The Manhattan Declaration

Religious leaders from across the country have come together to issue a statement in defense of traditional religious values, which are under assault.

To learn more and sign their petition in support of the declaration, click here.

An overview from the Manhattan Declaration website:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Catholic group assists families seeking to become missionaries

A profile of the Family Missions Company:

The Second Vatican Council called missionary work the “greatest and holiest task of the Church” and described the Church’s commission to “rally the forces of all the faithful” to “spread everywhere the reign of Christ” (Ad Gentes, The Mission Activity of the Church, 1965).

Most missionaries will tell you that their work brings rewards no other sphere of spiritual activity can. They’ll also tell you the missionary life is a challenging one. Difficulties — everything from language barriers to financial hardships to health issues to physical safety — abound.

Enter the Family Missions Company, which assists Catholic individuals and families in becoming missionaries. It was founded in 1996 by Frank and Genie Summers, who, after serving in missions for more than 20 years, returned to the United States to better care for a son diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder.

“We understood that at the time we could provide something that the Lord showed us was needed — an organization offering Catholic laypeople, including families with children, the opportunity to be trained, assisted in finding a mission, and supported,” says Frank Summers...Continued

Bishop Tobin appears on O'Reilly Factor

Unlike Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly is respectful and lets the Bishop speak.

Chris Matthews Grills Bishop Tobin

Chris Matthews, unhappy with Bishop Thomas Tobin's recent criticism of Rep. Patrick Kennedy (see my previous post, here), is unable to hide his contempt while interviewing the Bishop.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(H/T Whispers)

Frankly, the Bishop's response is a sound one. He is pushing for Catholic lawmakers to enact civil law that is consistent with, and reflects, the moral values held by the Faith and which are readily found in natural law. Despite Matthews' badgering, how to achieve that end is not for the Bishop or the Church to say, but, rather, is the responsibility of the legislators to figure out.

Matthews seems ready to come unhinged by the end of the interview, when the Bishop refuses to take his bait to lay out the specifics of how to outlaw abortion.

Chris Matthews is a real piece of work. His contempt for those he disagrees with is readily displayed in interview after interview.

This interview is no exception. Matthews is condescending and disrespectful and speaks to the Bishop the way one would speak to a child.

For what it is worth, Matthews claims to be a Roman Catholic.

Bishop Tobin publicly rebukes Rep. Kennedy

Bishop Thomas Tobin (Providence, RI) recently sent Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D, RI) a scathing letter.

The Bishop has made the letter public.

The Bishop was responding to, among other things, Rep.Kennedy's harsh criticism of the Church's opposition to any health care reform bill that funds abortion.

For example, Rep. Kennedy, in an interview with CNS News, said the following:

"You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life-saving health care? I thought they were pro-life?" said Kennedy. "If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it's going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don't think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don't think it's productive at all."

Here is Bishop Tobin's letter to Rep. Kennedy. The good Bishop does not pull any of his punches:

Dear Congressman Kennedy:

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin

Bishop of Providence

Thank you, Bishop Tobin for you courage!

Christendom College

Christendom College is endorsed by The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College.

The December issue of Newsmax has a nice profile of the school - here.

Radio Theater Presents: "The Screwtape Letters"

Wow. I like this!

Be sure to check out the "behind the scenes" video below.

From the publisher:

From the award-winning audio drama team that brought you Radio Theatre’s Amazing Grace and The Chronicles of Narnia. In his enduringly popular masterpiece The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis re-imagines Hell as a gruesome bureaucracy. With spiritual insight and wry wit, Lewis suggests that demons, laboring in a vast enterprise, have horribly recognizable human attributes: competition, greed, and totalitarian punishment. Avoiding their own painful torture as well as a desire to dominate are what drive demons to torment their “patients.”

The style and unique dark humor of The Screwtape Letters are retained in this full-cast dramatization, as is the original setting of London during World War II. The story is carried by the senior demon Screwtape played magnificently by award-winning actor Andy Serkis (“Gollum” in Lord of the Rings) as he shares correspondence to his apprentice demon Wormwood. All 31 letters lead into dramatic scenes, set in either Hell or the real world with humans—aka “the patient,” as the demons say—along with his circle of friends and family. This Radio Theatre release also stars Geoffrey Palmer (Tomorrow Never Dies), Laura Michelle Kelly (Sweeney Todd), Eileen Page (The Secret Garden), and other world-class actors.

Includes 10 new songs inspired by the classic book, four behind-the-scenes video documentary featurettes, and a 5.1 surround sound mix. Four CDs, approx. 4 hours total.

The website for Radio Theater's "The Screwtape Letters" can be found here.

Behind the scenes video:

Senator Graham Grills Attorney General Holder

Senator Lindsey Graham asks some difficult questions about the implications of trying terrorists in U.S. criminal courts.

