For Restoration…

Restoration of Values

Comparison of Retirement Schemes Existing in the U.S.

In the tussle over the continuing budget resolution of October 2013, the Secretary of Treasury testified to Congress that the government shutdown and the failure to increase the national debt limit would jeopardize the payment of Social Security and Medicare benefits to the elderly. To clarify his warning, it was stated that these programs are partially self-funded but may be subject to administrative shutdowns and failures if the government fails to meet its financial obligations.[1] An examination of the current status and evolution of US national debt led, however, to the conclusion that, shutdown or no shutdown, the failure of the government to meet its obligations is unavoidable, because “the debt increase is caused by secular growth in government services, not temporary military expenditures or cyclical economic fluctuations.”[2] The debt as a share of GDP has risen steeply since 2008:[3] Moreover, various people have calculated that the debt cannot be paid and the fraction of GDP consumed for interest on national debt will reach not many years from now an unsustainable value.[4] At that point those dependent on Social Security will be left high and dry. This conclusion will surprise many, because the program was supposed to be a contributory pension scheme. In reality, as attested by the Supreme Court, the payments are entirely discretionary: the government can change (or terminate) them at any moment.[5]
Rigorously speaking, only public assistance old age benefits, like SSI, are non-contributed pensions. All pensions of people that work are contributed pensions. In the private sector, companies deposit a part of an employee’s salary into a fund from which his pension will be paid. Another part of the salary is paid to the Social Security Fund. (For some historic reason, the latter sum is divided in two: half appears on IRS Form W-2, the other half does not.)
In the Social Security and the traditional corporate pension schemes, the beneficiaries have no control over the money. The alternative is presented by IRA-s and the more recently offered corporate pensions in which the employees exert control upon the funds allocated for their retirement. Erroneously, only the latter are usually referred to as contributed pension plans.
Social Security has been touted as superior to the private options for two reasons. First, it is guaranteed by the government. Thus, the former Congressman Charles Rangel stated that one should not leave the nation’s retirement system at the mercy of the stock market. That view is rather ignorant, because the stock market is a reflection of the state of the economy and creation of value by the society, which is coincidentally what drive the government’s tax receipts. Therefore, government’s ability to pay is correlated with the stock market. Anyway, as mentioned above, the implication that the government’s retirement scheme is superior in safety is not valid. Indeed, the assurance offered by the strongest defenders of Social Security was that it is secure until 2036,[6]. which means that a worker born in 1968 should not expect to receive his pension in full.
The second argument is that Social Security is the best financial arrangement in terms of return on investment. It was even said that it is not really a contributed pension because the total received by an individual in retirement is significantly higher than the amount contributed during working years. Mr. Steve Liesman of CNBC put the benefits to contribution ratio at 3. To prove superiority, however, this ratio must be compared with the results of alternatives in which the contributions were privately invested. I made such a comparison in 2013. Having had a variegated career, I was able to base it on my own experience.
I worked for low pay for six years, for better salaries for 15, and again for less over the last 11. During all these years I paid into Social Security, but only during the middle period I deposited about the same percentage into an IRA and also participated in two company pension schemes.. (The number of years worked reflects the fact that I was more than thirty years old when I came to the U.S. as a political refugee. Because I came with $13 as all my wealth, my retirement income comes from my subsequent earnings.)
I started withdrawing from my IRA before the required age of 70. In seven years I took out in total more than 75% of my original deposit. The balance left in June 2013 was 4.6 times the deposits.
During the last three years of the middle period (higher salary), I deposited into a retirement scheme called TIAA-CREF. The university matched my contributions. At 65, I began drawing a pension from there. Compared to the alternatives (IRA and, especially, Social Security) this had the shortest time to grow. When I began receiving benefits, I selected an option in which the payments were initially smaller, but have increased 3.5-4% annually. Up to the middle of 2013, the monthly payments added up to three times the deposit. Based on the monthly payments at that time and the life expectancy for men that have reached the age of 65 (17.7 years), and also assuming there was no further increase, I would receive during the rest of my lifetime a sum 2.2 times my deposit, for a total factor of 5.2. (As it turned out, in 2014 the payments increased by 10%.)
From the first (and longer) part of my middle period, I receive benefits from the highly rated pension plan of a major corporation. The total amount received so far has been by 40% higher than the amount received from TIAA-CREF, but the two pensions converge (from a ratio of 1.8 in the first year to one of 1.2 in the twelfth year). The ratio of total salaries received from the company and from the university was greater than 2, whence the defined benefit[7] company plan is the less satisfactory.
The comparison shows that Social Security is worse for the level of payment than the IRA or TIAA-CREF (a defined contribution plan[7] with high quality management), but better than the defined benefit plan. Given a choice, I would not have put the money into Social Security.
I expressed my concerns in a statement made during a town meeting with our Congressman, Mr. Steve Israel, in the spring of 2013, and in a letter that I subsequently sent him. I proposed that Social Security be reformed. To avoid money being spent on something else, the deposits should not be taken by the government, nor should the deposits and disbursements be part of the national budget. Financial or insurance companies, or consortia thereof, should compete for this business. Some government-approved board can determine which companies are to be trusted with investing the money deposited by people. All those who enter the system from the time of adoption of the new arrangement should have their deposits placed in those funds. The current trust fund being projected to be depleted in 25 years, it ought to be able to cover most of the payments received by retirees during the transition period. Because the trust fund is actually a fiction, however, I wondered in the town meeting whether a special 1% tax with a firm termination deadline of 25 years might help cover the missing funds. People told me, however, that the Congress of 25 years later will find a way to keep this levy and use it for something else. Perhaps someone has a solution to that.
In his written reply, Mr. Israel stated that Social Security has not added to the national debt, it has provided a critical source of income for many, the funds are invested in instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.A., and, if invested privately, the funds “would have been devastated during the collapse of 2007 “ (the Rangel argument). The last point is less damning than it seems: both my IRA and the TIAA-CREF were affected by the 2007 “collapse” and by an earlier one in 2001-2, but have recovered afterwards each time. His other claim is also invalid: any scheme in which people contributed would provide them retirement income. As for the funds being invested, Mr. Israel’s assertion was false; the money not paid to existing retirees has been spent as it came in, producing only IOU’s. The two Social Security trust funds are the single biggest creditor of the government, holding 16.5% of the national debt.[3] He did not address, however, the point most vexing to me: why Social Security pays me less than two other alternatives?
It seems strange that most members of Congress so doggedly defend an inferior model like Social Security. There has been one proposal to adjust it slightly, made by senators D. P. Moynihan (D, NY) and J. B. Kerrey (D, NE). Their plan allowed one percentage point of the worker’s income, matched by the employer, to go into an IRA-like private investment fund (partial privatization). Mr. Moynihan calculated a substantial accumulation of capital up to retirement age, from which a pension could be drawn afterwards.[8] Even that minor change was too much for their colleagues to accept.
Two reasons may be discerned for this attitude. First, Social Security is by design an instrument of wealth redistribution and most of the corrections offered (some already implemented) to “save” it, exacerbate this feature. Privatization would remove this possibility.
The main reason, however, is the desire of the government to have control over the citizenry. The goal is to have people totally dependent of government for their livelihoods and ultimately their lives. The Social Security setup makes even people on the losing side of the redistribution curve dependent on government for their pension. Both major political parties are guilty of that. The Democrats openly press for redistribution and control, whereas the Republicans go along while protesting to the contrary. For example, the money withdrawn from paychecks for Social Security is called by politicians of both parties a payroll tax, rather than a payroll contribution, which suggests that it naturally goes into the general pocket of the government. The pension can then be presented as a benefit or entitlement, rather than a return on money invested by the worker. The Republicans have strengthened this perception, when they advocated cutting the payroll tax in order to combat a recession. They should realize that Social Security contribution should not be treated like a tax that can be cut. There are plenty of taxes to choose for cutting.
A reform giving workers control and responsibility over their Social Security pension will solve the financial problem and will have important social and moral benefits. Thus, it will help restore in the citizens the spirit and mentality of the free man, rather than that of the ward of the state as it is now. It will also eliminate a misconception which makes many younger people who work and contribute now to begrudge the old for not dying sooner, instead of living on the charity of the government. There is not much time left. The insolvency of the current arrangement is inevitable.
As another improvement, when the individual will control his federal pension fund, the transfer of money from those that paid larger sums during their active years to those who contributed less will also cease. This will result in a more honest reckoning of the national costs of public assistance. Those who need help can receive it undisguised.

