in the form of tightly managed health maintenance organizations (HMO), substantial out-of-pocket payments and moderate restrictions on the doctors that can be seen and treatments covered; the fourth layer is Medicaid, Medicare, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which are grossly underfunded systems of federal and state insurance for the lowest of middleclass families, the poor, for children, the disabled, and the elderly. This group faces severe restrictions on doctors that can be seen and on treatments covered; the bottom of the ladder is "charity care" and emergency room care, which is available to those who have no medical insurance.

The American healthcare "system" translates into a socio-economically based distribution of medical care, which is fundamentally more of a medical caste system than a healthcare system. This hardly seems compatible with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 25. The results aren’t either. In virtually every form of basic statistics measuring days of illness, death rates, and life expectancies, the United States ranks behind almost every other industrialized nation. The U.S. ranked last in 2007 of every industrialized nation in terms of the citizens dying from preventable disease; France ranked first. In France 64 people died from preventable disease, in the U.S. approximately 101,000 died from preventable disease. The difference couldn't be starker, particularly given the fact we spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation in the world and for us it is only partial, not universal coverage as in other countries.

The "every-man-for-himself," radical individualist strategy of American healthcare not only is disastrously irresponsible, it seriously violates basic Christian teaching. Make no mistake, this is not an endorsement to eradicate personal responsibility and moral virtue (communism, in other words), but an observation that a private sector dominated healthcare system is bad business without some sort of minimal regulation. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity is an organizing principle that calls us to allow the smallest, most local institution to handle matters if it can be done more efficiently than or just as efficiently as would be done at the national level (or state level in America). But, if the task cannot be done efficiently at this level, then the national (or state) government has an obligation to have some sort of role to ensure the common good.

Any healthcare system—in my view—that is based on private insurance with no government intervention is fatally flawed. The incentive of private insurance is upside down. After premiums are paid, the less care they provide, the higher their profits—this is undoubtedly their goal. Hence, all the horrid stories one hears about insurance companies searching for the smallest technicality to not cover something. Thus, public health and human welfare is not the incentive, but rather profit. Profit over health and dignity is not a Christian value. Fundamentally, health and wellness should not be treated like any other consumer-based industry.

The problem with healthcare costs is hard to deal with in the current system. With thousands of different private health insurance plans, it's virtually impossible to negotiate consistently lower costs with healthcare providers and drug companies. A universal healthcare system, on the other hand, has the potential to rein in costs. More importantly, private insurance is a colossal waste of money. Administrative costs for Medicare, for example, which is government-financed (not government-run) are 2-3% of the total cost. Approximately 30% of private insurance premiums go to overhead, profits, and executive salaries. Overall the administrative costs of private insurance exceed $400 billion dollars in a year. That is arguably sufficient to cover all the uninsured without raising taxes.

Many conservative-leaning thinkers are concerned about the loss of freedom and the efficiency of a national healthcare plan. Ironically, the freedom that many people fear will be loss at the implementation of a universal healthcare system is already gone. Many choices in healthcare are at the discretion of the private sector insurance companies. They choose what doctors you can see, whether you are qualified to be covered (if you have a history of illness, good luck—you cost too much), what they will and will not cover and how long you can receive treatment, and this is all if they don't find some small technicality on which they can drop coverage all together to preserve their profits. It seems that we fail to realize how much is already controlled by large corporations—at least government officials can be voted out of office.

Even more so, we already pay for people to get medical care. When people go to the emergency room to receive medical treatment without health insurance, the cost is spread amongst everyone else. This is one reason why insurance premiums skyrocket and we're also taxed, since hospitals can receive government grants to offset some of their losses. Wouldn't we rather have paid for the preventative care than wait until it is much more expensive?

Additionally, it is nothing unusual for a hospital to have to bill more than 700 different payers and insurers--HMOs, PPOs, MCOs, IPAs, and an alphabet soup of other organizations. Each one has its own set of rules for what services are covered, the level of reimbursement and the kinds of documentation and pre-approval required. It is an administrative nightmare. And for this mess, we Americans shell out $2.2 trillion a year (more than any other nation) and all this inefficiency costs patients tens of billions of dollars each year. Billing, collection, and payment administration represents some 20 percent of that $2.2 trillion we spend on healthcare. There is nothing even remotely "conservative" about this—it’s nothing but “big spending” and for what results?

To consider this again in Christian thinking—we have a call from the Lord to give preferential option to the most vulnerable among us. Poverty and ill health travel often together. Poverty puts one's health in jeopardy, ill health with its attendant high medical bills, impairment of working ability, and days lost from work, make it difficult to find and hold a good job. This is a terrible and vicious cycle. The current healthcare system is evidently not accommodating.

Now there is a "safety net" of charity healthcare that ought to be commended. The Veterans Administration healthcare system, the Indian Health Service, state and local departments of public health, public hospital emergency rooms, community health centers and clinics, faith-based clinics for the poor and homeless, and the list goes on. Despite their tireless work and efforts, many lack the funding and the resources to address the problem at hand—they adequately cannot overcome the effects of the lack of good, regular access to mainstream healthcare.

Hispanics, African Americans, people with less education, part-time workers, and foreign-born persons have the highest rates of being uninsured. Guess what? They also are the same people who have more abortions. 1 in 2 African American pregnancies end in abortion. African American children are born into this world more often than not with the odds against them—the black community is experiencing a terrible crisis of missing fathers, thus single parent households. Statistically, children that grow up in such environments are inclined to have a weak parent-child relationship, prone toward committing crime, drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, more likely to repeat a grade, less likely to graduate high school, and are often victims of abuse and neglect. And single mothers, particularly young ones, face a long, uphill battle toward economic self-sufficiency and the current healthcare system does little to help those in this sort of situation.

The elderly have limited economic productivity and healthcare is getting exponentially more expensive; we have a moral obligation to see that their needs are met, particularly for a group that often has very dire medical needs. While there is Medicare, it faces problems in providing long term care of chronic conditions, incorporating new technology, and lacks the financial resources needed.

