What Jesus Would Say to Paul Ryan

What are the ethical underpinnings of society? Are there moral principles which provide a guide for the objectives of public policy? How do the foundational standards of the Judeo-Christian world view, the starting point for any discussion of right and wrong in Western Civilization, guide our steps in meeting societal needs? These are big philosophical questions, and any political debate is conditioned by the moral perspectives of those involved. Since the object of politics is to accomplish good for the polity, what is done depends on what one considers good, and that depends on where one goes to find moral guidance.

Nicholas Kristof has written a column on the health care debate in the form of a parable. It expresses his idea of what Jesus would say to Paul Ryan. It expresses my own views as well. I invite you to read it for yourself and see what you think. Read it on this link.

  

Maine Librarian Gives Legislators Food for Thought

I don't usually do this, but my wife ran across an article so wonderful I'm just going to refer you to it with minimal comment from myself. It concerns a story in the Portland (Maine) Press newspaper and what Kelley McDaniel, a school librarian, had to say during her three-minute public comment to the Maine State Senate's Appropriations Committee. She was able to encapsulate a great deal of moral, ethical, and practical content into a limited number of cogent words. Enjoy. Go to the article.

Health Care Wars: Why Not the Truth?

On Wednesday the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act passed last year by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Three Democrats in the chamber joined the unanimous Republican caucus to pass the repeal 245-189. Since Democrats hold a majority in the Senate and the President would veto repeal even if the Senate were to go along with the House, the vote will not actually lead to repeal any time soon.

The continuing debate over the measure is instructive. What is particularly interesting and disappointing to me about it is how the Republican case is being made. Since its introduction the Republicans have made no bones that they don't like the health care act. They don't like it primarily because they philosophically do not agree with it. They don't like government programs, they don't like government getting involved in the economy (even if thousands of preventable deaths can be avoided) and they don't like the purchase requirement (mandate) that is necessary to fund the premiums for lower-income Americans. Okay, fine. These are all arguments they can make. One doesn't have to agree with them, but they are valid contentions from their point of view.

So why do they have to lie? The measure was titled the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." In addition to saying Health Care will cost "millions of jobs" they further say that repeal will save billions of dollars. The Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan fact providers for the lawmakers, found that the law would actually save money, $230 billion over 10 years, and probably result in a net gain in jobs, not eliminate them. At the least it will be neutral on jobs. Go to FactCheck.com, a group with a good reputation for neutral evaluation of the truth, for corroboration.

It's depressingly familiar to see these misrepresentations. Why do they have to tell lies to strengthen their case? They could be saying, "Sure, the bill may save some money but we feel there are other reasons to oppose it that are more important." They could say, accurately, "The bill does not promise to be a big job creator." But they don't. Instead they disregard facts and make up lies. When people feel they have to make up lies to justify an argument it says a lot about either the strength of their position or about their character and ethics. Or maybe both.