This week, the main parties' candidates unveiled their plans on taxes and other related economic issues. Here are some reactions to the content as it relates to the calls of Catholic Social Teaching.
Mr. Trump emphasized the need for simpler laws and regulations, calling for simplified brackets in taxes, a halt to added business regulations, and less tax code overall.
These emphases may be good jumping off points to keep money in the hands of citizens, to restore their ability to spend their money as they decide. This can even sound like subsidiarity at work. However, there's not much talk of the poor and vulnerable, or the need for private citizens to take ownership of supporting whatever public and social services are cut by the government.
The Republican philosophy of cutting taxes, shrinking government, and minimizing state involvement is only just if the services which the government will no longer provide can be filled in by private citizens and community organizations. If the economic philosophy is geared entirely toward financial gain and personal wealth, if doesn't cut it as a just way to behave socially.
Indeed, in Mr. Trump's speech, the rhetoric relating to legal simplifications all has to do with a particular type of financial gain. These reforms will make companies more profitable. They will make private citizens wealthier. They will make America richer.
Mr. Trump makes some passing references to how lower- and middle-class Americans will benefit most from these measures, but they are not followed by any specificity.
Instead, Mr. Trump continues to take shots at marginalized people who are, in his view, sapping money from the American revenue streams. Take this quote for example:
"When we were governed by an America First policy, Detroit was booming... When we abandoned the policy of America First, we started rebuilding other countries instead of our own... Our roads and bridges fell into disrepair, yet we found the money to resettle millions of refugees at taxpayer expense."In really confronting poverty, Mr. Trump says President Obama and Mrs. Clinton's policies raise tax rates and ratchet up onerous regulations, which he says kills jobs and induces poverty. I don't know what the facts bear out, but I find it hard to give his policies much credit for doing anything much for the poor and marginalized as stated here and so far.
Mr. Trump also goes after President Obama and Mrs. Clinton for energy policies:
"As a result of recent Obama EPA actions coal-fired power plants across Michigan have either shut down entirely or undergone expensive conversions. The Obama-Clinton war on coal has cost Michigan over 50,000 jobs. Hillary Clinton says her plan will 'put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of business.' We will put our coal miners and steel workers back to work. Clinton not only embraces President Obama’s job-killing energy restrictions but wants to expand them, including going after oil and natural gas production that employs some 10 million Americans."
Mr. Trump adds several ways in which unrestricted energy can raise GDP and revenues, again focusing on wealth of people, businesses, and the country, but not really adding anything about the positive ripples of that wealth for the poor or marginalized.
Additionally, on another social teaching front, these policies are terrible with respect to Care for God's Creation. Unrestricted energy usage and consumption may open up capitalistic competition, but such a marketplace only considers wealth and not stewardship.
Reasonable restrictions on pollution-creating energies are a good starting point to help us manage the negative impact that we are having on the earth and ease us toward alternative energy solutions, which can be good for our economy, our national security, and the environment. The trouble with these policies is that they take widespread consensus, mutual agreement in limiting ourselves voluntarily, and a steep and frustrating climb through transition - none of which are popular or immediately financially advantageous.
One other noteworthy item that is a positive for our social teachings is that Mr. Trump intends to make childcare costs, up to the average amount of care, fully tax deductible. While this doesn't quite stack up to wider concerns like paid family leave for new parents, health-care access for at-risk mothers and families, and other elements, it's a nice step in the right direction for family life.
Overall, there's not much to get worked up about, but the common thread throughout the speech focuses on personal, corporate, and national wealth without much attention to how that can have a positive impact on the poor and marginalized.
And once again, the make-America-great-again candidate is sure to tell the rest of the world, its problems, and its marginalized people, that all of that matters explicitly less than looking out for #1: "Americanism, not globalism, will be our new credo," Trump said.
Overall, there's not much to get worked up about, but the common thread throughout the speech focuses on personal, corporate, and national wealth without much attention to how that can have a positive impact on the poor and marginalized.
And once again, the make-America-great-again candidate is sure to tell the rest of the world, its problems, and its marginalized people, that all of that matters explicitly less than looking out for #1: "Americanism, not globalism, will be our new credo," Trump said.
Here are the thesis questions of Mrs. Clinton's approach:
Mrs. Clinton starts to answer her first question with a reference to her mega-jobs stimulus plan, and she does so with attractive vocabulary:
Building on this infrastructure emphasis, Mrs. Clinton adds that some country will emerge as the "clean energy superpower of the 21st century," and she wants it to be the US. This commitment to energy evolution to work toward cleaner technology is a much better observance of caring for God's Creation. The economic struggle up front could yield an economic advantage if and when American groups make the advances first and best, and such progress would help us be better stewards of the earth.
Another wrinkle here is Mrs. Clinton's "New Markets Tax Credit":
Building out on this message to economically marginalized people, Mrs. Clinton shrewdly points out that a four-year degree shouldn't be expected for all and it shouldn't be the primary path to make a living. She singles out trade school as a valuable way for people with the right skills and determination to make a solid living, supported in part by increased emphasis on apprenticeships and community colleges. This is good for the Dignity of Work and Workers' Rights, good for Preferential Option, and good to give rising students more options and less pressure as they seek stability for themselves and perhaps a family.