[2] Bryan Taylor, GFD, Paying off government debt. Two Centuries of Global Experience</strong,
[3] Drew DeSilver, Pew Res. Ctr., 5 facts about the national debt: What you should know,
[4] Ronald Cooke, Will America Ever Pay Off Its Debt?,
[5] Flemming vs Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960),
[8] (a) Craig Copenland, Jack VanDerhei, Dallas L. Salisbury, Social Security Reform, Evaluating Current Proposals (June 1999), ; (b) Daniel Patrick Moynihan , “Building Wealth for Everyone,” New York Times, May 30, 2000

A Shattering Experience

On a Sunday in December 2014, my wife had a stomach virus attack and had to stay at home. Late in the morning her condition allowed me to leave, so I could go to a church that had a noontime Mass.
I sat at the far end of a back pew. Right in front of me there was a young lady flanked by a girl about six years on her left side and a boy, two years or so, at her right, but mostly on her knee or in her arms. The children were quiet and well behaved.
The Mass was offered by an old priest, who is a friend of mine. At Communion time, a young priest came and helped with distribution, at our side of the church.
Generally, I receive Communion at the Traditional Roman Mass (known as Tridentine), or the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Byzantine). Since I did not go up to receive at that Mass, I could see from my place how the lady in front of me went to take communion with the little boy in her left arm and the girl in tow. She took the Host in her right hand, turned, and walked to her place in the pew, where she seated herself and gave the Host to each child to touch, feel, and play with.
As the ceiling whirled over my head, I groaned:
“- In God’s name, Madam, what are you doing?! What are you doing with the Holy Communion?!”
I cannot report what she did then. I did not register.
At the end of the Mass, I went to the vestibule, where my friend priest was greeting people as they were leaving. When all were gone, I went with him into the sacristy and related the incident.
“ – Tragically,” –he replied – “that’s the risk when one allows communion in the hand. This is why I watch the communicants and if anyone steps away or turns around with the Host in his hand, I call him back.”
At that point, the young priest came in; I repeated to him my account of events. He became flustered and asked the older priest, haltingly, whether this is permissible.
As a first reaction, I charged him in my mind with unbelievable ignorance. Then I realized that his bewilderment was generated by the paralyzing fright that some new directive had legalized even that transgression.