Senate Health Care Bill - The Troubling Details

From the Corner (Yuval Levin):

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has finally released the text of his version of the Democrats’ health care bill. The roughly 2,000 page bill is a monstrosity, pure and simple.

It is fiscal madness, for one thing. CBO’s 10-year projection scores its cost at $848 billion, since CBO is required to use a 10-year window that starts at enactment and the bill is designed to start collecting taxes well before it starts spending money. If you look at the first 10 years of actual implementation, when both the spending and the taxes are in effect, the 10-year cost is $2.5 trillion. The Democrats are proudly pointing to the fact that even with its high cost the CBO says the bill will not increase the deficit in the first ten years, but what that actually means is that in the midst of an economic downturn it raises taxes (and also cuts Medicare for the elderly) enough to cover the gargantuan cost. In fact it raises taxes by almost half a trillion dollars over ten years (including taxes on employers, on the uninsured themselves, and on drugs and medical devices and more), and cuts Medicare by nearly as much. And of course, the deficit neutrality calculation assumes things that will never happen (which, as usual, the CBO does its best to signal to readers of its analysis of the bill, even if it cannot say it outright.) It is based, for instance, on the bill’s claim that some key Medicare physician payments would be cut by 23% in 2011 and would not be restored—which will happen well after hell freezes over.

As the CBO carefully puts it: “The legislation would put into effect a number of procedures that might be difficult to maintain over a long period of time,” and “the long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if key provisions of the bill were ultimately changed or not fully implemented.” This is Washington-speak for “someone is holding a gun to my head.”

Meanwhile, the bill would do basically nothing to address the actual problem at the heart of our health care woes: rising costs. It would bend the government’s health care cost curve up, not down, and it contains all the ingredients that the other Democratic bills have contained for an increase in the cost of private health insurance premiums.

It also does not include the abortion language that was in the House bill to prevent public funding of abortion coverage, which will (or at least should) be a problem for Senator Ben Nelson and perhaps a few other Democrats (let alone for any eventual conference committee). And it does include a public option (which will be a problem for Senator Lieberman and a few others). And of course it consists of a fundamentally unwise approach to financing health care coverage.

So, to sum up: the idea is to spend trillions even as our debt is mounting, inflict massive tax increases on a troubled economy, impose costly mandates on employers as unemployment hovers above 10%, squeeze money out of Medicare not to fix the program’s finances but to create a whole new enormous federal entitlement alongside it, insert the government in countless new ways between doctors and patients, and cause millions of middle-class families to lose the employer-based insurance they have today, pay even higher premiums, and find themselves herded toward a government insurance provider. Oh, and at the end of it all, if we use the methods of counting the uninsured favored by the Democrats, there are still 24 million people without health insurance.

Another sure winner.

Notre Dame President Continues to Sit on Board of Pro-Abortion Group

From the latest news bulletin of the Sycamore Trust:

...Along with two of Notre Dame’s most prominent donors and former Board members (Raymond G. Chambers and Donald R. Keogh), Father Jenkins serves on the board of a major international anti-poverty organization, Millennium Promise. Its policies include the promotion of abortion and artificial contraception.

Thus, it aims “to expand access to safe abortions (where permitted by law)," and instructs that where there is “no district center for safe abortion practices...abortion services can be offered at the village level.” Further, it declares that “contraceptive services are critical to allow women to choose family size,” and it aspires to provide “pharmacologic contraceptives including IUDs. (See Millennium Development Goals and Millennium Villages Handbook)

These goals are not merely peripheral. The organization’s head, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, is reported to be “committed to expanding access to sexual and reproductive health information and services,” and a Columbia University spokesperson declared that this was “the only condition” under which it would have joined the program.

When Father Jenkins's role was discovered during the Obama controversy, criticism in the pro-life community came swiftly (see Cardinal Newman Society, Pew Sitter and Life Site News). A representative editorial in The Washington Times (Booing Notre Dame) linked the two actions.

In his response to our letter asking about this matter, Father Jenkins acknowledged that he was aware of these policies when he joined the board, but quoted from a letter in which he had advised the organization that he would not participate in matters involving artificial contraception or abortion.

Still, Father Jenkins did not dismiss our concern out of hand. Rather, he added:

We are currently in the process of reviewing all my and Notre Dame’s associations to assure that they accord with our Catholic mission. After that review, we will make a decision about this and any other commitment.

We responded by saying we were “encouraged” to learn of this review, but we continued:

We are frank to say that we do not understand how advising the Millennium Promise Board that you would not participate in matters relating to abortion or artificial contraception solves, or even mitigates, the problem. The organization’s fund-raising projects surely do not mention your disclaimer, and accordingly your membership amounts to a Notre Dame stamp of approval for the organization’s fund-raising efforts. The abortion and contraception program are among the beneficiaries. Thus the Board has the advantages of your membership without the disadvantages of your unsympathetic participation in matters relating to abortion and contraception.