Much of this may be slightly more "liberal" than one's own political perspective, but Catholic Social Teaching is beyond "left" and "right" politics. If we subjectively identify with one side of the political spectrum more than the other, we must do so as Catholics, which entails crossing party lines. We cannot continue to allow our politicians to cover unborn children in the children’s healthcare program to encourage women not to have abortions only to denounce expanding coverage, or redirect funding from the program. This isn't all "liberal" either. We need to heed the Bishops advice on the both/and approach. There is another side of this debate that conservatives need to win. That debate is in regard to much of the content of American healthcare and this debate involves religious freedom, Catholic and private hospitals, abortifacents, emergency contraception, patients rights', and the full range of so-called "reproductive health services," in vitro fertilization, genetic manipulation, etc.

The Democratic Party is currently the natural home of legislative proposals for healthcare reform. I firmly believe that universal healthcare is going to come sooner or later and if Catholics aren't sitting at the table, our values will be off the table. I see this fundamentally as a "life issue" in its own respect and from a pro-life perspective, the status quo is not acceptable. We may not agree on the details, but on fundamental principles of human dignity, basic civil rights, and the end goal of, in some way or another, providing universal access to quality and affordable healthcare, there should be agreement. No one should be left out. That’s the ideal goal.

Back to the fundamental question: does America have the greatest healthcare system? Not at all and I don't even think it's debatable. And reform is not only necessary, it is required.

Do Facts Matter This Election?

Do Facts Matter?
By Thomas Sowell

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain -- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

House Rejects Legislative Bailout

From the Washington Post: 'Why the Bailout Bill Failed'

So how could a major bill described by the president and both parties' leaders as critical to the well-being of the nation's -- and the world's -- economy go down to defeat?

There are no easy answers here, as the House's stunning defeat moments ago of the financial bailout legislation is putting us into seemingly uncharted territory. But while the final tally, with 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voting no, was a surprise -- all morning, Hill sources were predicting narrow passage -- the signs were there that the measure was in trouble:

1) Poor Salesmanship. Did you know that the general consensus is now that this bill will not cost $700 billion? If you didn't, it's because the bill's proponents did a poor marketing job. From the start, the Bush administration did not do enough to emphasize the point that taxpayers would get at least some of the money back, and that gigantic price tag got stuck in the head of the public (and the media).

The administration was also too eager and ambitious with its initial proposal, alienating many lawmakers right from the start by seeming to ask for the moon -- give us everything we want, with no oversight. This White House has long played political hardball, but this was not the time for hardball. This was the time for begging. The administration also let the "bailout" label stick to the package right from the start. By the time President Bush started calling it a "rescue" measure, it was too late.

2) Vulnerables Scared. If you have a difficult reelection race, what was your motivation to vote for this bill? "I voted in favor of a bill that I didn't really like, because I had no choice," doesn't make for a particularly snappy campaign slogan. "I stood up to my party and Wall Street," sounds much better. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) both made the argument that lawmakers needed to rise to the occasion and not think of their own political futures. But members of Congress ALWAYS think of their political futures. It's much easier to talk of sacrifice for the greater good when you're going to get reelected with 70 percent of the vote, like nearly every leader on both sides of the aisle will.

3) No Center of Gravity. Who's running Washington right now? Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, with a minuscule approval rating and no clout or political protection left to offer. Bush and Vice President Cheney were reportedly making calls to wavering Republicans right to the end; obviously that didn't do the trick. Barack Obama and John McCain both supposedly support the bill, but neither of them has been exactly wholehearted in their backing, and there haven't been any reports of either candidate calling members of their own party to lobby.

House leaders, meanwhile, did support the bill and did whip it. But this wasn't a party-loyalty vote; lawmakers were asked to vote yes, but they weren't threatened. They (probably) weren't bribed. Add all that up, and you had a power vacuum.

4) Ideological Problems. The simplest explanation of all for the loss was that a lot of members just didn't like the bill. Capitol Briefing outlined last week all the reasons why House conservatives balked at the initial proposal, and the basic point still stands: A massive expenditure of taxpayer funds and intervention in the free market, combined with tough new regulations, simply offended too many conservatives' most basic principles. And Republicans, being in the minority, feel no responsibility to govern. They calculated that the bill's failure will be blamed on Bush (so what?) and the majority Democrats.

On the liberal end of the spectrum, most members believe this really does represent a "bailout" of Wall Street and a power grab by the Bush administration, and that the current crisis vindicates their longtime warnings that the financial system was riven by greed and insufficient regulation. For those members, the final package didn't have nearly enough help for struggling homeowners.

5) Partisanship? House Republican leaders gave a press conference right after the vote, and they have strongly suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) floor speech toward the end of the debate was at least partly to blame for the loss. "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house," Boehner said.

It's too early to know whether Pelosi's speech, which laid much of the blame for the whole financial crisis at the foot of the Bush administration, really made much of a difference. But if several House Republicans actually did switch their votes on a momentous piece of legislation just because they were irritated by a speech, what does that say about them? As Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) mockingly characterized the GOP's argument: "Somebody hurt my feelings, so I'm going to punish the country."

It's possible despite weeks of warnings, and a stock market that is cratering as we speak, that a lot of members still aren't taking any of this seriously enough. And that, ultimately, may be the real reason for today's vote.

Click here to see Nancy Pelosi's speech.
Click here to see GOP responses.

'No' To The Bailout and 'Yes' to Healthcare

Save Lives Instead of Bankers' Bloated Pay
Michael R. Sesit

Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Now that the U.S. government has proposed bailing out the pin-stripe and Gucci crowd, it's about time it adopted a universal health program for the common folk.

After all, if you're going to socialize financial risk, it isn't a big intellectual leap to conclude that the same ought to be done for health care. It's also morally the right thing to do, especially after George W. Bush's administration decided to have the American taxpayer pick up the tab for the misdeeds of what is probably the wealthiest segment of the population.

Saving someone's life is more uplifting than preserving Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Officer John Mack's bonus. That's right, saving a life. An estimated 22,000 people age 25-64 in the U.S. died in 2006 -- and 137,000 from 2000 through 2006 -- because they lacked health insurance, according to an Urban Institute study in January.