I distributed the above lines to a number of friends and acquaintances. The correspondence generated was most interesting; I am copying it below.
– Karen Knoll (VA): Oh! How unnerving! A similar situation occurred at my parish here in VA several years ago. I was at a funeral and several pews behind a mother with two small children. I noticed that the little girl was given communion along with her mom. When they arrived back at their pew, the mom held her head in her hands while her daughter examined the host, tapping it on her seat. As I passed by their pew, I reached down slowly and took the host from the girl, saying, “That is Jesus. You must not do that with Him.” I proceeded up the aisle and just bowed to the priest as I had consumed the retrieved host a few moments before I passed him. Later, I explained to my pastor why I had not received communion from him that day.
– Debi Vinnedge (TN): I have seen the same thing happen in my own Church – twice! One time I was able to confront the woman and her child who she told me was preparing to make her First Holy Communion. I told her she already had. The woman tried to tell me that’s how they do it in her parish back north – the children get to taste the Eucharist before their First Holy Communion. I told her they used unconsecrated hosts! She didn’t have a clue… In the other incident, the woman took the Host, broke it in two pieces, gave it to her child and then walked out the door before I could catch her. (I told my pastor who was absolutely livid, by the way.) Very sad that so many are so uneducated about the Sacraments!
– James Likoudis (NY): Sad to say, I can perhaps top that one. Recently, I saw someone take the Host in the hand and walk out of the church with it. To view such abuses is simply an extra penance.
– Don Pranzo (NY, age 80): It seems absolutely outrageous to me, as well. However, be careful how to judge that young mother. She delivered the children; she brought them to church; she may well have been in the state of grace. We really don’t know what precipitated her actions. We can attempt to educate both the people (and the clergy), but we should be very careful to judge the young mother. I think Pope Francis said it best: “Who am I to judge?” Only God will make the final judgment.
My reply: Thank you for your message. The guilty parties are those who have destroyed the catechesis in the Church. Of course, the one who allowed communion in the hand bears a great guilt.
Don Pranzo: And who did allow the reception of Communion in the hand?
My reply: That I don’t know. I suppose it must have been Paul VI or John-Paul II.
– Elena N. Suciu (WA): See the attachment, Liturgical Abuse at Largest Papal Mass in History.
The little film captured a mob scene in which Hosts were frantically passed from hand to hand, above heads, some of the Hosts ending in the mud and trampled. In a commentary on the incident, Steve Kojec wrote: (F)aith alone is not a safeguard against error or sacrilege. Catechesis is. . . . Simply stated, the issue is this: the Church has created strict rubrics to protect the Most Holy Sacrament and to enhance our belief in it; any Catholic with true faith in the Real Presence will honor those rubrics, because the nature of the sacrament creates in those who understand it a sense of profound reverence and awe.”[1]
For his part, the Archbishop stated: ““Under normal circumstances, this should not have happened, but the situation in the Luneta was extraordinary, six million people.” He added: “On this occasion, it was necessary to help each other receive communion (italics are mine).”[1a]
In my opinion, this is the crux of the matter. The Archbishop thinks that receiving Holy Communion at the Mass celebrated by the Pope meant so much, that risking its desecration was warranted. Thus, a Host consecrated by the Pope is by implication special, or, conversely, a Host consecrated by a simple priest is somehow inferior. It is, however, a fallacy, also a heresy, to hold that clerical rank can add quality to the Body of Christ. The Pope, like and equal to the parish priest, prays at the altar: Suscipe Sancte Pater, omnipotens aeterne Deus, hanc immaculatam hostiam, quam ego indignus fmulus tuus offero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero, pro innumerabilibus peccatis et offensionibus et negligentiis meis . . . (Accept, O Holy Father, almighty everlasting God, this immaculate Host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my true and living God, for my innumerable sins, and offenses, and negligences . . )
The proper way to organize a papal Mass was to have each parish in the country select one representative (or each diocese, two dozen) to receive Communion there. They would be seated all together, perhaps wear some sign, a pin for instance, which they would deposit in a basket before receiving Communion. All others could receive Communion in their parishes. All the faithful could listen to the sermon given by the Pope, which is the only personal thing that the celebrant brings to the Mass.
It was said, and rightfully so, that the sad spectacle in Philippines comes from deficient catechesis. But how can the faithful be educated when the Archbishop himself does not grasp the basic tenets of his (and our) faith?
About the same event, I also found a note:
06 Feb. 2015. If you could, please help us get the word out that we would be having a First Friday Traditional Latin Mass and Holy Hour as a Solemn Act of Reparation for the sacrilege that occurred during the Papal Visit here in the Philippines . . . [2]
(In the words of the French writer Maxence van der Meersch, we should not despair; there might still be enough good men to save us.[3])

[1] Steve Skojec, (a) Blessed Sacrament Profaned in Manila: Archbishop Villegas Responds, Jan 21, 2015, ; (b) personal communication.
[3] Maxence van der Meersch, Corps et Âmes, Paris,


I heard on a Sunday a sermon by a bishop, on the defining features of a Christian. (He was talking to Catholics, but his words apply to all Christians.) He formulated them as commands: “We must live our faith, profess our faith, and – if necessary – defend our faith.” (The bishop did not start with: “We must know our faith.” He trusted the congregation to have satisfied that prerequisite.)
The first of these commands orders our existence both inside and outside our intimate circle. The last two govern our life outside it. At present, however, our public life as Christians affected by the misconception that manifestations of faith must be private, hidden from the public. Restrictions on practicing the Christian faith are based strictly on the preferences of Supreme Court Justices. The other two branches of government have not imposed such restrictions and occasionally have resisted them.
The constraint is attributed to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or rather the interpretation by the Supreme Court of the reply of President Jefferson to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association. The Baptists noted that previously laws and custom considered the practice of religion as a privilege, or favor granted, and expressed the hope that in the new form of government it would be an inalienable right.[1] Jefferson allayed their apprehension stating that the establishment clause builds “a wall between Church and State.”[2] He did not actually mean to make a fundamental statement, but a political one. He explained to his Attorney General that the letter was intended to please people in places like Virginia, “being seasoned to the Southern taste only.”[2]