We added this about the impact on Notre Dame:

Moreover, now that Millennium Promise’s abortion and contraception policies are becoming well known in connection with your board membership, especially in the pro-life Catholic community, Notre Dame’s reputation on life issues specifically, and as a robustly Catholic institution more generally, is suffering.

Both Father Jenkins’s stance on the “Notre Dame 88” and his service on the Millennium Promise board are likely to cloud the participation of the Notre Dame students and faculty in the March for Life if these situations continue until then and he leads the contingent, for feelings run high in the pro-life community...

An interview with Bishop Kevin Rhoades, newly appointed to Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend

Leon Suprenant reporting for The Catholic Key:

...His initial reaction to the appointment was one of surprise. He didn't expect any transfer, and he certainly had no idea that he was being considered for Fort Wayne-South Bend. It just wasn't on his radar screen. He had a few weeks' notice before the official announcement. He used that time as an opportunity for prayer, and he is very much at peace with this new challenge.

He says it's very much like his "leaving home" experience when he entered seminary. This time he is leaving behind a diocese that he has served as an ordained minister for over a quarter of a century, over which time he has developed many close friendships.

He sees this new assignment as the Lord asking him to follow Him in a new and total way, much like the apostles who were called to set aside the fishing nets and begin a new way of life. So, going to land of the Golden Dome as shepherd is what the Lord is calling him to embrace and, in common parlance, he's good with it.

Bishop Rhoades is, however, most grateful for the welcome he has already received from Bishop D'Arcy and others in his new home. He recognizes that he has big shoes to fill, but he says Bishop D'Arcy is a "gracious, kind man" who is making the transition very easy for him. The two of them have been seen together multiple times during the bishops' meeting, as Bishop D'Arcy clearly has been offering him fatherly wisdom as the torch is passed. Bishop D'Arcy is in good health, and Bishop Rhoades expects him to continue his service to the diocese while in his retirement.

But what about Notre Dame? Bishop Rhoades says he was one of the 80 or so bishops who expressed concern about ND's honoring a pro-choice politician. Bishop Rhoades says he communicated with Fr. Jenkins privately. Later, as the controversy developed, more public commentary was provided with the assistance of Paul Schenck from his pro-life office, as described here.

He rejected the claim that many bishops disagreed with his views on the subject, confidently asserting that the "great majority" of bishops were with him on the subject. He points out that his position on the matter is that of Bishop D'Arcy, as reflected in the latter's piece in America.

He sees the promotion of "the Catholic identity and mission" of Notre Dame as his role when it comes to Notre Dame, while emphasizing the pastoral dimension and his (and Bishop D'Arcy's) great love for Notre Dame and its potential for good.

The biggest difference in his new assignment is just that--the colleges. While Harrisburg and Fort Wayne-South Bend are comparable in terms of size, Harrisburg has no Catholic colleges, while Fort Wayne-South Bend has five, including ND. I asked him where he was going to start. He clearly stated that building strong personal relationships has to be foundational. In that regard, he mentioned a social gathering at the conference last Sunday, where he and Bishop D'Arcy were able to have some cordial, constructive conversation.

He believes that bringing out the best in Notre Dame and other Catholic colleges will require such a dialogical approach. He surely understands the challenges and he's not about to cave in on core principles, but his outlook strikes me as being a godly one. In short, I think this is another episcopal appointment that the Church got right...Full story

New Bishop for Fort Wayne - South Bend (and Notre Dame)

The Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades, Bishop of Harrisburg, has been appointed by Pope Benedict as Bishop of Fort Wayne South Bend.

The South Bend Tribune has details:

Area Catholics will go from having the nation's oldest bishop to one of its youngest, the Vatican announced Saturday.

The Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades, the 51-year-old bishop of the Harrisburg, Pa., Catholic Diocese, will succeed the Most Rev. John M. D'Arcy as bishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese.

In Rhoades, Michiana Catholics can expect a leader who carefully considers the advice of others before making big decisions, said Joe Aponick, spokesman for the Harrisburg diocese, where Rhoades has presided for five years.

"His leadership style is very consultative," Aponick said. "He very much works with people in groups very well."

Rocco Palmo, a Philadelphia-based Catholic journalist whose blog "Whispers in the Loggia" is one of the Web's most widely viewed, said initially he was "blind-sided" by Rhoades' selection. The Harrisburg diocese is larger than Fort Wayne-South Bend, both geographically — 7,660 square miles to 5,792 square miles — and in Catholic population — 244,073 members to 157,793.

But the more he thought about it, the more sense it made, Palmo said.

The diocese is home to the University of Notre Dame, which angered conservative and anti-abortion rights Catholics this spring when it invited President Barack Obama, who supports abortion rights, to speak at commencement and receive an honorary degree.

Before that, the university sparked controversy within the church over its hosting of the "Vagina Monologues."