About 41 million people in the U.S. will be uninsured throughout 2008, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. For various reasons, an additional 36 million will go without health insurance for part of the year. That 77 million total represents a quarter of the U.S. population and 94 percent of Germany's. It is also 33 percent larger than Italy's.

In 2006, U.S. health-care spending amounted to 15.3 percent of gross domestic product and $6,714 per capita, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That compares with 11.3 percent of GDP and $4,311 for Switzerland, and 11.1 percent and $3,449 for France. The OECD average was 8.9 percent of GDP and per-capita expenditure of $2,824.

No Universal Coverage

Although the U.S. spends more on health care than other developed countries, it's the only major industrialized nation that doesn't offer comprehensive coverage to all citizens.

Twenty-seven of the 30 OECD member countries offer universal, or near-universal, health coverage. Besides the U.S., only Mexico and Turkey don't. Almost half of all Americans cited the cost of health care as their No. 1 economic concern in a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll last year.

Now for a brief summary of the numbers. The uninsured will pay $30 billion out-of-pocket for health care this year and receive an additional $56 billion in so-called uncompensated care provided by hospitals, community organizations and physicians, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California. Federal and state funds will indirectly cover about $43 billion of that, private charities the rest.

If all uninsured people were to gain insurance coverage and use similar amounts of care as the currently insured, overall costs would increase by $123 billion, the foundation says.

Wall Street Bailouts

Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve are on the hook for $29 billion of dodgy mortgage securities relating to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s acquisition of Bear Stearns Cos.; $85 billion for the rescue of American International Group Inc.; and as much as $200 billion to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In addition, there is Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposed $700 billion bailout fund and whatever losses may result from insuring $3.4 trillion of money-market mutual funds.

Thus, in current dollars, the finance industry's aggregate bailout package could theoretically fund the incremental $123 billion increase needed to achieve universal health coverage for more than eight years.

Other ways the financial-services industry could contribute to a national-health system include an increase in the capital- gains duty, a turnover levy on securities transactions and a more progressive income tax that raises charges on the wealthy. And instead of relieving banks of their ailing mortgage securities, the government should get ownership stakes for taxpayers' contributions, which could later be sold if the bailout succeeds.

$2 Trillion

Then there's the Iraq fiasco, which may eventually cost U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion to $2 trillion. That's eight to 16 times the annual $123 billion incremental figure.

A comprehensive national-health program also makes good business sense for three reasons. First, the lost productivity associated with the poor health and shortened life spans of the uninsured cost the U.S. economy $102 billion to $204 billion in 2006, according to a March report published by the Health Policy Program of the New America Foundation.

"The economic cost imposed on the nation by the uninsured is as much as, and perhaps greater than, the public cost of covering them,'' the authors said.

Two, a national health system would help the U.S. attract investment because it relieves companies of a costly direct expense. This was one motive behind Toyota Motor Corp.'s 2005 decision to build a vehicle plant in Canada, instead of the U.S.

No Incentives

Three, after adjusting health-care spending to reflect America's higher GDP per capita, the U.S. in 2005 still spent more -- $1,645 per individual, or $477 billion -- on health care than peer countries with comprehensive health insurance, even though Americans aren't any sicker than others, according to a study last year by McKinsey & Co.

Much of the higher spending was attributed to the costly administrative structure of the U.S. system and its failure to provide incentives for patients to be value-conscious and for providers "to promote rational supply,'' the firm said.

"Despite higher costs, the United States does not deliver objectively better quality and access for U.S. citizens as a whole, relative to peer countries,'' McKinsey said.

Still, if taxpayers are expected to bail out Wall Street, they ought to demand something for themselves and their fellow citizens.

Senate Passes Bipartisan Adoption Bill

The U.S. Senate passed the bipartisan Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (HR 6893) on Monday, September 23. "This is the most significant legislation relating to adoption and foster care since the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997," said Tom Atwood, President and CEO of NCFA. "It provides for a wide array of reforms to benefit children and their interest in adoption."

The reforms in HR 6893 include: Reauthorizing the Adoption Incentives Program, whereby the federal government allocates financial rewards to states that have increased the number of children adopted from their foster care system, through 2013; Increasing the award amounts states stand to receive through the Adoption Incentives Program by establishing 2007 as the new "base year" against which future performance will be measured, and increasing the bonuses for special needs and older child adoptions; Ensuring all children with special needs adopted out of foster care are eligible for federal adoption assistance regardless of family income by 2018; Mandating that states inform prospective adoptive parents regarding eligibility for the adoption tax credit; Requiring states to make reasonable efforts to place siblings together; Establishing relative guardianship assistance payments in a way that does not creative incentives for relative guardianship over adoption; and Allowing states the option of extending adoption assistance, foster care maintenance and relative guardianship assistance payments to children aged 18, 19 or 20.

Catholic House Republicans to Pelosi: Correct the Record

Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

On the Sunday, August 24th, broadcast of NBC’s Meet the Press, you stated “as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority.

Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error.

In the interview, Tom Brokaw reminded you that the Church professes the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being” (2274).

To this, you responded, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.” Unfortunately, your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching and belief regarding abortion.

From the Apostles of the first century to Pope John Paul the Great “the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (Catechism 2271).

Thus, your erroneous claim about the history of the Church’s opposition to abortion is false and denigrates our common Faith. For example, during the reign of Pope Innocent XI in 1679, the Church unequivocally stated it is an error for Catholics to believe a fetus does not have a soul; and confirmed the teaching that abortion constitutes an unjustified taking of innocent human life.

To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church’s actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life. We hope that you will rectify your errant claims and apologize for misrepresenting the Church’s doctrine and misleading fellow Catholics.

Respectfully,

Thaddeus McCotter

Steve Chabot

Virginia Foxx

Phil Gingrey

Peter King (NY)

Steve King (IA)

Dan Lungren

Devin Nunes

John Sullivan

Pat Tiberi

John Boehner

Phil English

Jean Schmidt

Jim Walsh

Jeff Fortenberry

Michael McCaul

Paul Ryan

Walter Jones

Mike Ferguson

The 2010 Texas Governor’s Race

What we all have feared has come to fruition. Texas Governor Rick Perry—already the longest serving governor in Texas history—announced that he is seeking to turn ten years in office to fourteen years. With the 2010 Governor’s Race around the corner, many Republicans are urging Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson to run against him. I honestly cannot see how she would lose the Republican primary against him.