The nature of relations between church and state in the mind of the framers of the Constitution can be better ascertained from the actions of George Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention. As commander-in-chief, he issued an order to his troops: “All chaplains are to perform divine service tomorrow, and on every succeeding Sunday. . . . The commander in chief expects an exact compliance with this order, and that it be observed in future as an invariable rule of practice – and every neglect will be consider[ed] not only a breach of orders, but a disregard to decency, virtue and religion.”[3] Thus, Washington did not presume that the government should choose chaplains for the army, but on the other hand assumed with no hesitation that the soldiers should pray on army time, in army facilities, and have the government pay for the chaplains they chose.
Another proof that the excision of religion from public life was not in the minds of the framers of the constitution comes from John Adams: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[4] The opposite interpretation arose only in the twentieth century, and its restrictions have been broad, as well as capricious. For example:
– Opening of town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy is allowed.[5] So is opening a state legislature’s session with a prayer by a state-paid chaplain. The rationale is “the unique history of US,” as shown by examples.[6] Inviting, however, a member of the clergy to deliver a prayer at a high school graduation (at no cost),[7] or teachers setting aside one minute each day for meditation or voluntary prayer,[8] is unacceptable.
– A nativity scene in front of a public building is forbidden, whereas a large menorah placed together with a Christmas tree is not, because the menorah “has become a secular symbol,”[9] while a nativity scene displayed together with a Christmas tree, a Santa Claus house and a “Season’s Greetings” sign was ruled as having “legitimate secular purposes,” and thus acceptable.[10]
– The placement in County Court houses in Kentucky of a “Foundations of American Law & Government Display,” containing nine framed documents of equal size (Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, etc.), one of them being the Ten Commandments, was struck down,[11] but a monument with the Ten Commandments at the Texas Capitol, together with other monuments “designed to illustrate the ideals of those who settled in Texas,” was approved. One of the reasons given was that “(t)he physical setting of the monument suggests little or nothing of the sacred.”[12] The two rulings were issued on the same day.
It is noticeable that the Court has been stricter in denying the right of religious practice to students than to other classes of citizens, and also that its pronouncements have been supremely arrogant. Thus, the majority opinion (by Justice Anthony Kennedy) denying the students the right to hear an invocation at their graduation, reads: “The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations. . . ”[6] As the Danbury Baptists feared in 1801, the practice of religion has become a favor which the sovereign (here the Supreme Court) may extend, rather than an inalienable right.
The thesis that religion has to be excluded from the public sphere can be counteracted with the Supreme Court’s own arguments: the protection of the First Amendment is meant specifically for the public sphere, because private practice of religion is protected by the right to privacy, established earlier by the Court.
There is also a fundamental objection to the position that the first Amendment requires imposition of secularism on the public life of citizens. As Marxists correctly understood, there are only two philosophical systems: materialism and spiritualism (called by them idealism). The two are opposed and mutually exclusive. Anything else reduces to one of them.[13] Here, philosophy means the fundamental representation of the world and of life (world view, best expressed by the German Weltanschauung). Secularism is a form of materialism. The government, being constitutionally prohibited from taking sides, cannot promote secularism at the expense of religion. The Court’s view that pupils are “compelled by law to go to school for secular education”[14] is an abuse.
That being said, scraping acceptance for religious displays via conjunction with unrelated messages is demeaning. We should publicly celebrate Christmas as a holy day, rather than on account of any “secular purposes,” and display the Ten Commandments for what they are, not in a setting suggesting “nothing of the sacred.” Christians should not degrade their faith. Likewise, when a judge forbade a graduation prayer devised and offered by the students, the reaction was to decry the loss of an eighty-year-old tradition.[15] A tradition, no matter how long, was not itself worth the fuss; Christian students should reject the ruling by the judge for more fundamental reasons. Moreover, if there really was a conflict between the Constitution and the Ten Commandments, Christians would stand on the side of the Ten Commandments.
In reality, the problem is not with the Constitution, but (in Justice Rehnquist’s words) with the Court’s majority’s “hostility to all things religious in public life.”[16] There are two possible responses, one confrontational, the other not. For the former, a threatened religious display can be defended in the manner in which citizens have defended a Nevada rancher when the government tried to confiscate his cattle.[17] For the latter, Christians should determine which is their hierarchy of values. In other words, if prayer before football games is forbidden, should Christians give up prayer, or football? The answer to such a question was given by a Utah team qualified for the Little League Regional tournament, which chose to forfeit a game, rather than play on Sunday.[18] The same uncompromising attitude was shown by the basketball team of an Orthodox Jewish school in Texas, which gave up its participation in the state semifinal game, because it was scheduled on a Friday night.[19]
There is no need, however, that Christian students give up competitive sports; they should only refuse to play on the school team and start a private league open to students. If there are Christians in town, they will prefer to watch the independent league games.
In the same manner, Christian students can refrain from participating in official graduation exercises, request their diplomas from the school office, and organize a private graduation ceremony, in a club or barn, inviting all teachers and school officials who would care to attend. In a few years this could become the main event and the citizens might vote to remove the money for the secular graduation ceremony from the school budget.
Town council members could arrange to meet on the street in front of the building before the official meeting is scheduled to start, and pray for the success of their official work due to begin in a short while.
If the Ten Commandments on the lawn, or even the corridor of an official building, are objected to, the space can be sold to a private nonprofit organization that would then allow the government entity to use it.
We could find ways to neutralize the antireligious dictates of courts, perhaps with some effort and inconvenience, at least at the beginning. We would not mind the inconvenience . . . if we were Christians.