The last time the Vatican moved a sitting bishop to a smaller diocese was in 2007, when Bishop Robert Baker was moved from Charleston, S.C., to Birmingham, Ala. Birmingham is the home of the Eternal Word Television Network, a Catholic cable television channel that is run by a lay board.

Like Notre Dame, EWTN holds considerable influence over American Catholics but is not controlled by the Vatican or the Birmingham diocese, Palmo said.

Also, Harrisburg is Pennsylvania's state capital, and Rhoades has shown the ability to firmly but diplomatically deal with pro-choice supporters in Pennsylvania politics.

"Notre Dame looms over this appointment," Palmo said. "(The Vatican) needed someone who can go in and collaborate. You have to persuade and you have to engage. I think we're seeing that at work here."

Palmo said a friend of Rhoades Saturday described him as "smooth yet strong."

"He has not been a political heavy in Harrisburg," Palmo said. "Any statements he has made on the Church's behalf have been very quiet and gentle."

Rhoades was, however, one of about 80 U.S. bishops who signed a letter to the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, opposing the Obama invitation. But Palmo noted that Rhoades had a subordinate issue a follow-up statement to the letter.

Rhoades on Saturday said he wasn't worried about any lingering tension with the university over the Obama matter.

"I think that's now in the past," Rhoades said. "Let's move to the future. I love Notre Dame. I want to have a close personal and pastoral relationship. It's such a strong place"...Continued

At first glance, there are things to like here. Bishop Rhoades:

1. Is a former rector of the Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Maryland. Mount St. Mary's has a solid reputation and is known for orthodoxy.

2. Has had success in Harrisburg in attracting vocations.

3. Reportedly has experience working in a politically charged environment.

4. Was one of the 80+ bishops who spoke out publicly against Notre Dame's decision to honor the pro-abortion President Obama.

Let us pray for Bishop Rhoades. He has his work cut out for him in dealing with Notre Dame.

Also, a big thanks to Bishop D'Arcy for his 24 years of service as Bishop of Fort Wayne - South Bend.

============================================================

Here Bishop Rhoades discusses his transfer to South Bend:

November 11th - Veteran's Day

Archbishop Raymond Burke to have a hand in selecting new bishops

With his appointment to the Roman Curia's Congregation of Bishops, Archbishop Raymond Burke will play an important role in the selection of new bishops, especially for those to be appointed in the U.S.

A hero to many orthodox Catholics and an anathema to the progressives, Archbishop Burke is a big favorite here at All Hands on Deck! He has been a strong voice of clarity and truth during a confused and troubled time.

John Allen Jr. reports and provide analysis:

...Yet seen through American eyes, Burke -- who’s widely expected to become a cardinal in the next consistory, the event in which new cardinals are installed -- is hardly just another Vatican official.

As the bishop of La Crosse, Wis., from 1995 to 2003, and then as archbishop of St. Louis from 2004 to 2008, Burke earned a reputation as a strong conservative voice on matters of both faith and politics. During the 2004 election, Burke publicly said he would not administer Communion to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic and at the time the Democratic nominee for president. He also once blasted a benefit concert by pop singer Sheryl Crow for a Catholic children’s hospital in St. Louis because she’s pro-choice.

Since being called to Rome in 2008, Burke has hardly gone quiet. In a September 2008 interview with an Italian newspaper, Burke said that the U.S. Democratic Party risks becoming the “party of death” because of its positions on bioethical questions. He’s also insisted that nothing can justify voting for a candidate who’s “anti-life” and “anti-family.”

As a member of the Congregation for Bishops, Burke now has a seat at the table when possible new bishops are evaluated and proposed to the pope...

BREAK

...When a diocese becomes vacant, it’s the job of the papal nuncio, or ambassador, in that country to solicit input on the needs of that diocese and to work with the local bishops and bishops’ conference to identify potential nominees. The nuncio prepares a terna, or list of three names, which is submitted to the Congregation for Bishops, along with extensive documentation on the candidates.

Members of the congregation are expected to carefully review all the documentation before meetings, and each is expected to offer an opinion about the candidates and the order in which they should be presented to the pope. Ultimately, it’s up to the pope to decide who’s named to any given diocese, but in most cases popes simply sign off on the recommendations made by the congregation.

To be sure, Burke’s nomination doesn’t mean he can single-handedly control who becomes a bishop, whether in the United States or anywhere else. For one thing, he’s simply one of five Americans on the congregation, and the least senior. At least initially, his input on American appointments is unlikely to be decisive.

Most observers say that aside from the pope himself, the two most powerful players in determining who becomes a bishop in the United States today are the current nuncio, Italian Archbishop Pietro Sambi, and Rigali of Philadelphia. (Rigali is a longtime veteran of Rome himself, and a close friend of Re.)

By itself, Burke’s appointment doesn’t alter that calculus. Sambi in particular is believed to have reservations about the pugnacious, and occasionally partisan, episcopal style that Burke came to symbolize.

On the other hand, Burke’s influence may grow with time.

