Bishops: Congress has ‘moral obligation’ to unemployed
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a letter today, through the chairman of its Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, telling members of Congress that they have a “moral obligation” to help unemployed workers. In urging that unemployment insurance be extended, Bishop Stephen E. Blaire framed the issue in terms of the right to life. He quoted Pope John Paul II’s 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens:
The obligation to provide unemployment benefits, that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families, is a duty springing from the fundamental principle of … the right to life and subsistence.
The letter comes at a time when many members of the House GOP majority are reluctant to extend unemployment, arguing that the benefits encourage people not to work. The House GOP leadership introduced a measure on Friday that would eliminate billions of dollars in benefits to the long-term unemployed by reducing the maximum eligibility from from 99 weeks to 59 weeks. It also opens the way for drug testing of the unemployed.
Once again, the bishops are prodding conservative Republicans in the House toward their “moral obligation” to the poor, telling them that economic justice is a right-to-life issue. Last May, Rep. Paul Ryan responded to another critique from Bishop Blaire by citing John Paul’s writings on welfare dependency. Now, Bishop Blaire has returned the favor with a relevant quote of his own from the late pope.
Photo: Shutterstock
When the hierarchy make social pronouncements, it’s good to listen, but no one’s obliged to take them seriously in their particulars. In general, certainly.
Unemployment numbers are comprised of those that are in the job market for the past 30 days. It does not include those that have not been in the job market in the last 30 days: people who have given up looking; those that have gone off unemployment because it has run out. One solution to unemployment is High Speed Universities check it out
War of the papal quotes… my money is on the bishops in this round, I wish that the Catholic voices in general were louder and clearer from the institutional church.
Yesterday my Facebook ticker rolled by and I noticed something from someone I really do not know but am “friends” with. The person is Catholic. I clicked over to find a conversation about “those people,” the ones who are happy to “live off of” unemployment for as long as possible. Then of course, they will drain family and friends. The other person in the conversation opined about how it is even possible that “people stop looking for work?” There were thoughts about who thought they were “too good” to do certain types of work and so forth.
I avoided the strong temptation to answer, which would be to lash out. It got me to thinking about how deafeningly loud the cry can be on some issues and then silent on others. Worse yet, a twisting of what the teachings are, for example as in Rep. Ryan’s case, is what really gets me going. If anything, Pope John Paul II was clear about the dangers of too much dependency in regard to dignity and work. I sadly see a lack of focus on human dignity in Ryan and so many of the others who would posit that extended unemployment in dire circumstances creates dependency and a lack of dignity. Of course it *can* – but should we be splitting that hair while people are so close to the edge?
Sitting at my desk in the rectory, greeting people and answering the phone for 3 years has shown me faces of suburban poverty I could not have imagined. This does not make me morally superior, but it does make me aware of things I did not think I would ever see in my lifetime.
It’s always a good spot to be in when you can kick people when they are down and call it a good deed.
@David Smith (12/12, 11:48 pm) Really? For all these years I’ve been under the impression that Catholics are obliges to take bishops seriously on the particulars of a whole range of pronouncements.
Is there room for disagreement? Sure. But one can take a statement like Bishop Blaire’s seriously and still disagree with it. The responsibility that then (it seems to me) falls upon Catholics who disagree is to make a coherent case, based substantially on the Church’s teaching, for why they disagree.
To his credit, Rep. Ryan has, in the past, made that effort. Here’s hoping that in this particular case, he and his colleagues will agree with Bishop Blaire, the USCCB and John Paul II, and vote to extend unemployment benefits.
The letter starts well, noting that “The US Bishops have long advocated that the most effective way to build a just economy is the availability of decent work at decent wages”. (Well, sort of well; it’s a rather weak sentence, lacking as it does a verb that indicates any sort of call to action).
Were I bishop, I’d be inclined pair this letter with a briefer companion note: “People are out of work. Fix the damn economy.”