From the 2006 Midterm Elections, it is clear that 61% of Texans are ready for another governor and hopefully we can line up strongly behind a single candidate to stop him, either in the primary or in the fall election itself.

Moreover with Texas legislatures and the State Supreme Court being under Republican control, I would not at all mind a Democrat in the Governor’s mansion if the life issues are safeguarded for at least one term, or maybe even two terms. (Not that I'd vote for that Democrat if he or she is pro-choice).

None of this comes as a surprise to me. Perry was George W. Bush’s Lieutenant Governor and he has carried on the Bush legacy—failure. All the Democrats have to ask the voters is this: do they want “a third Perry term” or “is it time for a change?” This seems to have created a circus on the national level that has played much to their favor—at least until McCain chose Palin.

Nevertheless, it remains that after over a decade of predominant Republican leadership, Texas schools are facing a massive budget crisis and continued budget cuts, terrible performances on standardized testing, scandals that have racked the Texas Youth Commission, soaring college tuitions that have amounted to a middle class tax increase, over a billion dollars in highway funds that were “lost” while toll roads are being outsourced to foreign corporations, Texas is leading the nation in children who have no health insurance, and the list goes on.

“Governor 39% of the Vote” can run again and the Democrats will win in 2010.

The Consistent Ethic of Life and the GOP

From the National Catholic Reporter:

One of the most prominent Catholics in the Republican Party says that it is time for his party to stop conceding the social justice message to Democrats. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a Catholic convert who ran for his party’s nomination for president last year, told NCR that his party is still hesitant to passionately embrace some aspects of Catholic social teaching.

“There is a bit of a philosophical difference,” Brownback says of his party. “Catholics really are more given to the whole life view. But I see that changing.”

The GOP has embraced Catholics themselves as part of the faith-based leadership, Brownback says. Despite his own short run as a presidential hopeful -- Brownback pulled out before the first primary -- he says there’s no doubt a Catholic could be a Republican president.

“It could happen now,” Brownback says. “I don’t think there’s any blockage there.”

For most of the 20th century, the faith-based movement within the Republican Party was dominated by Protestants and especially by evangelicals the last half of the century. Catholics were reliable Democrats, especially when the majority was middle-class urbanites and often members of unions.

That has drastically changed. In the 2004 election, George W. Bush won the Catholic vote over John Kerry, a Catholic, by a sizable margin, 1.6 million votes. Many give credit to Bush’s chief strategist, Karl Rove, for courting Catholics by placing issues such as opposition to abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia at the top of the agenda.

Delegates bow their heads for benediction at the Republican National Convention Sept. 4.Brownback says he strongly agrees with his party’s position on all of those issues.

“You have to have life for there to be social justice,” Brownback says. “You can’t begin a social justice mission without defending the life of the unborn first.”

He also strongly supports his party’s position on other issues that go away from the church’s stated position. The war in Iraq is the most notable, where Brownback says there is moral ambiguity.

“It think it does cause legitimate concern,” Brownback says. “That’s a prudential judgment issue.

To me it was the right prudential judgment at that time (to invade Iraq). You can look back and say, ‘Where are the weapons of mass destruction?’ But at the time, we thought they were there. And I don’t think any Catholic would say now we should pull out of Iraq and have it go into anarchy.”

Capital punishment is another ambiguous issue for Brownback, who held hearings in 2006 to examine it. In beginning those hearings he said, “So each generation may -- and good citizens should -- consider anew the law and facts involving this solemn judgment. I believe America must establish a culture of life. If use of the death penalty is contrary to promoting a culture of life, we need to have a national dialogue and hear both sides of the issue.”

But there is a list of issues, once considered the domain of progressives, that Brownback says his church could teach his party to better embrace without equivocation.

“I want to say, (Democrats) are wrong on life and marriage,” Brownback says, “and here is our social justice agenda. We haven’t gone that distance. We’ve said, you get the social justice agenda, we get the life and marriage agenda. And I’m pushing at this cloth of being pro-life and whole life, and that applies to the immigrant, the person in prison, to those is poverty and those in Darfur.”

One example of how this plays out in the Senate is last year’s collaboration with vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) to strengthen laws against human trafficking.

Brownback said at the time, “Human trafficking is a daunting and critical global issue that often victimizes the most vulnerable among us.”

He says it’s a good sign that John McCain has been an advocate for several of these issues.

“So here’s a guy that is opposed to torture,” Brownback says. “He is for immigration reform, has a heart for the developing world.

But it’s not always been easy for McCain. Taking on President Bush over the issue of torture and, on the other hand, taking up the president’s cause on immigration reform nearly derailed his candidacy.

If that left some Republicans leery of McCain, it is because the party is just now starting to understand that its agenda can broaden without losing focus on core issues. And Brownback says the Catholic agenda is making inroads.

“I see that growing within the Republican Party,” Brownback says. “And if you want to talk philosophy, I say, these are sacred people. And they started sacred.”

********************************************

My Comments: Senator Sam Brownback is one of the most commendable Catholics in the United States Congress and in the whole of the American political scene. He allows his Catholic faith to inform his political thinking. Unlike many other Catholics in public office, Brownback has a keen awareness of the magnificent body of Catholic Social Teaching and he does not distort it in order to maintain some partisan commitment to a secular school of thought, i.e. pro-choice Catholics hiding behind the veil of a flawed version of the consistent life ethic, wanting to reduce abortions without changing its legal status.

Though, I must say, I am not honestly as optimistic as Sen. Brownback is in this regard. I personally tire of Catholics who quote the Bishops on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, and marriage and disregard or diminish their teaching on immigration, on labor unions, on economic justice, on pre-emptive war and militarism, and a whole range of issues. Brownback seems to tire of it too. Maybe not. It benefits his party. But, he at least notices that it is problematic if we’re going to call ourselves pro-life and be morally coherent.