He’s by far the youngest of the current crop of Americans on the congregation (the next youngest, Levada, is 73, and Rigali is 74). Since appointments are for five-year terms and may be renewed until a prelate reaches the age of 80, Burke could be involved in bishops’ appointments for the next two decades. At some point he may well become the senior American in the process, with a correspondingly greater impact.

Whatever happens, one thing seems clear. If anyone suspected that the decision to bring Burke to Rome last year was a way of muzzling him, or limiting his influence in the United States, it certainly doesn’t seem to be playing out that way. Source

Do We Need a Bigger House?

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe argues in favor of expanding the House of Representatives...Interesting...I like the idea.

Mr. Jacoby writes:

...Far from favoring a fixed membership for the House (Question 2), the Framers opposed the idea. They went out of their way to dispel “fears arising from the smallness of the body,’’ as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 55, and took it “for granted . . . that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution.’’ Madison reinforced the point in Federalist No. 56, assuring those who worried that a 65-member House would grow distant that “the foresight of the [Constitutional] Convention has . . . taken care that the progress of population may be accompanied with a proper increase of the representative branch of the government.’’

For the next 12 decades, “the progress of population’’ was indeed accompanied by an increase in the size of the House, which was enlarged after each census. But the House didn’t grow as fast as the American nation did, which meant that the ratio of congressmen to citizens - a measurement of democratic representation - kept shrinking. There was one House member for every 37,000 Americans after the 1790 Census, but by 1900 it was down to one for every 194,000. In 1911, when Congress passed a bill expanding the House to 435 members, the population of the United States was up to 92 million: For every representative, in other words, there were more than 211,000 people.

Nearly a century later, the House remains frozen at 435, even as the US population has surged to 305 million. There are now more than 700,000 Americans per House member, which is another way of saying that the average congressional district is home to 700,000 constituents.

But 700,000 is not the correct answer to Question 3. Since every state is entitled to at least one House seat, and since every state cannot be divided evenly into multiples of 700,000, the number of residents in each congressional district varies sharply. At the extremes, Montana’s lone US representative has 967,000 constituents, while the member from Wyoming represents fewer than 533,000. That disparity - more than 430,000 between the largest congressional district and the smallest - means that residents of some states have considerably more voting power in Congress than residents of others. And that, insist the plaintiffs in a lawsuit making its way through a federal court in Mississippi, violates the principle of one-person, one-vote.

The lawsuit argues that only by enlarging its membership to at least 932 - or better yet, 1,761 - can the House return to districts of equal size. Whether the suit will succeed is an open question. But what a blessing if it did! Quadruple the size of the House, and congressional districts would again be small and compact, ideally suited to the retail politics of an earlier era, and more closely aligned with discrete communities and neighborhoods. Enlarge the House, and it would fill with new blood, new thinking, and new energy. Elections would be more competitive, since it would take fewer votes to win. The House would grow more diverse, more lively, more representative...Full article

"Eighth of November" by Big and Rich

Forty-four years ago today, 48 American soldiers of the 173rd Airborne were killed in a battle in Vietnam. Their sacrifice is commemorated in the Big and Rich song, "Eighth of November."

May those who died rest in peace.

The U.S. Navy - A Global Force for Good

Congratulations to Navy on their defeat of Notre Dame yesterday.

The US Navy ran this video as a commercial during the game, and I think it is pretty neat .

Rep. Paul Ryan dicusses the health care vote

Must Read: Rep. Paul Ryan explains the urgent need to defeat the health care bilI

Via Robert Costa at National Review Online's "health care vote" blog:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tells NRO...

“There are some issues where Republicans say ‘just let [Democrats] vote for it, so we can get a political advantage and pick-up seats. This is not one of those cases. This is a moment where we really want to do everything we can to defeat this. We fear that if you turn on this new entitlement than it will be virtually impossible to turn it off. The earliest you could do anything to change this would be in 2013, if there is a new president and if Congress is controlled by Republicans. Those are a lot of ifs. We believe that this is a major moment for America in determining whether or not America slips down the path toward becoming a social-welfare state or whether we can reclaim the ‘American idea’— the principles of a free-market democracy that has sustained us for so long. We really believe that this is one of those moments. This is the biggest vote that Congress will have taken since 1965. It’s the biggest program Congress has created since 1965. And, this is, in many ways, all the marbles. We want to defeat this thing and I am more than happy to help a Blue Dog Democrat get re-elected if that means he or she votes against this bill. It’s more important to me to defeat this bill than to defeat a particular Democrat. This is bigger than a seat in Congress.”