“If anything, Pope John Paul II was clear about the dangers of too much dependency in regard to dignity and work. I sadly see a lack of focus on human dignity in Ryan and so many of the others who would posit that extended unemployment in dire circumstances creates dependency and a lack of dignity. Of course it *can* – but should we be splitting that hair while people are so close to the edge?”
Fran, thank you for your extremely thoughtful comment. If you don’t mind my asking, how to you pronounce your last name?
Regarding the part that I’ve pasted here: I think you’ve touched on something important. Given your suburban parish experience, I’d expect you see what I see in my suburban parish: some people are trying hard to live a responsible life, and some – very few, in my experience – aren’t. It’s difficult to resist the conclusion that some people are more deserving of assistance than others. But government programs, especially at the highest (federal) level, struggle to make those kinds of distinctions. I agree that, all else being equal, it’s best to err on the side of giving aid to people even when they are, in a sense, abusing the system. These are difficult questions.
From the letter: ”The U.S. catholic bishops have long advocated that the most effective way to build a just economy is the availability of decent work at decent wages.”
From this premise it should be a short step to embrace enthusiastically the Canadian pipeline project, endorsed by unions, Republicans and some Democrats. Unfortunately it seems to be opposed by most Democrats and, despite what he tells us is his laser-like focus on job creation, President Obama himself. Perhaps he needs a stronger nudge from the bishops to recognize all his moral obligations.
What I don’t understand are the people who know that there are millions out of work, millions seeking jobs, who nevertheless are unwilling to tax the 1 percenters whose tax rates are so blatantly unfair. It’s a sort of masochism, and it’s sick. How to appeal to such people? What makes them like that? What do *they* need?
Patrick Molloy, as I understand it, the issue isn’t whether the pipeline should be built but whether it requires an enviromental study to locate it so it doesn’t contaminate the drinking water supply for a large part of the country.
Yes, I always love it when I hear someone in the GOP say, “We have the solution to jobs. Let’s do X” and X is something which be harmful to the nation. For example, some have said the way to get more people working is to eliminate minimum wage. Yes, let’s turn the worker into a slave population which makes nothing — that will indeed increase the workers, but it will also decrease the dignity of the human person. But this type of solution, which I have seen suggested, demonstrates the problem when talking about jobs as an abstract. We can find all kinds of ways to make more jobs, but what would be made would be so harmful to society, it is better to have people jobless than to turn into something so evil for the sake of jobs.
The pipeline is another example. “We can make jobs!” Yes, we can destroy the land and all that is contained in it, pollute the nation and make a few jobs now – at the expense of — the nation as a whole a few years down the line. Many who promote this kind of thought either 1) don’t care since they won’t be around or 2) have some belief that the end of the world is soon so our stewardship of the earth doesn’t matter. Again, the danger of this position is not only does it destroy the nation, but it promotes jobs over the common good. The common good is what is always lost when “jobs” are idolized. And this is exactly what we see with many — the idolization of work so they ignore the purpose and end of work (and this is why they will never be able to offer real solutions in a technological world where the whole need for workers is becoming less and less).
Harry –
Yes, the need for workers is becoming less and less, except that it is workers with good wages who support the highly productive capitalist system that we enjoyed for a while. The solution? A shorter work week (so that the work can be shared by a larger portion of the available work force) and continued high wages. This implies that the system’s output will probably not continue to grow, but so what. That would put less stress on the available materials, which are in the case of some materials starting to become a problem. Growth so far has mainly benefited the 1 percent, not the other 99.
Luke, when someone’s speaking outside his competency, one always takes what’s said with at least one grain of salt, no? I vaguely remember President Nixon telling me to turn down my home thermostat to sixty-five degrees. Advice is available daily, in abundance, from seven billion people. Can’t take it all.
“Luke, when someone’s speaking outside his competency, one always takes what’s said with at least one grain of salt, no?”
David, you may not be as incompetent as you think. Why not answer Luke’s question?
@Jim Pauwels – thank you and I agree to err on the side of compassion. And as someone who also sees people who sit in wait for help, I have come to learn that they bring gifts of the Spirit and lessons too. That is not to say that I do not insert eye-rolls and comments as I watch people come up the walkway. Mea culpa, but it is true. So far I remain very human, much more so than I care to admit most days. *sigh*
As to the last name, always a conversation starter… Spill-SEN.