[4] John Adams, Reply to Massachusetts Militia, Oct. 11, 1789; Adams Microfilm, Reel 119, i.e., The Adams Family Papers, housed in the MA Historical Society
[13] V.I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, Ten questions to a lecturer;

Limiting Factors of the Pro Life Movement

Forty-one years have passed since the Roe v Wade ruling and likewise forty-one years of anti abortion efforts. These efforts can be expended in two directions, in some measure intertwined: (1) changing the law that permits abortion (overturning Roe v. Wade) and (2) the actual elimination of abortion from the society. To assess the accomplishments to date of the anti abortion movement, both aspects have to be examined.
In the mid-nineteen-nineties, I was serving as faculty advisor to a Students for Life organization, a group of about twenty students in a university of thirty thousand. In that capacity, I was invited to an annual meeting of Respect Life coordinators of the local diocese. The highlight of the event was a presentation by Helen Alvare, of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, regarding her legislative work, mainly lobbying, in Washington. The speaker was quite impressive, but I was left with an uneasy feeling. Thus, she stated that President Clinton was far from helpful to our cause. I remembered then that Mr. Clinton had received about 52% of the Catholic vote. During the period of discussion that followed, I offered the following comments:
“Whenever I hear of the struggles of the U.S. Catholic Church in the defense of life, I am visited by the image of a great ocean liner on high seas, in a big storm. The night before, the crew has given a firework display and, being careless, discharged one round through the hull, and now they exhort the passengers to help patch the hole with cardboard. The fact is that Mr. Clinton was elected by the Catholic vote. More generally, there hasn’t been an abortion advocate running for anything from President to dog catcher, in whom some part of the Catholic establishment wouldn’t find compelling redeeming qualities. The Church forbids abortion. If Catholics follow the teachings of the Church, we should expect that while others might abort their offspring to extinction, the world would increasingly be populated with Catholics and others sharing their pro life stand and so the matter would be taken care of. In reality, there is no statistically significant difference in the rate of abortions between Catholics and the rest of the US population.”
In her reply, Ms. Alvare attributed the failings to which I had alluded to deficiencies in catechesis. It might be helpful to survey in more detail the two aspects of the pro life activity and to identify the causes of progress or lack of it.
On the political-legislative side, one notes that since 1973 there have been 10 presidential elections (seven presidents have occupied the White House) and 20 elections for the House, while the Senate has been turned over six times. Throughout, the position espoused by our elected leaders has varied from one electoral cycle to the next, but there has been no sustained evolution toward opposing abortion. Most telling, in 2008 a higher percentage of Catholics voted for Obama, a candidate with an extreme pro abortion philosophy and record, than had voted for Clinton in 1992, and almost as many voted for him in 2012, after he had met or exceeded the worst expectations.
This unquestionable failure of the pro life efforts is easier to understand upon considering the limitations under which they have been conducted. The first limitation was brought about by the linkage principle. Thus, until 1991 the abortion issue was linked with the quest for nuclear disarmament. This intellectually deficient notion was the fruit of thought of the late Cardinal Bernadin, of whom I won’t write more here. Ironically, the nuclear danger of that time was removed by the demise of the Soviet empire, in which the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe under the Reagan administration played a decisive role.
When opposition to nuclear arms, or more accurately opposition to the U.S. possessing nuclear arms, lost its luster, capital punishment was adopted for linkage with abortion. Rejection of capital punishment was the position of the philosopher Karol Wojtyla, who later became Pope John Paul II, as well as of some American theologians and bishops. It is not, however, part of Catholic doctrine, nor does it follow from it. Rather, it was first propounded by people opposed to the Church and religion in general, and logically followed from their denial of the existence of an immortal soul. This topic, however, requires separate treatment.
The linkage approach had two destructive consequences. First, it pressed a wedge between Catholics and potential allies, who did not amalgamate their pro life position with extraneous theories. Second, and worse, it provided an excuse for many to accept and vote for abortion advocates that embraced the political positions artificially linked with the defense of innocent life argument. At one time, working on a pro life legislative initiative, I had a talk with a parish Respect Life coordinator. On my mentioning a notorious abortion pusher in Congress, the coordinator (a nun, by the way) replied: “No, she is pro life; she opposes capital punishment!” One might be even tempted to think that the linkage policy was cleverly put in place by someone secretly wishing to doom the anti abortion movement to failure.
Common sense dictates that even if the other topics, or concerns had great merits, they should have been pursued separately. Their linkage with the opposition to abortion suggested that the latter was not important enough to be pursued for itself. Even the adoption of the bland name Respect Life instead of something suggesting an active posture, for instance Defense of Life for parish offices or groups engaged in this line of endeavor suggests uneasiness with it.
Another limitation on the pro life activity comes from the official adoption by the Catholic Church, including by Rome itself, of Bismarckian Socialism, a truly secularist idea which, as an added irony, was first advanced by a virulently anti-Catholic statesman. As a consequence, the defense of life issue has been now linked with a motley collection of social, or rather socialist, concerns.
A newsman from Dallas reported on a revealing explanation of the 2008 presidential elections given by a Rev. Thomas Reese, Catholic priest:
“Catholic voters ignored the instructions of a group of vocal bishops and delivered 54% of their vote for Barack Obama as president of the United States. These bishops, led by Archbishops Charles Chaput and Raymond Burke, argued that abortion was the most important issue in the election and that no other issues outweighed it. As a result, they argued, Catholics could not vote for a pro-choice candidate. . . Although these bishops were a minority of the U.S. bishops, they received much attention in the media because other bishops kept silent or simply referred people to their 2007 document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. The silence of the majority gave the impression that the vocal bishops were speaking for all the bishops. . . . Most Catholics ignored the bishops who told them not to vote for a pro-choice candidate.” [1]
It appears thus that most of the bishops did not care much about the pro life argument (at least, that’s the impression they conveyed) and that the political participation of the faithful is morally regulated by the paper cited [2].
That particular statement of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (2007), is a verbose document, running on thirty pages (with pictures!). Reading it through, one may feel that its main concern was to deflect potential criticism from the usual enemies of the Church in the press and among politicians and so every statement is carefully hedged. Matters of heaven or hell are concatenated with prudential judgment statements and with contemporary fad issues, in a monumental heap of mush. Here is a sampling from the text:
“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity . . .
There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons . . .
It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual’s salvation (emphasis mine).”
One is at a loss to comment on the last remark.
With such a level of confusion, it’s no surprise that some individuals claiming to be pro life leaders not only voted for Obama but boasted about it [1,3], and that members of the pro abortion group Catholics for Choice are tolerated in all American dioceses but one [4].
Whereas the legal framework of our society is important and we have to make every effort to improve it, one should keep in mind that abortion is a form of service, regulated by supply (which legislation can favor or hinder) and demand. I use the term service in its general meaning of an activity requested by some and provided by others. Contract killing and drug trafficking are other examples. It is unquestionable that, were the demand for abortion to vanish, there would be little need for political efforts to ban the supply.
To counteract the demand side of the transaction, the first action actually being taken is praying near the entrances of abortion centers. Prayer is the most important action of a Christian. It always and everywhere helps both the one who prays and the one he prays for, so I certainly wish that this practice will continue and expand. Other activities consist mostly of seeking pregnant single women, convincing them to forgo abortion, helping them through pregnancy and childbirth, and providing material and other assistance during the time immediately after birth. It is not a uniquely American initiative. I visited a shelter, run by nuns, for such women in Spain.
As applied now, the help to unwed mothers is deficient, because it is not accompanied by the appropriate rebuke for the actions that brought them in that situation. This approach is most awkward for anyone who is part of a Christian church. After all, one may go to hell as readily on the grounds of the sixth commandment as of the fifth. Besides, the personal and social destructive consequences of families led by single mothers (other than widows) are well established. The reason for this deficiency is a justified fear that the women might respond to criticism by going away and having the abortion. Yet, the corporal work of mercy (giving food, clothing and shelter to the mother and child) should go together with the spiritual work of mercy (admonishing the sinner). I have not heard, however, of a bishop noting in public the inconsistency of the current approach, let alone proposing to do something about it. Moreover, it does not seem right to ask the government to eliminate the availability of abortion if people recorded as Catholics provide ample demand for it.
We are thus back to Ms. Alvare, who diagnosed so well the root of the problem. Moral catechesis is worse than deficient. It is almost nonexistent. Here are some illustrations: A while back, I spoke to a pastor on Long Island about an important respect life project. He replied that there is no point in doing it in his parish, because theirs is a heavily Jewish community and the parishioners have adopted the views and mores of the community. At about the same time, newspapers reported that two Catholic high schools in the same area canceled their proms when it was learned that the graduating seniors of the two sexes had reserved a sizable number of rooms in the area hotels, to spice up the occasion. And because small problems often grow into big problems, I should mention that the uniforms of students from some Catholic high schools that I saw, one in Manhattan’s East side (near 70th Street) the other in Northern Nassau County, sport hip-length skirts, which don’t reflect the best guidance from the relevant educators.
Unless such deficiencies are remedied, requests for legislative redress will not solve the problem. After all, the apostles did not petition Roman emperors from Claudius to Nerva. Instead, during that time they provided unambiguous commandments, clearly and succinctly formulated in Didache, as injunctions against common practices of those times (as of ours):
“Thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic; thou shalt not use philtres; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide. . . .” [5]
The people who received those instructions went on to change the world.