Moving on to child-care, Mrs. Clinton pans Mr. Trump's tax credit for child-care, saying that it doesn't help poorer families with affordability much while giving a break to wealthier families. I'll confess that the tax code is over my head here, and the best help I found was from NPR's fact-check: "Trump's proposed income tax deduction on the average cost of childcare was criticized for likely being more of a help to higher-income families than to many working-class families. However, the Trump campaign has also said that it will allow lower-income families to deduct the cost of childcare from their payroll taxes. The campaign says it will offer more details in coming weeks on their childcare plans." Mrs. Clinton doubled down here with emphases on equal pay for women (shout out to couples and families like mine where the woman is the primary bread-winner!) and paid family leave for new parents.
On the health-care front, Mrs. Clinton recommitted to the Affordable Care Act, affirming the state marketplaces and their competition in working toward universal coverage and lowered costs to consumers. I'll reiterate that I believe Rights and Responsibilities calls us to support and advocate for universal health-care, either through the ACA, a reform, or an alternative law, but not doing anything cannot be an option.
On the whole, given that Mrs. Clinton steered clear of abortion implications in family issues during this speech, there's not much by way of red flags in this plan. A lot of Mrs. Clinton's social policies, as manifested here in economic terms, square fairly well with many core principles of Catholic Social Teaching.
Stay tuned as the messages develop and the policies and positions are clarified...!
"So here are four questions that I hope the American people will ask of both candidates – and that the answers should make your choice in November crystal clear:So we start from a point of creating jobs and taxing the rich but also doing so for the sake of families and community and collaboration, according to her remarks.
First, which candidate has a real plan to create good-paying jobs?
Second, who will restore fairness to our economy and ensure that those at the top pay their fair share of taxes?
Third, who will really go to bat for working families?
And fourth, who can bring people together to deliver results that will make a difference in your lives?"
Mrs. Clinton starts to answer her first question with a reference to her mega-jobs stimulus plan, and she does so with attractive vocabulary:
"I believe every American willing to work hard should be able to find a job that provides dignity, pride and decent pay that can support a family. So starting on Day One, we will work with both parties to pass the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II."How the government will pay for this is unclear, but the focus is on helping people help themselves with dignified work on American infrastructure, which social teaching can easily support. She also wants to tie this prosperity growth to universal broadband internet access, which sounds like a good step toward an important social responsibility.
Building on this infrastructure emphasis, Mrs. Clinton adds that some country will emerge as the "clean energy superpower of the 21st century," and she wants it to be the US. This commitment to energy evolution to work toward cleaner technology is a much better observance of caring for God's Creation. The economic struggle up front could yield an economic advantage if and when American groups make the advances first and best, and such progress would help us be better stewards of the earth.
Another wrinkle here is Mrs. Clinton's "New Markets Tax Credit":
"Let’s also expand incentives like the New Markets Tax Credit that can bring business, government, and communities together to create good jobs in places that have been left out or left behind. From neglected neighborhoods in Detroit and Flint, to Logging Country, Coal Country, Native American communities, from rural areas ravaged by addiction and lost jobs to industrial regions hollowed out when factories closed."This is the first mention, explicitly, in either speech, specifically about marginalized people. This initiative specifically targets areas that have been left behind and not supported for recovery after hardship has beat them down. Such an initiative is one of the more clear-cut, direct things I've seen in this campaign season that opts for the poor and marginalized. Cheers to that. Mrs. Clinton even piles on a bit more good stuff in calling for a better living wage for service industry workers, including those in child-care.
Building out on this message to economically marginalized people, Mrs. Clinton shrewdly points out that a four-year degree shouldn't be expected for all and it shouldn't be the primary path to make a living. She singles out trade school as a valuable way for people with the right skills and determination to make a solid living, supported in part by increased emphasis on apprenticeships and community colleges. This is good for the Dignity of Work and Workers' Rights, good for Preferential Option, and good to give rising students more options and less pressure as they seek stability for themselves and perhaps a family.
Moving on to child-care, Mrs. Clinton pans Mr. Trump's tax credit for child-care, saying that it doesn't help poorer families with affordability much while giving a break to wealthier families. I'll confess that the tax code is over my head here, and the best help I found was from NPR's fact-check: "Trump's proposed income tax deduction on the average cost of childcare was criticized for likely being more of a help to higher-income families than to many working-class families. However, the Trump campaign has also said that it will allow lower-income families to deduct the cost of childcare from their payroll taxes. The campaign says it will offer more details in coming weeks on their childcare plans." Mrs. Clinton doubled down here with emphases on equal pay for women (shout out to couples and families like mine where the woman is the primary bread-winner!) and paid family leave for new parents.
On the health-care front, Mrs. Clinton recommitted to the Affordable Care Act, affirming the state marketplaces and their competition in working toward universal coverage and lowered costs to consumers. I'll reiterate that I believe Rights and Responsibilities calls us to support and advocate for universal health-care, either through the ACA, a reform, or an alternative law, but not doing anything cannot be an option.
On the whole, given that Mrs. Clinton steered clear of abortion implications in family issues during this speech, there's not much by way of red flags in this plan. A lot of Mrs. Clinton's social policies, as manifested here in economic terms, square fairly well with many core principles of Catholic Social Teaching.
Stay tuned as the messages develop and the policies and positions are clarified...!
No comments:
Post a Comment