More parish wisdom. An elderly lady once told me, as she sat across the desk from me and getting some mass cards, that the way to remember my name was to think of going to confession, where you spill your sin!
“And as someone who also sees people who sit in wait for help, I have come to learn that they bring gifts of the Spirit and lessons too.”
Fran – what a wonderful insight! We, too, have those who cause us to roll our eyes. Does our obligation to them have its limits – via our government, and via our own direct almsgiving and service? In our outreach ministry, we do sometimes tell someone, You’ve abused our generosity, and so no more for you. It may seem harsh, but it is intended to be a call to responsibility.
@David Smith (12/13, 1:58 pm) Thanks for your reply, though I must confess, I’m not quite sure what you meant.
My question (above) to you was whether, in your view, Catholics are obliged to take seriously their bishops’ “social pronouncements”.
Luke–
I agree we always need to take what the bishops say seriously although, depending on their competence, they may (or at least should) give a wide berth for prudential judgment.
For example, in the present instance, I think the bishops’ reminder that we have obligations to the unemployed is well-taken. What concerns me is the letter’s implicit assumption is that the best or indeed only way to do that is through the federal government. Susidiarity, anyone? When we all think we gave at the ballet box, we dehumanize our neighbour. Why address this important issue only to the feds. Why not to everyone, and encourage that we give directly?
I will leave aside, because I’m sure Rep Ryan will take up, the view that extending unemployment benefits again may only increase the number of unemployed.
Thanks Mark. I wondered how long the thread would go before we would see the expression “prudential judgment.” It is such a cafeteria word, isn’t it?
Our experience is that :
the needy are suffering more and in greater numbers
We’ve seen great genertosity to our Church and local charities.
That doesn’t solve the needs.
Talking about “giving at the ballot box “: and “dehumanizing our neighbor” are easy phrases when many are already giving generously this year.
Sounds like “less government” spin to me!
It’s a pity that when the bishops actually say something decent, they are in a condition in which they have utterly no credibility.
Tyranny gets its fuel from greed, and it has caused a global warming of economic collapse proportions. Tyranny has taken away the backing of gold from our currency and has set up just a few banks for the world that control the inflation and deflation of the common peoples money. The few world banks are joined at the hip with corporations and literally have taken away property and land from people who the majority are not part of a coop and therefore do not have control of their jobs destiny. It costs $150.00 today to buy what $20.00 bought in the 1970′s according to the consumer price index. Tyranny has also put the people into perpetual debt (example: national debt clock), and this causes everything under the sun to be taxed and many people have to work some 12 or 16 hour days to make ends meet. We are in a time were people need more money, but their employers have cut back wages, lowered salaries and eliminated over time. About 3 companies control all the worlds oil, a handful control all utilities, only a handful make all the automobiles for the world, and etc… Yes, it is tyranny, yes the constitution has been trashed for the constitutions fundamental principles is the Golden Rule: to treat others the way you would like to be treated. Yes, jobs are the bottom line, so our elected officials need to go to the employers/small businesses and to start knocking on their doors/communicate to work together and fix the problems and in the mean time unemployment needs to be extended and we the people need to elect Ron Paul for president and all other officials who stand for the people and not lobbyists and soft money.
Ah, David, you are so yesterday! The NEW improved US Golden Rule has been simplified for the legion of small minds to grasp.
He who has the gold, rules. Amen. End of discussion. And them that don’t have the gold? Take a bath and get a job. And carry a gun. And be sure to Praise Jaysus a whole lot.
Luke, that depends on what you mean by “take seriously”. What I meant, above, was that though one respects them as spiritual leaders, one doesn’t necessarily respect their political comments. And by “political comments”, I mean their moving from the general (“show compassion”) to the narrowly specific (“give money to the unemployed until there’s no money left in the public treasury”). I imagine that’s how most people here feel, in regard to bishops’ more “conservative” statements. I’m a little puzzled that you seem to find that problematical.