We might as well say we're pro-birth—not pro-life—if we save the unborn child, but leave that same child to grow up in a broken home, in a inner city school with little funding and underpaid teachers, without healthcare, socially at a disadvantage to prosper and rise out of the conditions he finds himself in. Certainly, a child in that situation can still come out on top. I did. But I have one dead brother, the other (younger than I) has two children already, and I am the first person in my family to go to college and in fact, the only Catholic. I can honestly say the majority of people in that situation don’t fall in love with Jesus Christ, to the point of becoming Catholics, particularly African Americans nor do they necessarily find the means to receive the education I have nor the resources to live out their ambition. It breaks my heart. Yes, sometimes life deals us cards and we have to do the best we can, but that is not acceptable when the system is clearly unjust. We’re not here to accept the status quo.

Again, I commend Sen. Brownback for trying to infuse the Catholic tradition of the common good into Republican ideology. But I am profoundly skeptical about the viability of this proposal, at least in the short term. As Brownback notes, Bush won Catholics by placing issues such as “abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia at the top of the agenda.” I respectfully disagree with Brownback here. I think those issues were placed at the top of their rhetoric, not the top of their agenda. The phrase “Culture of Life” has become a political slogan rather than a Catholic-minded vision for a social order that promotes human life and dignity. Or even just this past April, Bush used the phrase “dictatorship of relativism,” which was coined by Pope Benedict XVI in his writings. I personally found it ironic that Bush would be using that term, discretely applying it to the Left, as if the very utilitarian thought that lingers on the Right—particularly in regard to economic and foreign policy issues—isn't inherently relativism because if morality is judged solely by the consequences of moral acts, since there is no objective standard to measure those consequences, it is fundamentally moral relativism wearing a different mask.

Again, it is a matter of lip service and appearance rather than substance. I have no problem with Catholics who are Republicans. But I cannot stand the assertion that the Republican Party is our friend and ally. I am not convinced that a party with such little diversity in its base has the common good at heart. Perhaps, I’m wrong. But the convention was attended by the richest and whitest delegates in history. And just maybe the perspectives of, say, minorities may not be fully taken into account when they are underrepresented. I’m not saying the Republican Party is racist, that would be absurd.

Nevertheless, the fact that the GOP has a difficult time stealing constituencies from the Democrats—namely African Americans, Hispanics, blue-collar middleclass workers, people in labor unions, etc—is not that their rhetoric needs fine-tuning, not that people buy into Democratic lies, but because people aren’t fond of their capitalist-leaning policies that are arguably unjust. I think Brownback knows this and its why he talks about social justice, which I think may be termed here as "compassionate conservatism." I am curious as to how he’s going to get fiscal conservatives to go along with this because they seem to benefit very well from current policies.

This is hardly a minor ethical consideration. In Catholic terms, it is a support of an unjust distribution of resources. And these abuses should not be glossed over and misrepresented by rhetoric about a consistent ethic of life. It shouldn’t be done on the Left either. And I am confident Sen. Brownback is above such things and I wish him the grace of God in His endeavors. If the Republicans make inroads on the Democrats in regard to social justice matters—and it is more than lip service—I may as well just switch political parties. Perhaps, I won't. Perhaps, the Democrats will become pro-life.

Feminists for Life of America Proud of McCain's Pick

[August 29, 2008] Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, has been selected by Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain as his running mate.

According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."

Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006.

Earlier this week Feminists for Life reacted to the inclusion of woman-centered solutions in the Democratic Party platform, and the inclusion of FFL's trademarked message, "Women deserve better® than abortion,©" in the Republican Party platform.

FFL President Serrin Foster said "It is unprecedented to see the platforms of both major U.S. political parties incorporate key pieces of FFL's unique message."

"Of course there is a certain excitement about the recent movement toward FFL's woman-centered solutions and message by the parties, and now the selection of a pro-life feminist as the Vice Presidential nominee. But as a nonpartisan organization, we cannot endorse any candidates," Foster said.

"FFL members represent a broad political as well as religious spectrum, and we remain both nonpartisan and nonsectarian. There are many issues outside Feminists for Life’s mission. Feminists for Life is dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion - primarily lack of practical resources and support - through holistic, woman-centered solutions. We recognize that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women and that too often women have settled for less. Women deserve better than abortion," said Foster.

As each party takes steps to acknowledge and meet the needs of women, Feminists for Life is prepared to work with our elected leaders on behalf of girls and women who deserve far better than abortion. FFL has a long track record of working with both sides of the political aisle on major legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, Child Support Enforcement Act, and much more. Many members of Congress have already stepped forward to cosponsor the FFL-inspired bill with bipartisan support, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act.

"We invite all parties, all public servants, and all people to join us on the bridge of woman-centered solutions," Foster said.

McCain-Palin '08: YES WE CAN!

With multiple media outlets confirming now that Governor Sarah Palin will indeed join the Republican ticket as John McCain’s running mate, McCain has clearly chosen to play offense rather than defense. Instead of a safe choice, such as closest runner-up Mitt Romney or genial Everyman Tim Pawlenty, McCain took some risk with a relative newcomer to national politics. Palin will inject risk, excitement, controversy, and an unexpected historic note to the Republican convention.

First, though, let’s assess the risk. Palin has served less than two years as Governor of Alaska, which tends to eat into the experience message on which McCain has relied thus far. At 44, she’s younger than Barack Obama by three years. She has served as a mayor and as the Ethics Commissioner on the state board regulating oil and natural gas, for a total of eight years political experience before her election as governor. That’s also less than Obama has, with seven years in the Illinois legislature and three in the US Senate.

However, the nature of the experience couldn’t be more different. Palin spent her entire political career crusading against the political machine that rules Alaska — which exists in her own Republican party. She blew the whistle on the state GOP chair, who had abused his power on the same commission to conduct party business. Obama, in contrast, talked a great deal about reform in Chicago but never challenged the party machine, preferring to take an easy ride as a protegé of Richard Daley instead.

Palin has no formal foreign-policy experience, which puts her at a disadvantage to Joe Biden. However, in nineteen months as governor, she certainly has had more practical experience in diplomacy than Biden or Obama have ever seen. She runs the only American state bordered only by two foreign countries, one of which has increasingly grown hostile to the US again, Russia.