AND

“Congress historically underestimates the cost of these kinds of programs... I have no doubt in my mind that we’re creating a brand-new entitlement. That majority knows that... This bill, under whatever analysis you look at, all say that health-care premiums will go up. This bill will deprive choices for many Americans. It will encourage employers to dump their employee health-care programs...The rude awakening is coming. When the American people start losing their employer-sponsored health insurance, seeing the cost of their health-care premiums skyrocket, and losing their ability to shop freely in the market for health-care plans, it will be a real shocker to people once they realize the scale of this. They’ll realize all of this by 2010.” The Blue Dogs must know this, right? "That's what amazes me," says Ryan. "The Blue Dogs know this, they see it, they sense it, but Speaker Pelosi is very good at this. She's keeping them in town and she's surrounding them with people who tell them what they want to hear, saying things like 'you got to do this, it's good for the party,' 'the worst thing politically is to not do anything,' etc."

AND

“The Democratic leaders here have been waiting their entire adult lives for a moment like this,” says Ryan. “This is a ‘destiny moment’ for them. This is a chance to fulfill their ideological ambitions. In a strange way, I respect it. I respect the fact that they had the courage of their convictions. The big problem I have with it is that their convictions are completely antithetical to the principles that built this country. They’re completely antithetical to the whole notion of free-market democracy that has made America the greatest, most exceptional country in the world. They’re determined to do this. It’s all about ideology. This is not about the best health policy, it’s about ideological conflicts.”

Must Read: Bishop James Conley lays out the case against the current health care reform bills

James Conley (Auxiliary Bishop, Denver) has published the most lucid and persuasive explanation of the U.S. Bishops' opposition to the current health care reform bills that I have come across yet.

I have highlighted in red the passages that particularly captured my attention:

With more than 620 Catholic hospitals serving the public around the United States, hundreds of Catholic medical clinics and shelters, and even a few Catholic-affiliated medical schools, Catholics have a keen interest in healthcare reform. That interest isn’t new. It’s rooted in experience, including the experience of trying to help people with little or no health insurance at all. For decades, the U.S. bishops have pushed for an overhaul of our nation’s healthcare industry and the way it delivers its services. Why? Because the Church sees access to basic health care as a right and a social responsibility, not a privilege.

But Catholic support for the general principle of reform does not bind anyone to endorse a specific piece of legislation. God gave us brains for a reason, to think; and we need to use them, because the practical and moral problems we face on the way to good healthcare reform are as formidable as the goal is admirable. This is why the U.S. bishops’ conference has tried so diligently for the past three months to work with Congress and the White House in seeking sound compromise legislation. As of November 5, all those efforts have failed.

The bishops have a few simple but important priorities.

First, everyone should have access to basic health care, including immigrants. The Church would hope to see that access broadened as widely as possible. But at a minimum, it should include those immigrants who live and work in the United States legally.

Second, reform should respect the dignity of every person, from conception to natural death. This means that the elderly and persons with disabilities must be treated with special care and sensitivity. It also means that abortion and abortion funding should be excluded from any reform plan, no matter how adroitly the abortion funding is masked. Whatever one thinks about its legality, abortion has nothing to do with advancing human “health,” and a large number of Americans regard it as a gravely wrong act of violence, not only against unborn children but also against women.

Third, real healthcare reform needs to include explicit, ironclad conscience protections for medical professionals and institutions so that they cannot be forced to violate their moral convictions.

Fourth—and this is so obvious it sometimes goes unstated—any reform must be economically realistic and financially sustainable. We can’t help anyone, including ourselves, if we’re insolvent. If we commit ourselves to health services, then we need to have the will and the ability to really pay for them. That’s a moral issue, not simply a practical one.

Note that these priorities do not attack the constitutional status of abortion. That’s a different battle. Nor do they take anything away from people who regard themselves as pro-choice. But they do protect the rights of the many, many citizens who see abortion as tragic and evil, and refuse to be implicated in supporting it.

Given the broad Catholic support for some kind of comprehensive healthcare reform, the historic links of the Democratic Party to the Catholic community, and the party’s total control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the reform legislation actually moving through Congress as I write these comments on November 5 is not only inadequate and baffling, but insulting and dangerous.

With the exception of a few leaders, like Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, Congress has ignored or rejected every attempt at resolving the serious concerns voiced by the bishops—or alternately, has pushed solutions like the Capps Amendment that do not solve the problems, and even create new ones. The White House has done nothing to intervene. “Common ground” thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy. And as a result, all of the main healthcare reform proposals in Congress, including the huge, 2,000-page merged House bill, are fatally flawed. Unless they are immediately and adequately amended, they need to be opposed and defeated.

For all of Congress’ public talk about “consensus building” and “consensus health care,” Washington has proved once again that hearing loss can be job-related. Most American Catholics, from people in the pews to pastors and bishops, want healthcare reform to work. But too many people in Washington don’t know how to listen, or don’t want to listen, or just don’t care.

Source: First Things

WELL DONE, BISHOP CONLEY!

H/T American Papist

Bishops Call on Catholics to Oppose Health Care Reform Bills

The U.S Bishops issued the below bulletin insert this past weekend. The House is expected to vote on the "Pelosi" Bill this Saturday.