David, did the bishops actually say ”give money to the unemployed until there’s no money left in the public treasury” or are you saying it? If you are saying it, please show the math.
David Smith,
Your comments appear to leave you outside the gospel or anti-gospel. Is the Magnificat poison to you or would you change the words to “the poor go away hungry and the rich are filled with good things?”
David Smith: over at America you are defending the bishops’ prerogative to slap away at the gays.
But here in this discussion of the bishops’ pronouncement on economic issues, your position is that when they make pronouncements on “social issues,” it’s good for us to listen, but we’re not obliged to take them seriously.
Then when Luke Hill asked you what you mean, you replied, “Luke, when someone’s speaking outside his competency, one always takes what’s said with at least one grain of salt, no?”
Based on that, I’ll ask you: “David, when the bishops pronounce on marriage and on gay relationships, are they speaking outside their competency?”
David S, do you think that this is “narrowly specific”
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44
18 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45
He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Some people may argue that that that Jesus’ words were simply directed to individuals to decide what they should do as individuals to help the poor and disadvantaged – and I say that is good.
But I also say that we are a community – and we have an obligation to act together through our government to help those people.
” I wondered how long the thread would go before we would see the expression “prudential judgment.” It is such a cafeteria word, isn’t it?”
That we have an obligation to assist those in need is not a matter for prudential judgment, in my opinion. The obligation is fixed. Bishop Blaire and the USCCB are to be congratulated for preaching the Gospel with such urgency and clarity.
The specific policy choices that fulfill that Gospel obligation are matters of prudential judgment. The term “prudential judgment” isn’t a weasel word when used in that way. It’s just factual.
In the specific case under consideration, istm that the word “prudential” is operative. Which is wiser and holier: to extend benefits to 99 weeks, or cut it to 59 weeks? In this case, with benefits scheduled to run out, and those benefits representing the safety net, istm the exercise in prudential judgment is to say, “Look, this is the only feasible way to get aid to the people who need it.”
Nobody’s talking about withdrawing charity, for heaven’s sake. Where did you guys get off onto that track? Straw man.
David Smith: then you’re not opposed to Congress extending unemployment benefits?
I ask because “charity” is a somewhat loaded word. In one sense, Catholic Charities uses it in its name; in the other sense, it reminds me of Ron Paul’s explanation ( if I remember it correctly) that poor people don’t really need health insurance because, back when he was a doctor in Texas, if someone couldn’t afford to go to a hospital, a local church would pick up the bill.
I’m all in favor of individual donations of money and services, but they aren’t able to provide the stability and security of government programs with predictable benefits.
Unfortunately so far the bishops’ statement has made no news. It certainly didn’t even get mentioned on TV news networks tonight. Perhaps it is because it was not forceful enough or that our entire country has become deaf, including the news producers and pundits. At the very least, it should spark some kind of national religious discussion about what we really believe the duty and responsibility of government should be in helping in economic crises. In California as well as other states, the shortfall of tax revenues from the great recession has only resulted in cuts to the most vulnerable – the aged, poor, sick, disabled and children. Not much equality in sharing the misery…
Good heavens, no, John. I just don’t think the bishops have any particular economic expertise to recommend their economic recommendations. That may be why, as Mike says, the media have ignored them on this. If religious leaders make specific economic proposals, they look a little silly. Ignoring them may be a kindness. If they make general moral statements, on the other hand, they can be and sometimes are taken very seriously.
Now, if there were such a group as a Union of Catholic Economists that were understood to be non-partisan and whose position papers were substantive and creative, that could be useful. Each peg in its proper hole.
“Now, if there were such a group as a Union of Catholic Economists that were understood to be non-partisan and whose position papers were substantive and creative, that could be useful. Each peg in its proper hole.”