And let’s face it — Team Obama can hardly attack Palin for a lack of foreign-policy experience. Obama has none at all, and neither Obama or Biden have any executive experience. Palin has almost over seven years of executive experience.

Politically, this puts Obama in a very tough position. The Democrats had prepared to launch a full assault on McCain’s running mate, but having Palin as a target creates one large headache. If they go after her like they went after Hillary Clinton, Obama risks alienating women all over again. If they don’t go after her like they went after Hillary, he risks alienating Hillary supporters, who will see this as a sign of disrespect for Hillary.

For McCain, this gives him a boost like no other in several different ways. First, the media will eat this up. That effectively buries Obama’s acceptance speech and steals the oxygen he needs for a long-term convention bump. A Romney or Pawlenty pick would not have accomplished that.

Second, Palin will re-energize the base. She’s not just a pro-life advocate, she’s lived the issue herself. That will attract the elements of the GOP that had held McCain at a distance since the primaries and provide positive motivation for Republicans, rather than just rely on anti-Democrat sentiment to get them to the polls.

Third, and I think maybe most importantly, Palin addresses the energy issue better and more attuned to the American electorate than maybe any of the other three principals in this election. Even beyond her efforts to reform the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, she has demonstrated her independence from so-called “Big Oil” while promoting domestic production. She brings instant credibility to the ticket on energy policy, and reminds independents and centrists that the Obama-Biden ticket offers nothing but the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 years.

Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.

This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk. McCain changed the trajectory of the race today by stealing Obama’s strength and turning it against him. Obama provided that opening by picking Biden as his running mate, and McCain was smart enough to take advantage of the opening.

A Message to GOP Catholics

Michael Novak’s article, Catholics for Obama?, is a well-written and insightful look at Catholic political engagement and abortion. Though, I don’t disagree with what he says, there are a few criticisms I think Novak and other Catholics should at least consider—not that I think my “two cents” really count for much.

Novak is right-on when he says that many Catholics try to avoid calling abortion what it is—murder—and they will tirelessly say or do anything to justify their insatiable partisan desire to vote for Democrats. He is also right that many Catholics on the Left have an incorrect understanding of the “consistent life ethic,” and often equate other issues to abortion.

Nevertheless, Novak displays a flaw that I can’t help but notice. There is a lack of criticism of the Republican Party in Catholic circles. Yet, there is ready (and certainly warranted) criticism of Democrats particularly on the sanctity of life issues and dissenting Catholics on the left side of the political spectrum who hide behind pro-choice rhetoric. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be criticism of Democrats; I’m saying that there is a double standard.

Catholics of all political persuasions often cite the U.S. Bishops’ document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” The document provides a rich understanding of Catholic Social Teaching, but as a voting guide, it proves to be a disaster. Catholics are given a crash course of natural law morality applied to politics, told to consider a litany of issues, adhere to Christian principles, and make a judgment based on their conscience. Given all these priorities, what good Catholics ought to do is often lost in a sea of heated opinions. The Bishops, for example, clearly say that Catholics cannot vote for a candidate who advocates an intrinsic evil, e.g. abortion, if one is motivated by a desire to advance that evil. By that logic, taken in the context of considering a broad set of issues, a Catholic can come to the conclusion based on their reading that they have “room” to vote for a pro-choice candidate, if abortion is not their reason for supporting that candidate. Or at the very least, there are “proportionate” and morally grave reasons, given certain circumstances that Catholics may vote for a pro-choice candidate. The problem is that the Bishops don’t say what those reasons may be nor do they take the counter extreme of saying, in no uncertain terms, that Catholics cannot, absolutely, whatsoever vote for pro-choice candidates. Therefore, it becomes a matter of (often heated) debate.

Certainly, there are non-negotiable issues that Catholics cannot disagree on and all other issues of “prudential analysis” (like the best way to deal with immigration) permits legitimate disagreement among the faithful. It is obvious that a Catholic who adopts an unacceptable position, e.g. a pro-choice position on abortion, and advocates those policies would be in a state of mortal sin. Interestingly enough, I find, particularly among Catholic conservatives, that the issues that aren’t non-negotiable, that call for “prudential analysis” leads to a sort of relativism. The fact is “prudential analysis” only implies that such issues are not grave enough to bar a Catholic from receiving communion. It does not mean that any position on other matters is morally equal, i.e. whatever the GOP position is because they are the pro-life party nor should are these issues irrelevant. More often than not, one position is arguably more consonant with the Gospel and in fact, true social justice. I personally happen to think the Democrats are more often than not closer on a lot of those issues.

Despite the fact that I am a Democrat, I am voting against Barack Obama in November because I’m pro-life, but abortion is not the only issue in the scope of my concerns. Yet in my discourses with other Catholics, it concerns me that they don’t really care about—or are totally ignorant of—other issues besides life issues and gay marriage. The global food crisis that arose from making ethanol from the once-cheapest food on the market, corn, has disproportionately affected third world countries with rising costs of food. Is this not a pro-life concern to at least think about? Another issue is the genocide in Darfur, in which, the Bush Administration has yet to fulfill its two year old promise of intense diplomatic efforts in the region and to rally the U.N. to join them despite the nearly half a million death toll.

Another issue that is very important to me, not only as a Catholic but as an African American because it affects so many people in my family who borderline or sink below the poverty line, is the healthcare system—or medical caste system—that is direly in need of repair. Public health is dominated by consumerism and there are little safeguards ensuring public interests and respect for human dignity. The healthcare lobby, by and large, is a conservative constituency. I think it is fair to say that the GOP had an opportune time (1994-2006) to attempt to fix the broken healthcare system and provide a just system where more Americans had access to basic, quality healthcare. But rather millions of tax-payer dollars went to funding the Clinton scandal witch hunt and instead of ensuring the common good, Republicans made politics into a circus.