[1] Jeffrey Weiss: The Rev.Thomas Reese analyzes the Catholic vote — most didn’t follow the anti-abortion line; (The Dallas Morning News), 9:54 P.M. Tue, Nov. 04, 2008
[2] USCCB: Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States (long statement), Nov. 14, 2007;
[3] Douglas W.Kmiec: Barack Obama is a natural for the Catholic vote, Feb. 13, 2008;
[5] Didache, II, 2, quoted in: Rev. Fernand Mouret, S. S.: A History of the Catholic Church, translated by Rev. Newton Thompson; Herder Books, St. Louis, MO, 1931, vol. I, p. 91

Dan Fărcaşiu, July 2, 2014

The HHS Mandate on Contraceptives. A Critical History

Suits demanding exemptions from the HHS mandate on contraception and abortion covering in health insurance policies are to be decided by the Supreme Court. Most plaintiffs are Catholic organizations. Irrespective of the final outcome, it is appropriate to examine at this time how and why we have arrived in the situation of hanging on a Supreme Court decision.
On January 20, 2012, the HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, issued regulations on the implementation of the medical care and insurance law, colloquially named ObamaCare. The regulations cover “reproductive services,” meaning in fact anti-reproduction services. They require that all medical insurance plans offer contraceptive services, including abortion-inducing drugs. Exceptions were provided for church employees. Other religious institutions, such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes, were not exempted.
It was noted that ObamaCare leaves the Administration to decide what constitutes a religious organization and what conscience protection it deserves. The government also decides what is “health care,” what conditions are to be treated, who is entitled to medical care and to what extent, and how care is to be provided and paid for, with no considerations for “individual choices or ethical convictions.” The force of the government will impose the outcome from considerations of costs or ideology that will override religious conscience.[1]
The argument for the mandate was that everybody uses birth control agents. Insuring a general occurrence, however, makes no economic sense. It is cheaper for everybody to pay directly for the service than through the insurance; payment through government is the most expensive. The goal was then political
The mandate was bound to be controversial, so its timing was at first surprising. The promotion of abortion, contraception, and homosexual agenda were in his stated plan for government, but Mr. Obama is reputedly too astute a politician to start a controversy when the campaign for the next presidential election was heating up. After all, other evil aspects of the health care bill were hidden or scheduled to become effective in 2013 or later.
Information about the inside deliberations in preparation for the move, suggests that he expected a positive reaction. ABC News reported that a major role in reaching the decision was played by the Catholic members of the administration, Leon Panetta, Joe Biden and Bill Daley on one side, Kathleen Sebelius and David Plouffe on the other.[2] (Israeli blogs claim Plouffe is Jewish, but his biography notes he graduated from a diocesan Catholic high school.[3]) None of them argued the matter from religious or moral principles, but only for its potential to gain or lose votes. Panetta, Biden, and Daley thought that it might lose votes, but Plouffe and especially Sebelius argued that Catholics are very much in favor of birth control and free access to it.[4] This fitted Mr. Obama’s agenda and was also urged by his allies in Congress like Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and outside the government, like the Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.[2] (Another ally, Catholic Health Association president Sister Carol Keehan, welcomed the ObamaCare version without protection from abortion financing.[5])
The US Catholic bishops spoke forcefully against this measure. Acquiescing to such a diktat meant (perhaps this was its goal) denying the Catholics their identity, but the regulations attack all the citizens, by destroying the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion
The Administration replied along two lines: First, it stressed that individuals will not be obligated to use contraceptive services. Second, it claimed readiness to work with religious organizations, “to see if implementation of the policy can be done in a way that allays some of those concerns” (White House spokesman Jay Carney) [emphases added]
The first point confused the matter. It was not that individuals could choose to use or not use contraceptives and abortifacients but that Catholic institutions would have no choice but to pay for contraception and abortion. A religious institution has to operate faithfully according to its creed and persons that cannot abide by its rules should find work elsewhere. On the second point, the arrogance of White House’s response was striking. Essentially, they told the Catholic Bishops and all other critics: “We can talk with you if you insist, but rest assured it won’t make any difference.”
After negotiations involving Mr. Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Daley, and Archbishop Timothy Dolan (Head of US Conference of Catholic Bishops), the White House presented on Feb. 9 a modified plan: religious organizations still had to offer contraceptive coverage, but did not have to pay directly for it. The amended plan obviously disregarded the concerns expressed by the Archbishop.
The weakness of the bishops’ argument[6] was to claim exemption only for organizations. Not all Catholics work for religious organizations. Also, an agnostic opposing abortion and contraception should be protected, too. Christian charity compels us to demand that the conscience of all citizens be protected. We note that when a draft law was in effect, American citizens could claim “conscientious objector” status to avoid serving in combat.
Another weakness was that similar mandates have existed at state level, such as in New Hampshire and New York. Complying without protest were, for example, Catholic Charities and St. Anselm College (Benedictine) in NH, and Fordham University (Jesuit) in NY, although New York law allows waivers for faith-based entities. In New Hampshire, Diocese of Manchester and the Catholic Medical Center are self-insured and, therefore, exempt. The state mandates, however, were probably illegal under existing law, contravening the Religion Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.[7] On that basis, Catholic institutions that acquiesced to state mandates could have been brought out of them or ordered out by their bishops.
Even without the HHS regulations, ObamaCare was structured to circumvent conscience protections. Thus, the law does not prevent use of public money for abortions, because Rep. Bart Stupak (a Catholic, and the key vote for passing it[8]) accepted the President’s pledge to reaffirm by executive order the 1976 Hyde Amendment banning federal funding of abortions.[9] The Hyde Amendment, however, applies only to funds provided through annual appropriations bills. The Congressional Research Service found that no funds to be expended for ObamaCare plans will flow through HHS appropriations bills. Therefore, the Hyde amendment will not cover government expenditures for ObamaCare.[10] Mr.Stupak should have known that, but did not want to. Likewise the favorable reaction of the Catholic episcopate to the concept of nationalized health insurance underlying the law was ill-inspired. The danger of that approach to religious liberty is obvious. To protect the rights of all, the solution was not protection of organizations, but personalization of health insurance, so that each citizen can decide for himself whether to buy a specific coverage.
The contraception mandate and the lack of protection against abortion funding in ObamaCare have not been the only difficulties facing Catholics in the U.S. There has been a long push to transform the USA into a territory inhospitable for Christian faith. In matters of sexual morality, one should add the promotion of unnatural relationships, culminating with introduction of same-sex marriages. After a morally objectionable practice is accepted, it soon becomes politically incorrect to criticize it. In the end, one arrives at the situation in France, where a renowned physician was sent to jail for trying to pray in front of the Notre Dame church for abortion victims, or in Sweden, where a pastor can be jailed for stating from the pulpit that homosexual acts are sinful. Interestingly, some justices of the U.S. Supreme Court recommend that we trade our constitution for theirs!
In this context, the muted reaction from Catholics, particularly from the bishops, to the push for legalization of same-sex marriages has been disconcerting. Legalization occurred in Washington State[11] and in Maryland,[12] while we were all concerned with the contraception mandate. Yet, the two are facets of the same problem.
In any event, the bishops followed up on their denunciation of the mandate. Their messages were read in all churches and the faithful were urged to use the available political means to accomplish their rescindment. It became clear, however, after the failed negotiations involving Archbishop Dolan, that the only path to rescindment went through the elections of November 2012.
To analyze the result of the presidential elections, a comparison of votes cast by three groups of voters in 2008 and 2012 is most instructive (O = Obama, McC = McCain, R = Romney):[13]