Like anything else, the plight of the unemployed is not simply a technical question, it is a moral question as well. Rep. Paul Ryan, for example, by talking about “welfare dependency” is defining unemployment insurance as welfare and is explicitly blaming the unemployment rate on the unemployed. Both of these are moral, not technical economic positions. The bishops, on the other hand, taking a moral position that is definitely within their competency, then go to our existing mechanism for dealing with the unemployed (unemployment benefits from unemployment insurance) and they encourage the government to simply continue these using the same rules they have been operating under for some time now.
There may be a technical question of whether of not we as a country can afford to do this, although in the context of the bank bailouts and the fat defense budget it doesn’t seem to me like we have decided that we are really broke at this time. There is also a good argument that unemployment benefits are a good form of economic stimulus, feeding as they do directly into consumption. Yanking out $100 billion from the market isn’t going to do it much good.
Now there is an underlying fiscal problem with unemployment benefits and that is that the accounts that were funded (and will continue to be funded) by businesses for unemployment insurance are now empty and the states are picking up about half of the burden, which, in the current depression, are more than some of them can do. THIS is the technical problem that we have to deal with. But Paul Ryan isn’t talking about economics when he talks about welfare dependency. He’s talking morality; about the motivations of people to work and about the burden of workers on business.
“There may be a technical question of whether of not we as a country can afford to do this”
As with judgments about the unemployed, judgments about our fiscal solvency are both technical and moral. (The perceived financial immorality of the progressive wing of American politics is the source of the Tea Party’s political energy, just as the perceived sexual libertinism of the progressive wing of American politics is the source of the Religious Right’s political energy.)
The moral perception that some people – How many? Who are they? Who knows? – choose to subsist on a diminished income via the dole rather than via a crummy job like chasing shopping carts or answering telephones provided quite a bit of the political energy for the Republican Revolution that swept President Reagan into office and gave the Republicans the Senate in 1980. That tide was still potent enough in the ’90′s to dismantle the War on Poverty’s public-aid superstructure during President Clinton’s presidency – an initiative about which dire things were predicted, most of which didn’t come to pass. Does that perception still have political legs? I guess we’ll find out next year.
But we’re talking about a depression with official unemployment rate of 9 percent and a who knows how high unofficial unemployment rate. So how many of these jobs are there? The implication is that there are millions of them out there that are sitting unfilled because people are too lazy to take them. Can this be true?
“So how many of these jobs are there?”
The bishop’s letter states that there are four unemployed for every opening. So it seems, not enough of these jobs.
Of course, the American bishops have a great deal of credibility when it comes to helping the poor. Not only do they administer the appeals for money from the Faithful, but through the dozens of Catholic agencies in all the dioceses they administer the help to the poor, plus having those NGOs administer hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funds. If *any* group knows charitable giving, it’s the American bishops. So, yes, they’re highly competent in such matters.
They’re highly competent in using their own money, Ann, not in using tax money.
David Smith re: Jimmy Mac 12/13/2011 – 9:09 pm
I’m waiting!
David,
If the bishops weren’t competent in using the federal money, they wouldn’t get any. Obtaining federal monies by NGOs is a competitive process.
@Ann Olivier (12/14, 2:43 & 5:05 pm) Excellent point. I think it’s true that the Catholic Church is the largest 1) educational, 2) health care, 3) social services, 4) emergency relief services, provider in the world. (If not *the* largest, at least, among the largest in all those categories.)
Furthermore the same can be said of the US Catholic Church within this nation; and the same is true within many smaller polities (states, counties, metropolitan areas, etc.).
Not only does the Church administer hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funds, it only administers state and local governmental funds, corporate and foundation grants, fees from those served by its programs (student tuition, medical co-payments, etc.) and, of course, the individual contributions from millions of Catholics—and from countless non-Catholics who are inspired and touched by the Church’s social ministries.
Furthermore (to belabor the point), not only is the Church universal heir to a tradition of social, political and economic “policy” that is thousands of years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible), the US bishops have their own local experience with and competence on issues of national public policy that dates back at least to the NCWC’s 1919 “Program of Social Reconstruction”.