Now there are in fact Republicans who support a reform in healthcare (cf. Republicans for Single Payer), even a single-payer universal healthcare system and they demonstrate how it would not handicap the free-market economy. I believe, ultimately, this is a pro-life issue in its own respect, particularly when the current “pro-life” Republican President is vetoing bills to expand healthcare coverage to socio-economically disadvantaged children and the fact that this crisis is overlooked or dismissed by other Catholics is very problematic in my view. To have concern for these social justice issues doesn’t require you to be a Democrat or that you vote for one. It means that you are Catholic. By all means, show the GOP that its pro-life base has social justice concerns.

Moreover, the GOP does not give abortion the primacy it deserves though their rhetoric would surely have everyone think the opposite. And I’m not saying that the Democrats are the solution to that problem. Seven of the nine on the Supreme Court were nominated by Republican presidents after Roe v. Wade, yet only four are pro-life—obviously their commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade could not be as pressing as even the most die-hard pro-life Americans would like to believe. Even in the Republican-controlled Congress from 2000-2006, The Right to Life Act, The Human Life Amendment, and other pro-life bills never once made it to a vote on the floor. Not once. I honestly doubt the GOP's credibility and only the action of the party in the coming years will change or solidify my skepticism. But it remains that the credibility of the GOP at large does not change the debate over whether or not Catholics can vote for a Democrat in this election or at all.

Recently, I criticized “Roman Catholics for Obama ‘08” for the inherent flaws of their pro-Obama arguments, but even more so because they are not even critical of their candidate nor the Democratic Party. I hold the same disapproval for Catholics who turn a critical eye to the Democrats, but not to the Republicans and their failures. I contended (and still do) that those Catholics advocating Obama could gain credibility by acknowledging his terrible position on abortion and demanding change through a large-scale campaign for more pro-life policies, rather than ignoring the matter—after all, uncritical support of pro-abortion candidates will not reap any change on the Left. Other Catholics, including me, will disagree with them, but they wouldn’t seem as dubious. Nevertheless, Catholics who consistently cast their ballots for Republicans ought to expect that the GOP will take advantage of them and ignore their most pressing concerns if they expect they can do it and receive a mindless stamp of approval on all their other policies as long as they promise to be pro-life on abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.

To another point: there is an unspoken understanding among many that no good Catholic can vote for a Democrat and we must vote for Republicans. I disagree with that assessment and I’m not endorsing the idea of campaigning for and fully supporting pro-choice candidates without so much as a blink. The current strategy, it seems, is to elect only Republicans both at the federal and state level, so they will elect anti-Roe judges so that we can position ourselves to overturn Roe v. Wade. I’m all for overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet, I’m not at all sure if that’s the best strategy. I have a negative view of one-party controlled government and particularly with President Bush’s abuse of his presidential powers and the GOP going along with it. For example, I firmly oppose the absurd notion that the United States has some right to detain people for years at a time, on the basis of “suspicion,” without any substantial and credible enough evidence to even give a reason as to why they are being detained. This is a clear violation of human rights. You don’t arrest someone and hold them for years when you have no proof that they did something, don’t tell them what they did, and won’t give them a fair trial with some means of protecting American intelligence. And it was the four “conservative” judges of the Supreme Court who disagreed with everything I just said. I’ll flip the script here and say that I’m sure they’ll hide behind the banner of “prudential analysis,” but judgment on a not-so-grave matter does not immediately equal a morally-right or even morally-neutral position. Moreover, just because other issues do not carry the same moral weight as abortion and other attacks on human life does not mean that we can call ourselves morally coherent when we put those all other concerns—all important in their own right—on the back burner or passively allow legislation that is not just, all in the name of prudential judgment.

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus paints an image of his return in glory and he separates the goats from the sheep. The sheep are those who served “the least” of His brothers: the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, strangers, those sick and in prison. The goats repeat the sin of Cain by not acknowledging we are our brother’s keeper. Catholic Democrats often cite the “consistent life ethic” as the reason why they are voting for the Democratic candidates and they often receive a lot of criticism. Those in the GOP while criticizing them (and it’s often warranted) never own up to their party's failures on the “consistent life ethic” and over-emphasize the hierarchy of issues so much that we neglect many of Jesus’ brothers and sisters despite what the Lord told us.

Catholics can and must be fully pro-life and support initiatives that produce a social and economic environment that is ultimately pro-life—a culture of life—founded upon the family. I have never understood why Catholics divided between the right and the left insist on having it one way (change the law) or the other (change the culture). This means that Catholics who consider themselves to be Republicans—and this applies not only to them—should be breathing a firestorm on the Right because if we are pro-life and pro-family, and are going to include “the least” of our Lord’s brothers in our social vision, all of them, we must oppose continual cuts in funding to education, weak maternity-leave laws that enable pregnant women—who sometimes by their socio-economic status are statistically inclined toward abortion—to lose their job and healthcare, neglecting our obligation to find innovative ways to reduce the poverty rate that doesn’t always include social programs, not finding a real solution to the healthcare problem, and the list goes on.

I believe if Catholics demanded results on abortion, more would be done by Republicans. Surely, other aspects of their agenda have been carried out with fervor—weakening the social-safety net, privatizing, deregulating, lowering the influence of labor unions, belligerent foreign policy, anti-immigration legislation—that I think the GOP, if serious about abortion, could repeatedly introduce the same bills over and over again, meet with pro-Roe Justices and talk to them about abortion, bring scientists into the debate, etc. Anything would do. Show more effort.

Ultimately, I think that the lack of Catholic criticism to the right is the source of some of the problems that we are facing today. If we demanded results on the life issues and demonstrated that other policies need to be moderated or more inclusive to the concern for the weak and vulnerable in society without handicapping the free-market economy I think it would do a number of things: (a) it would be incredible witness to dissident Catholics who put partisan politics before their moral obligations (b) the Democrats could not argue that their policy positions are more reflective of the social justice teachings of the Church and more Catholics would join the GOP without fear of other critical issues being ignored, (c) it may inspire change on the Left after a heavy loss of an already shrinking constituency.