USCCB NATIONWIDE BULLETIN INSERT

Tell Congress: Remove Abortion Funding & Mandates from Needed Health Care Reform Congress is preparing to debate health care reform legislation on the House and Senate floors. Genuine health care reform should protect the life and dignity of all people from the moment of conception until natural death. The U.S. bishops’ conference has concluded that all committee approved bills are seriously deficient on the issues of abortion and conscience, and do not provide adequate access to health care for immigrants and the poor. The bills will have to change or the bishops have pledged to oppose them.

Our nation is at a crossroads. Policies adopted in health care reform will have an impact for good or ill for years to come. None of the bills retains longstanding current policies against abortion funding or abortion coverage mandates, and none fully protects conscience rights in health care.

As the U.S. bishops’ letter of October 8 states:

“No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test…. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”

For the full text of this letter and more information on proposed legislation and the bishops’ advocacy for authentic health care reform, visit: www.usccb.org/healthcare.

Congressional leaders are attempting to put together final bills for floor consideration. Please contact your Representative and Senators today and urge them to fix these bills with the pro-life amendments noted below. Otherwise much needed health care reform will have to be opposed. Health care reform should be about saving lives, not destroying them.

ACTION: Contact Members through e-mail, phone calls or FAX letters.

• To send a pre-written, instant e-mail to Congress go to www.usccb.org/action.
• Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.
• Full contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at www.house.gov & www.senate.gov.

Continued

House health care reform bill to create 111 new federal bureaucracies

...and we all know that once a federal bureaucracy gets created, it is almost impossible to get rid of it.

What a nightmare!!

From website of the House Republicans:

The House Republican Conference has compiled a list of all the new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi's government takeover of health care:

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)

2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)

3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)

4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)

5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)

6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)

7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)

8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)

9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)

10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)

11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)

12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)

13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)

14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)

15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)

16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)

17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)

18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)

19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)

21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)

22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)

23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)

24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)

27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)

28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)

29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)

30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)

31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)

32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)

33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)

34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)

35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)

36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)

38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)

39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)

40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)

41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)

42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)

43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)

44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)

45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)

46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)

47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)

48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)

50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)

51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)

53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)

54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)

55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)

56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)

57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)

58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)

59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)

61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)

62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)

63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)

64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)

65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)

67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)

68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)

69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)

70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)

71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)

72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)

73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)

74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)

75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)

76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)

77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)

78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)

80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)

81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)

82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)

83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)

84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)

85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)

86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)

88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)

89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)

90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)

91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)

92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)

93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)

94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)

95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)

96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)

97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)

98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)

99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)

100.Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)

101.Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)

102.Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)

103.Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)

104.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)

105.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)

106.Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)

107.Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)

108.Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)

109.Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)

110.Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)

111.Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

More Good Work Being Done By The Folks At Food-for-the-Poor

From the Food for the Poor website:

In the rural parts of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America, Food For The Poor is shedding light on the millions of people there who need help. It is common for the organization to ship food, clothing, and even medical supplies to these countries where children and families are often forgotten. Now there are dozens of tall stacks inside the organization’s warehouse with a new kind of donation – lighting.

The large shipments of fixtures will be going directly to the poorest parts of these countries where some may be receiving lights for the first time, or where the donated lights will be used to replace old, broken fixtures.

There are more than 21,000 lighting fixtures, on about 320 pallets, inside the Christian charity’s warehouse.

“For us, turning on a light means flicking a switch,” said Angel Aloma, Executive Director of Food For The Poor. “Most people who live in the remote communities to which we travel do not have any power in their homes. There is no electricity. So, this new lighting will be going where people congregate, where they go for help, and where there is a power source in place. This large donation is intended to help the masses, and they will be grateful.”

The fixtures will be sent to at least 10 countries including Jamaica, Haiti, Honduras, Guatemala, Trinidad and El Salvador. It will be primarily used by those running and serving the poor in institutions supported by Food For The Poor such as hospitals, clinics, schools and orphanages.
Food For The Poor, the largest international relief and development organization in the nation, does much more than feed millions of hungry poor in 17 countries of the Caribbean and Latin America. We provide emergency relief assistance, clean water, medicines, educational materials, homes, support for orphans and the aged, skills training and micro-enterprise development assistance, with more than 96 percent of all donations going directly to programs that help the poor. For more information, visit www.foodforthepoor.org.

Wall Street Journal declares House health care bill "The Worst Ever!"

A year ago tomorrow, millions went to the polls in search of "change."

Many seemed oddly oblivious to the fact that the change being offered was somewhat ambiguous and that not all change is good.

Fast forward a year later.

Now, a lot of people (not a majority I grant you, but nevertheless a lot) are calling for health care "reform." And like a year ago, there seems to be an odd assumption that if it is reform, it must be good.

But, I must ask, are the supporters of the House health care bill really willing to trade away our individual liberty and the future prosperity of our nation in the name of this so-called reform?

