Considering Unemployment and Health Care

In an earlier post, I wrote about the need for non-partisan empathy for the poor and I stick by that. Anyone I have ever taught would admit that I show respect for the insights of both liberalism and conservatism. At times, I have been called liberal and at other times I have been called conservative. I am, at heart, a progressive and that is due to my relationship with Jesus of Nazareth. I do not think that to be a Christian, you must be a progressive, but we do have to admit that our savior sure said and did some really progressive things (“blessed are the poor,” “woe to you who are rich,” “love your enemies,” criticizing the religious and political establishment for their neglect of the poor and suffering). Quoting the prophet Isaiah in Luke 4, Jesus tells the crowd that he has come to bring glad tidings to the poor. In Matthew 25, he warns that deliberate neglect of the poor twists one’s soul into the state of that of the devil and the devil’s angels. When it comes to public policy, I abide by what my friend Howard Gray, SJ once remarked: anything that takes the human out of the human is satanic and needs to be opposed. A situation in which the wealthiest country in the world has an infant mortality rate that is higher than Cuba’s, Slovenia’s, South Korea’s and all of western Europe is tinged with evil. That is not to say that conservatives are evil, but that there are certain economic and social absurdities that conservatism causes and tolerates that are not in line with one of the living, dynamic values of the words of God—care for the poor. According to Biblical teaching, care for the poor was not just “charity.” It was a legal requirement. The Torah is very clear about this: the Israelites were legally required to leave part of their fields unharvested so that the poor might eat of that food. Jesus knew this, preached this, and lived this. According to Acts 2, the disciples shared all things in common and took from the wealthy in their community to give to the poor. The Catholic Church which I belong to has for over 100 years taught that the government needs to be involved in the economy to lift the poor out of poverty and lower the unemployment rate. The mainline Protestant Churches and many Jewish synagogues have taught the same.


That is not to say that we have to ignore every conservative insight. I do not think that nationalizing industries to distribute wealth is effective. It is very inefficient. I advocate a free market with prudential government involvement. If government involvement lowers the unemployment rate, the poverty rate, and the infant mortality rate, then it is obviously economically and morally good. Moreover, Catholic teaching cannot be reduced to the Democratic party platform. The Democratic defense of the partial birth abortion is not acceptable.


I learn from conservatives and I abide by the fifteenth annotation of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius: anyone I spiritually direct and anyone I teach already has a relationship with the truth. I merely seek to facilitate. Nevertheless, when it comes to the well-being of the poor, at times, a person has to take a stand. I will ask questions, but at times, I will declare what reason discovers to be true. If others reach different conclusions, so be it. I hope that honest and humane dialogue will lead us to freedom and prosperity.


At this point in history, in this economic situation, I happen to think that the Democratic approach to economics is the most helpful. We need to review a few facts:

Unemployment was at an all-time low in the 1990s under Bill Clinton and his program of government spending. Yes, President Clinton made mistakes, but emotionally tarring everything political thing he did because of his personal sins, is irrational. Look at the facts. With all due respect to President Bush (and I do respect him and all those who voted for him and worked for him), it climbed under his and the Republican controlled Congress’ leadership. Besides the unemployment rate, one must consider the poverty rate and the infant mortality rate. Every country that has a lower poverty rate than the US has more government involvement in the economy than the US does.



To evaluate President Obama’s agenda, we have to admit that he inherited a wrecked economy in which millionaire bankers sold fraudulent securities that not even they understood. This led to the worst recession since the Depression. These bankers are now collecting bonuses after having been bailed out by the government. The crisis could have been avoided if we had not repealed government regulations of business which was a conservative idea.


It would be a mistake for the American people to assume that Republican tax cuts for the wealthy and the abandonment of a very moderate health care reform (made moderate by bringing Sen Lieberman on board) would provide jobs for working people. I am not an expert on health care reform so I will turn to the experts: the American Medical Association, the largest, and probably oldest, association of doctors in America. They have opposed health care reform in the past, but they support Obama’s. It seems irrational to oppose what the best health care experts support and truth be told, they supported an even more intrusive government plan than the one that the Senate finally supported. I do not want to demonize Republicans, but, in my opinion, they cannot oppose the Democratic bills without answering these fundamental questions: why does the AMA support the Democratic bills? Whose expertise is leading Republicans to oppose the Democratic reform? Here once again, the President’s rationality and calm deliberation for what is best for America is meeting resistance from emotion and, in some cases, misinformation.


Taking a rational perspective, we need to remember that the tech boom, fueled by the US government invented internet, in the 1990s helped the economy. Now we need some innovative leadership from the business community to create the next boom, or perhaps it will once again be the US government, through Democratic leadership, stimulating the economy or funding the next invention. Thomas Friedman has written that green development will fuel economic development, providing jobs for many people. Perhaps our next boom will be the green boom, in which case Rep Boehner is incorrect. I would argue that since 99% of scientists (people who spend 60 to 90 hours a week studying the issues) are advising American industries to develop more fuel efficient cars, cleaner smokestacks and green energy, it is Rep. Boehner’s burden to prove that the Democratic environmental policies are imprudent. Most Republican sources on environmental policies have limited credentials (the Limbaugh Institute is not a nationally accredited university).



If you take a look at how our current economy treats the poor, we have a higher poverty rate than twenty countries,including Germany and Syria. We also have a higher infant mortality rate than forty four countries (including, as I mentioned, Cuba, Britain, Australia, Japan and South Korea). Americans are the hardest working, most innovative people on the planet. We value our families. We try to raise our kids well. Yet, other countries have a lower poverty rate and a lower infant mortality rate. Fewer European and Cuban babies die after birth. Throughout the years, some have argued that poverty in America is due to the low values of the poor, including the working poor. Now it is true that in ghettoes, drug use and other habits impede a person's ability to find work, but if someone is going to claim that this happens because Europeans and Cubans are better people, that they somehow live more virtuous lives, I am going to strongly disagree. Drugs and immorality are a problem in every country.


I do not think that all Republicans are dumb or mean. I am concerned about the far right wing of the Republican party, just as, had I been in my forties in 1968, I would have been concerned about the far left of the Democratic party. I just think that, before we tear apart President Obama’s agenda, we very carefully consider why he has approached the issues he has, and whether or not a Republican approach at this time would really make things better. I happen to think that if Obama had not won the election, unemployment would be even higher than it is today and climbing more and more. Deregulation of the financial markets led to this current crisis.
That does not mean that every Republican policy is a bad idea (I happen to think that school vouchers programs have done some good).


Finally, we need to think long term: Obama’s education strategy has changed education in this country in a way that no other previous president’s has. I am loyal to fellow teachers, but, when a Democratic President gets criticized by teachers’ unions, then you know that something new is happening. Improving education in this country is what will bring long term prosperity and Obama’s race to the top strategy is working. Let’s not abandon that.


Let’s come together in this country and let’s replace emotional discourse with reasoned discourse. How did we get into this situation and what will get us out of it? President Obama is criticized for “not having a pulse” because he so calm and reflective, because he is a man of reason, not of shout-meistering. Support the President. He knows what he is doing. We need a calm, rational person at the helm and we need a Democratic Congress that will support our commander-in-chief.