Granted the purpose of Novak’s article was to question the legitimacy of Catholic support for Barack Obama, I still find that it unfailingly added confirmation to my conviction that there is a lack of GOP criticism by Catholics. One might get the impression that if we just vote Republican, everything will be alright. On the contrary, there is much work to be done and Catholics need to know that voting for GOP candidates still requires much more. Sure, not everyone is as skeptical as I am; I firmly believe that the GOP in large part puts on a pro-life façade every 4 years and forgets about efforts to end abortion after the elections. The fact that the pro-life voice is not on both sides of the political spectrum easily allows Republicans to make promises to the pro-life movement that it has no intentions of keeping because for many of us, this cause is so insurmountable that we will not vote for the other side under any circumstances, even if they put up a candidate like John McCain. Where else are we to go? We either sit at home or suck it up and vote to stop the pro-choice candidate from winning. Isn't that the situation Catholics are facing this election?

And because they have uncritical support of pro-lifers and coin themselves as anti-abortion, they can run the economy into the ground, implement bad foreign policy, support torture, support economic policies that are clearly an unjust distribution of resources, cut services to the poor, tell third world countries to be economically responsible for themselves while permitting America's greedy consumption of 70 to 90 percent of the world’s resources, run up our national debt from $5.63 trillion to a mind-numbing $9.5 trillion in only seven years, carry out unilateral pre-emptive wars before exhausting diplomatic efforts, ignore the health care crisis, and despite such injustices, they face absolutely no reprehension at all from their pro-life base (unless, and only if, they don’t put up a pro-life candidate), whatsoever just because they are against abortion. We just have to vote for them, throw our vote away on a third party, or don’t vote at all. This disturbs me greatly. The power they have is astonishing. They can ignore critical issues and still be protected from being held responsible for their faults.

The Democrats champion a great number of progressive positions that seem more "pro-life" to me and these positions are unpopular in the Republican Party and I think they're profoundly wrong about them. I could be wrong about them. I certainly don’t think everyone has to agree with me nor do I think all these "progressive" positions should just be legislated based only on my views. I think a key to progression is dialogue and debate over the issues. While other Catholics may disagree with me on social and economic policies, I pray that at least that we agree on principle that we must be critical of both political parties and more concerned about being Catholic than our commitment to any secular school of thought. And if this is so, it means that Catholics will have to call Republicans out on their failures with just as much concern for justice as when they criticize Democrats.

Catholic conservatives have no more hold on Catholic orthodoxy than Catholic liberals do—defending life, supporting the family, and pursuing the common good is what animates real Catholics of all political persuasions. I've often been told you can't be Catholic and a Democrat. I disagree. I’m a pro-life Catholic fighting in the trenches for the soul of the Democratic Party that has lost its natural law thinking and gone to war with its own principles of defending the most vulnerable among us. I believe that it’s a noble cause.

That’s my "two cents" for GOP Catholics. Take it as you will.

Universal Healthcare Back On The Market

Kennedy Leads Renewed Effort on Universal Healthcare

Senator Edward M. Kennedy's office has begun convening a series of meetings involving a wide array of healthcare specialists to begin laying the groundwork for a new attempt to provide universal healthcare, according to participants.

The discussions signal that Kennedy, who instructed aides to begin holding the meetings while he is in Massachusetts undergoing treatment for brain cancer, intends to work vigorously to build bipartisan support for a major healthcare initiative when he returns to Washington in the fall.

Those involved in the discussions said Kennedy believes it is extremely important to move as quickly as possible on overhauling the healthcare system after the next president takes office in January in order to capitalize on the momentum behind a new administration.

Kennedy was an early endorser of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee who is also a member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which Kennedy chairs.

Obama's Senate staff has attended the roundtable discussions. If Obama is elected, Kennedy's effort to identify points of agreement among senators could smooth the way for the new administration to press ahead on universal healthcare, which Obama has promised to implement within four years.

The last time a national healthcare plan was attempted, under President Clinton in 1993, the presidential panel charged with devising a proposal was widely criticized for not consulting enough with Congress, and protracted disagreements erupted, delaying its progress for months and ultimately resulting in its demise. Kennedy's effort appears to be designed to identify areas of common ground between Democrats and Republicans, business and labor, providers and insurers, and others before the new president takes office.

"The senator is trying to learn from health reform attempts in the past and to build a fair amount of consensus among his Senate colleagues, House colleagues, and the Obama campaign . . . and find a strategy that could carry with some momentum into the new administration," said Dr. Jay Himmelstein, a health policy specialist at University of Massachusetts Medical School and a former Kennedy staff member who has been involved in the talks.

The initiative also suggests that Kennedy, who has made healthcare his signature issue in his 45-year Senate career and who is fighting an aggressive brain tumor, is considering his legacy as a new administration arrives in Washington - a moment many see as the best chance for widespread changes in the healthcare system in 15 years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts: This is good news especially if we're faced with an Obama catastrophe. If we can have universal healthcare that doesn't include the abortion coverage he advocates, let's get it. I think we should take what we can get out of an Obama presidency if we're going to lose ground on a pro-life Supreme Court especially and many recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans support universal healthcare. I do hope that single-payer advocating Republicans are brought to the table on this. And where is Hillary Clinton?

Partisanship Leads To Pro-life Failure in Tennessee

Pro-life Democratic State Senators Eddie Bass, Nathan Vaughn, Charles Curtis, John Mark Windle and Curt Cobb were pictured on a "Wanted Poster" for "unlawful use of a donkey on the floor of the General Assembly in violation of custom, tradition and decorum." Their crime? Supporting a resolution to remove the court ruling that guarantees Tennessee women the right to abortion in any circumstance and at any time during the pregnancy. The Supreme Court ruling prevents the State from passing any restrictions on abortion.

The Republican sponsor of the resolution bears the ultimate responsibility for the bill's demise by preventing pro-life democrats from sponsoring the bill. Her initial partisan tactics led to a partisan fight, not over the content of the resolution, but over her refusal to work with Democrats. Vaughn, one of the impressive pro-life leaders listed on the poster, gave an impassioned speech after he was refused the opportunity to cosponsor the pro-life resolution by its Republican sponsor. I would encourage you to listen to it.

Rep. Nathan Vaughn on Tennessee, pro-life Democrat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5mVJ6MNnPY&feature=related