Catholics: 2008, O 54%, McC 45%; 2012, O 50%, R 48%; O loss: 4
Jews: 2008, O 78%, McC 21%; 2012, O 69%, R 30%; O loss: 9
NR: 2008, O 75%, McC 23%; 2012, O 70%, R 26%; O loss: 5

The switch of Catholics from Obama in 2012 was half of that of Jewish voters and the same as that of those with no religious affiliation (NR). Whereas it might have been said (generously) that Catholics voted for Obama in 2008 because they didn’t know, the 2012 vote showed that they didn’t care. The comparison with the other groups suggests that even those who switched did not do so for moral reasons. The effect of bishops’ exhortation was nil. Likewise, the law adopted in December 2010,[14] repealing the so called “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy in the armed forces, did not seem to influence the Catholic vote in the congressional elections of 2012.
In an article of February 2012, a self-declared Catholic, Tim Padgett, wrote that according to polls the bishops no longer speak for most U.S. Catholics on issues like abortion, divorce, homosexuality, women priests and priests getting married, masturbation, premarital sex, and contraception. He stated that 98% of Catholic women ignore the ban on birth control, “in keeping with their faith’s precept of exercising personal conscience.”[15]. The implications of his statement are grim, but the 2012 elections seemed to bear him out.
As could have been expected, once reelected Mr. Obama wasted no time before starting the push to eliminate Christian morals from public life. Thus, his refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act was followed by an offensive through judicial channels using carefully selected judges, to force the same-sex “marriages” in state after state, against the will of state legislatures and of the citizens.
An enormous problem for maintaining Catholic principles and morals in the public place has been presented by the actions of members of the Catholic church with prominent positions in the society. A list (incomplete) of such persons is shown below. Notably, many of them are also products of Catholic education:
• Kathleen Sebelius: Summit Country Day School, Trinity Washington University (both Catholic); strongly pro abortion.
• Nancy Pelosi, US House Minority Leader, former Speaker: Institute of Notre Dame HS, Trinity College (both Catholic); strong supporter of every position incompatible with Catholic morals. After the first version of the HHS mandates was issued, she stated: “I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this.”
• Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor: St. Gerard’s School, Archbishop Molloy HS, Fordham University; attacked the other candidate for governor for being pro life. Promoted and signed the same-sex marriage bill. Recently, stated that people that strongly advocate pro life positions and the Catholic position on marriage are not welcome in his state.
• Martin O’Malley, MD Governor: Our Lady of Lourdes School, Gonzaga College HS, The Catholic University of America; supports federal funding on abortion, lobbied for a bill to legalize same-sex marriages, introduced it himself into the Legislature, and signed it when passed.
• Christine Gregoire, WA Governor: public school, Gonzaga U Law School (Jesuit); supports abortion and requiring pharmacies to sell morning-after pills, signed same-sex marriage law.
• John Lynch. NH Governor: public schools, Georgetown University Law Center; pro abortion, in favor of dispensing morning-after pills without prescription, signed same-sex marriage law.
• John Baldacci, ME Governor: public education; voted no on the partial birth abortion ban (while in Congress), signed same-sex marriage law (overturned by referendum).
• Barbara Mikulski, long term US Representative and Senator from MD: Institute of Notre Dame HS, Mount St. Agnes College; rated 100% by the pro abortion organization NARAL; has strongly promoted the homosexual agenda.
• Patty Murray, Senator from WA: public education, voted against partial birth abortion ban and parental notification, supports federal funding of abortion, was one of the three female Senators to support publicly the mandates when issued.
• Thomas Menino, five-term Mayor of Boston: Thomas Aqinal HS, attended Boston College (jesuit), but did not graduate; has supported abortion and taxpayer financing of it throughout his career. Going one step beyond his colleagues mentioned above, he abused verbally, threatening with retaliation against his business, an owner of a fast food chain “guilty” of expressing in an interview opinions on sexual purity and marriage identical to that taught and commanded by the Catholic Church
• The likely point of origin: Father Robert Drinan, S.J., MA congressman, advocated abortion before Roe v. Wade. After retiring from Congress, taught at Georgetown (1981- to his death in 2007).
Undoubtedly, as long as these politicians are not excised from the Church, the faithful in the pews will treat with indifference the exhortations of the bishops about morality of legislation.
It seems difficult to rationalize the bishops’ acceptance of “Catholics” like those listed. The explanation might be found in the adoption by the bishops (in America and elsewhere) of socialism as the method for helping the poor and achieving equality. According to this social model:
– The poor are not required to work for their living; they are not expected to strive to escape their condition. Poverty becomes permanent, hereditary. The poor are expected to demand to be provided with a living from the resources of the rich.
– The role of assigning people to the “poor” and “rich” categories belongs to the government. The latter provides for the upkeep of the poor, by confiscating a part of the resources of the rich. Expropriation is deemed theologically acceptable.[16](a)
– In practice, the government extends expropriation to the whole productive segment of the society. Additionally, the government refuses to be bound by moral restraints, invoking the separation of church and state.
– The right of the poor to sustenance is not limited to subsistence, but includes gratification, in which the government has included sexual satisfaction.
The virtue of providing for the poor through redistribution by the government seems to redeem every mortal sin and scandal. Being oneself wealthy and not giving to the poor more than the general expropriation does not detract from that virtue.
The Catholic institutions created to address social concerns also have fully embraced the philosophy and methods of the secular state.
The model contradicts the apostles,[17] and also Pope Pius XI,[16](b) therefore it must be more recent.
It was noted that the current situation shows a failure of catechesis in all three forms (from the pulpit, in the classroom and through example). The change in method cannot succeed, however, as long as the subject of catechesis contains basic contradictions. Moreover, these contradictions will continue to reduce the role of Catholic social institutions, until the care for the poor and education of children will be fully taken over by the government. Suits like those currently at the Supreme Court will then become moot.

