David Gibson: “A week after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan claimed his Catholic faith inspired the Republicans’ cost-cutting budget plan, the nation’s Catholic bishops reiterated their demand that the federal budget protect the poor, and said the GOP measure “fails to meet these moral criteria.” That and other strongly-worded judgments on the GOP budget proposal flew in a flurry of letters from leading bishops to the chairmen of key congressional committee.”
Joni Eareckson Tada: “Like all good citizens, the elderly and people with disabilities want to eradicate waste and fraud from government, but helping people with special needs meet their basic needs doesn’t fit this description. The hallmark of a healthy society has always been measured by how it cares for the disadvantaged.
As people investigate the candidates on all issues, they should remember that being pro-life also means protecting the elderly and medically fragile people – it’s not a litmus test issue. If candidates believe that savings can be secured through undercutting basic services for the elderly and disabled, it can’t help but tarnish their stand as pro-life candidates.”
Ed Kilgore: “The transformation is widely observable across the conservative landscape, with Republican fiscal proposals in the states and in Washington going after a host of other key support systems for the working poor with a vengeance: state-level EITCs, job training programs, unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, you name it. It’s also no coincidence that, in the agitation against the Affordable Care Act, many conservatives deliberately stoked resentment towards alleged redistribution of federal largesse from virtuous Medicare beneficiaries to the uninsured, who are, by definition, working individuals and families who don’t qualify for Medicaid for one reason or another.”
John Gehring: “Written by John Carr, executive director of the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development at the USSCB, the report is a frank assessment of a deal that asks nothing from the rich even as it puts the squeeze on those already having trouble making ends meet. “While the crisis of default was averted, for advocates of poor and vulnerable people, this debate was disappointing, ominous, and just the beginning,” Carr writes.”
Steve Schneck: “At the beginning of life, Medicaid also pays for about one-third of all births in America. Maybe you know a scared young mom who needed such help. If you are pro-life, like me you realize what support for these births can mean.
Or maybe, like I do, you have a friend who lost his job and, despite best efforts, hasn’t found work. Unable to stretch unemployment insurance enough to make ends meet, he was embarrassed to need help, but at least he was able to feed his kids with food stamps. Maybe you, too, know a divorced mom with a special-needs child who is able to make it because of Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition assistance. We all know people in these situations. They’re our neighbors, our friends, our relatives. Maybe we’ve been there, too — or worry that someday it might be us or our loved ones in such circumstances.
Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s 2012 budget strategist, would cut all these programs and many others like them just when folks are struggling to stay afloat.”
Kathy Dahlkemper: “The moral responsibility of protecting an unborn child is no different than the responsibility to ensure that a child with cancer gets proper medical treatment without bankrupting their family. These responsibilities have the same source—the fundamental worth of the human person.”
My article from NCR: “The common link between these libertarian social and economic policies is the individualism that animates them. The source behind the rejection of distributive justice and the sanctity of human life is fundamentally the same. It is the great irony of American political life that the two bitterest opponents in American politics are driven by the same impulse.”
DFLA Board Member Stephen Schneck: “We need fiscal prudence to tackle budget deficits. But it’s immoral to increase hunger in America when other options are available. At the very least, it’s reasonable to avoid any cuts to food assistance until charities, states and local governments are in a stronger position to respond. Surely, this is common ground for compassionate conservatives and progressives on Capitol Hill and at the White House. Let’s reign in wasteful spending, end irresponsible tax breaks for the rich and make smart budget choices that reflect our nation’s highest ideals. Don’t vote to starve the poor.”
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: “We express our deep concerns that the current proposal calls for significant cuts to both domestic and international food aid, conservation and rural development programs. These proposed cuts will greatly affect programs that serve hungry, poor and vulnerable people in our nation and around the world.”