If the average person calling for reform were to dig into the details of this House bill and really understand what is being proposed would he or she still support this plan?

The editors at Wall Street Journal have dug into the details, and what they have found is not pretty. Frankly, the details of the bill are downright frightening. This bill will fundamentally change the role of government in American society. And, not in a good way.

This editorial is a must read for anyone who cares about the future of this great nation, so I am posting the complete editorial below. Please forward to anyone who might be interested.

A vote on this bill is expected to happen sooner, rather than later. If you can find the time, call or write your representative in the Congress as soon as possible. If enough people contact them to oppose this bill, they will listen.

Here is the Editorial:

The Worst Bill Ever

Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.

***

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

October's Most Popular Post

During the month of October, the most popular post to All Hands On Deck! (based on post-specific visits) was my post: Rick Santorum: On President Obama, Conscience Clause Protections, and Belmont Abbey College.

If you have not yet read the post, you can read it here.

Three other posts I personally liked were:

a. Trace Atkins and the West Point Glee Club perform "Til The Last Shot's Fired." Found here.
b. BBC Reports that Global Warming Ended in 1998; Now Predicts 10-20 Years of Cooling. Found here.
c. Notable Film: "13th Day." Found here.

Past Winners:

September, 09: Bill Dempsey, ND '52, responds to Fr. Jenkins.
August, 09: Correspondence: A Letter to Notre Dame
July, 09: 41 st Anniversary of Humanae Vitae
June, 09: Catholic Ob-Gyn Discusses His Pro-life Medical Practice

The Politics of the Past

Daniel Henninger has an interesting piece out in the Wall Street Journal.

He notes that we are living in an amazing time marked by decentralization and increased individual choices. Yet, oddly, the Democrats are pushing centralization and decreased individual choice as the solution to a myriad of our nation's problems.

This approach, he argues, makes the Democrats (and President Obama despite his rhetoric) the party of the past, not the future.

An excerpt:

...I think what we are seeing with this massive legislation is that the Democrats in Washington have a bigger problem: Their party is looking so yesterday.

In a world defined by nearly 100,000 iPhone apps, a world of seemingly limitless, self-defined choice, the Democrats are pushing the biggest, fattest, one-size-fits all legislation since 1965. And they brag this will complete the dream Franklin D. Roosevelt had in 1939.

The culture still believes the U.S. has a hipster for president. But the Obama health-care bill, and maybe this whole administration, is starting to look totally out of sync with the new zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.

Everything about the health-care exercise is looking very old hat, starting with the old guys working on it. Max Baucus, Patrick Leahy, Pete Stark—all were elected to Congress in the 1970s, and live on as the immortals in Washington's Forever Land. But it's more than the fact that Congress looks old. The health-care bill is big, complex, incomprehensible and coercive—all the things people hate nowadays.

It's easy to make jokes about how insubstantial the millions of people seem to be who are constantly using technologies like Twitter. But these new digital and Web-based technologies, which have decentralized virtually everything, now occupy most of the average person's waking hours at work or at home. Mass media is struggling to stay massive in a world whose people want to break up into many discrete markets.

The one lump that won't change is government. Government in our time is looking out of it. It'd be one thing if government were almost cool in an old-fashioned way, but it's not. When everyone else's job gets measured by performance, its hallmark is malperformance—whether in Congress, California or New York.

We define the past 25 years in terms of entrepreneurs and visionaries in places like Silicon Valley who took a small idea and ran with it. Congress does the opposite. It take something already big . . . and make it bigger.

We've got Medicare for the elderly, with spending claims out to Mars, so let's create Medicare for All! One of the least noticed parts of the health-care legislation is its intention to make Medicaid even bigger, when Medicaid's cost is arguably the main thing destroying California.

There was a time when contributing to the common good meant joining something relatively small like the Peace Corps or Teach for America. Now it means being willing to just fall into line behind some huge piece of legislation.

Read Mr. Obama's speech last week at MIT on climate change: "The folks who pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized." This, ironically, sounds a lot like the 2007 antiHillary "Big Brother" TV commercial. Its message was that Hillary represented something big and ominously coercive. Boot up that ad now and put Obama's face where Hillary's is.

The larger point here isn't necessarily partisan. It's a description of the way people live their lives in a 21st century world, and how disconnected politics has become from that world.

If we were really living in the world of leading-edge politics that many people thought they were getting with Barack Obama, he would have proposed an iPhone for health care—a flexible system for which all sorts of users could create or choose health-care apps that suited their needs. Over time, with trial and error, a better system would emerge.

No chance of that. Our outdated political software can't recognize trial and error. What ObamaCare is doing with health care—the "public option"—may be fine with the activist left, but I suspect it's starting to strike many younger Americans as at odds with their lives, as not somewhere they want to go. Wait until EPA's ghost busters start enforcing cap-and-trade.

People thought something small, agile and smart was coming to government, but so far it's turning out to be just big-box politics...Full article