Again, none of this means we’re obliged to agree with or “obey” anything in Bishop Blaire’s letter. But, unless someone has a persuasive argument to the contrary, I still maintain it does mean we’re obliged to take the contents of the letter seriously. In addition, if we disagree with Bishop Blaire’s conclusions, I think we’re obliged to explain ourselves. (Another case of “the price of a constructive criticism is a creative alternative”.)
“But, unless someone has a persuasive argument to the contrary, I still maintain it does mean we’re obliged to take the contents of the letter seriously. In addition, if we disagree with Bishop Blaire’s conclusions, I think we’re obliged to explain ourselves.”
I take the letter’s contents very seriously, and agree with them and is partly why I conclude it is reprehensible for the Senate Democrats & the President to to have rejected the bill passed by the House yesterday which contains extensions of the payroll tax cut and other benefits because of the pressure by environmentalists to block authorization of the Keystone pipeline, a project supported by our Canadian allies and would create many new jobs here in the US (blue collar, UNION jobs, no less). Makes me wonder who, exactly, is the unreasonable, intransigent party of “No!” these days?
Jeff ==
Sorry I didn’t keep the reference, but I read of a report by a numbers-gathering program that while the owner of Keystone pipeline is claiming that construction would require 20,000 workers the figure is actually about 1/20 of that, and the permanent jobs would be in the hundreds.
Even it if did create that many temporary jobs, use of the oil it produces would continue our atmosphere-polluting ways and just put off developing alternative sources of energy. I say go for the alternatives immediately, as Obama has been proposing since his campaign, and create that job-producing industry now. Also, if we don’t take action now to establish the US as a power=house in alternative energy, China, which is in on the ground floor, will out-maneuver us there.
So it goes and will continue tp: people reading the Bishops’ statement through the frame of their ideology and looking to score points.
I’d like to note that NPR had a fine piece this week on how John Thune’s intuition that tax increases would hurt small business job creation had no verifiable basis.
If we want the bishops’ staement to hav eheft, we ned a comitment to bipartisanship amd spin reduction;and from the commentary here, I doubt we’ll see much of that.
@Jeff Landry (12/15, 12:14 pm) Really? Reprehensible?
Again, we’re talking about (in the case of extending UI benefits) something that previously has been routinely done under Republican, Democratic and divided governments for the past 70 years or so.
If House Republicans were so eager to extend UI benefits and cut payroll taxes, then why did they add a provision that has to do with the timing of a decision (not *whether* to make a decision, but when to make it) by the State Dept. on whether to hold additional hearings on the proposed pipeline—hearings that would address environmental concerns raised by (among others) the Republican Governor of Nebraska (who, quite understandably, doesn’t want an aquifer that supplies drinking water to 1.5 million Nebraskans polluted). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/keystone-rerouting-said-to-be-weighed-by-u-s-state-department.html
There may be a good argument, that accords with Catholic teaching, for the congressional Republicans’ unprecedented refusal (so far) to simply extend UI benefits…but this isn’t it.
Jeff,
I used to work at the old Kaiser Aluminum plant outside of New Orleans, and I handled the unemployment compensation claims. I can tell you from my knowledge of those men who had been laid off that they were not unwilling to work. I worked in the employment office when the plant was first started and saw literally thousands of poor men apply for limited numbers of jobs. They came not just from south Louisiana but from all over the south, people in old jalopies, people with rotten teeth and who sometimes smelled for lack of water to bathe. So my picture of the deserving poor is just that — deserving.
I can understand people who mistakenly claim that most poor people just want to be on the dole, even though my experience has shown them to be wrong, wrong wrong. What I don’t understand is the unwillingness to support unemployment compensation. Unemployment compensation supports *workers* whose employers had to let them go for lack of work. There is no excuse whatsoever for denying these workers benefits. None. The current Republican legislators know exactly who these people are — laid off workers. There is no excuse for their denying these workers UC. NONE.
headlines at the MSNBC front page:
Dismal one in two Americans are poor and low income.
And
Hunger stalks cities for those in poverty.
How horrible our friends in the gOP grinch group are in their approach to the growing poor ion our country – just protect your rich contributors!
Yes, reprehensible is the right word. Ever since the GOP has taken control of the House, I’ve read in many of the comments here about how the GOP is a bunch of “hostage takers” for holding up common sense legislation in order to exact ideological compromise. Well, here we have an example of the House giving the President precisely what he’s asked, and it is the President and his party (or most of them, since people like Joe Mancin and Mary Landrieu are exercising some common sense on this) who are refusing in order to score on an ideological point. You are correct, the bill would only affect the timing since the President (conveniently) wants to put off the decision that has been pending on his desk for months until AFTER the election. Don’t we need jobs (temporary or otherwise) NOW? So why wait – put Americans, however many, to work.
Ann Oliver quibbles with the numbers of jobs this would create; you should Google reports to see how few “green collar” jobs there are as well. Or you could drive down La. 1 and talk to the thousands out of work blue collar workers in our own state.
Ann also says the President’s energy policy is to move to green energy “immediately.” That is false in both rhetoric and reality. The President has rightly said that we need an ‘all of the above” approach to energy – increasing domestic production while the market moves (and it is – slowly) to green energy. So his own rhetoric supports increase domestic drilling. Moreover, his actions show this as well only yesterday his Interior Department sold some 27 of the new leases in the Gulf of Mexico to – you guessed it – BP.
Mr. Nunz, shockingly, accuses me of twisting the Bishop’s statement to fit my ideological agenda. On the contrary, I read the Bishop’s statement as calling for a common sense recognition of the moral obligation the Congress has – to pass bipartisan legislation. The House Bill does that. The Senate should pass it.
@Jeff Landry (12/15, 3:01 pm) I’m sorry, but given that President Obama earlier this month stated publicly that he did not want the payroll tax cut and UI benefit extension linked to extraneous issues like the Keystone pipeline, how is this “an example of the House giving the President precisely what he’s asked” for?
Here’s a link to the bishop’s letter: http://usccb.org/news/2011/11-244.cfm (Click on the link at the bottom of the page for a .pdf version of the letter.)
And here’s what I take to be the heart of the letter:
“When the economy fails to generate sufficient jobs, there is a moral obligation to help protect the life and dignity of unemployed workers and their families. Therefore, I strongly urge you and your colleagues to find effective ways to assure continuing Unemployment Insurance and Emergency Unemployment Compensation to protect jobless workers and their families. ”
Since some minimal level of bipartisan support would be required, I suppose it’s correct in some sense that the letter calls for “bipartisan legislation”. However, it strikes me that Bishop Blaire is saying that any “moral obligation Congress has” to act in a bipartisan fashion exists only because it would support Congress’ primary moral obligation in this case: “to help protect the life and dignity of unemployed workers and their families”.
I’m shocked to think that Jeff who uses the thread and the Bishops statement to push his and his fellow GOPers bill should think he’s non partisan.
How purblind to the increasing poverty and the sad deterioration into plutocracy!
Jeff –
I’m not “quibbling” over the number of jobs Keystone says would be created. There’s a huge difference between 20K and at most a thousand now and several hundred in the end. That’s math. Simple math.
Yes, Obama has supported drilling recently, but the situation is different from what he expected when running for office, when he was for massive support for green energy and green research. it seems obvious to me that he is a man who has learned to take what he can get from the current Republican obstructionist. (And what do you think of their most recent threat to close down the government?) Maybe he is wrong to “cave”, but look at the alternative: the radical right determined to get its own way no matter what.
As to BP, can you possibly imagine that it will behave as badly now as it did in the recent past? They aren’t stupid. Greedy, but not stupid. It won 27 leases? Poor, poor BP.
My local paper carried a long story on the one in two Americans being poor last night.
This old curmudgeon was really angry (as was my spouse) that the figure was poo poohed by a well paid spinmeister at the American Heritage Institute.
It’s clear we have a real income disparity problem and a real Gospel message to prioritize the poor.
Well Congress “generously” gave us two months more help for the unemployed eso they can play the gas pipe line leverage game.