[1] Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 7, 2012
[2] Jake Tapper, Feb. 9, 2012, Policy and Politics of Contraception Rule Fiercely Debated Within White House, ABC News, Feb. 9, 2012,

Click to access American_Catholicism%60s_Pact_With_The_Devil.pdf

[7] David B. Rifkin, Jr.& Edward Whelan, Birth-Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal, WSJ, Feb. 15, 2012
[12] timees
[16] John A. Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, New York, 1975, (a) pp. 386-388; (b) p. 387.
[17] (a) 2 Thessalonians, 3, 6-10; (b) 1 Corinthians, 9, 5;

Meaning and Implications for Catholics of Minimum Wage


A debate on minimum wage flares up periodically, as it does at this time. Much of the debate, however, is based on ignorance and misinformation. The compassionate argument reduces itself to the question: How could a family live on a minimum wage? The answer is, it does not. Thus, let’s consider a Mr. Smith with wife and two children, employed at $7.50/hr. If he works 50 weeks per year, he makes $15000 per year. Let’s say he earns $100 annually in interest (the paychecks are deposited in a bank).

Assuming the family pays for shelter (rent, heat, electricity, gas, water, telephone) a low $500 per month, it receives $405.35 of food stamps per month ($4864.20 per year).[1] If the shelter costs are higher, the aid is greater. In April, Mr. Smith files an income tax return and receives an earned income credit (EITC). payment of $5370,[2] bringing the family income to $25,334.20 per year. Additionally, the children receive free lunches at school, without any reduction of their food stamp benefits,[3] and they have free medical care in all states. Thus, half of the family’s income comes from charity, which should be the business of the church, rather than result from forcible confiscation and redistribution by the government.

The question arises: Why doesn’t Mrs. Smith work, say, four hours a day, when children are in school? Usually, because the added income would reduce the family’s benefits and it is not worthwhile to disturb herself for an effective pay of four dollars per hour or so. This is another negative moral effect of the scheme.

The poor family argument is in fact a red herring. Only a small fraction of minimum wage earners support a family. In addition, not all workers are forced into low paying jobs. For example, in my first years in the U.S. I found out that my experience did not matter much on the market: “Educated in Bucharest? Is that in Bulgaria, or where?” So, one day I went to a world-known professor at Princeton and offered my services as a postdoctoral investigator for a symbolic $1 per month. He had seen, however, some publications from my PhD research and hired me at 60% of the already low regular pay. As I was putting in 50 hours/week, my hourly pay was definitely below the minimum wage. Shortly thereafter, he hired my wife too, at 50%. One year later I was an instructor in the department and two years later both my wife and I had jobs with major companies.

In the same period, a physician, refugee from Romania, found work cutting grass in a cemetery at minimum wage, until he passed the examination to practice in NY.

Whereas those were personal examples, a minimum wage job is almost generally a first step for people with no experience, but with advancement in mind.

An elementary fact missed by partisans of dictating wages is that a salary is tied to the value produced by the employee through his work and that people are paid a low salary because that’s their output value. Nobody ever thought that farmers should sell their produce on the market at prices determined by the farmers’ family size. If the output value of low-paid workers surpassed their remuneration, they could refuse working for those wages and employers would have to accommodate them. In reality, if minimum-wage employees should quit, others would step in to take their jobs, knowing that their work can’t produce enough value for a higher salary. An increase in the minimum wage hides within the “salary” a part of the charity received and demeans the dignity of labor. It is in fact a hidden increase in public assistance payments and in the corporate tax. Having cooked the books on two lines, the government then makes uninformed people believe that it is all about protecting workers from “corporate greed.”

Negative consequences of political, rather than economical, control of salaries are many. Thus, there was a time when all office buildings had elevator attendants, mostly youngsters at their first job. Working, they learned to be on time, to be responsible, to know the layout of the building, to be neat, to be polite. Their cost to the employers was just a little cheaper than the operation, maintenance, and depreciation of an automated system. After a few years most went on to better jobs, sometimes in the same building. When the mandated minimum wage made the automated system cheaper, they were all on the streets. (It seems, though, that during the transition there was a bonanza for elevator manufacturers.)[4]

Some people argue that employers should have kept those workers at a loss. They blame “corporate greed.” for the bad consequences. “Corporate greed” is nonsense, just like “corporate gluttony” or “corporate lust,” or even “corporate charity.” Corporations can’t go to Heaven. They should make profits by legal means. In that way they help consumers, their employees (even those in the lowest positions are owners of company stock), and also retired workers whose pension funds are invested, etc. Companies that don’t make profits go bankrupt and all the jobs are lost.

Some minimum wage earners don’t even work for corporations. I witnessed how a minimum wage increase during the Clinton presidency robbed some students of the opportunity of doing (actually learning) research on small sums that professors had as remnants from research grants. Suddenly, the hourly paid student research helpers became unaffordable. It has been noted that the minimum wage increases also reduce the number of department-paid campus jobs.[5]

As shown by the examples given above, the main losers from minimum wage hikes are the least qualified and experienced workers, whom the move is claimed to help. Thus, youth unemployment, which was below 15% before the 2007 minimum wage hike, soared to 27% by October 2009, and is still very high.[6] The presence of a parent working steadily, however, helps educate a youngster for his first job. The societal unraveling of the family removes that mitigating factor. Counteracting that plague should be a first priority of the church. As explained by D. P. Moynihan (later a US senator for the Democratic Party), the government welfare programs have had a disastrous effect on black families.[7] Unsurprisingly, the unemployment for young blacks is higher than 35%.[8]

A salary hike does not always lead to the termination of all minimum wage earners. Also, the hike never affects only the minimum wage. For instance, if in the company the salary next to the lowest is $12/hr, those workers make 60% more than ‘Mr. Smith,’ a ratio determined by the relative value of their output. After Mr. Smith gets a raise from $7.50 to $10/hr, the pay ratio shrinks to 1.2, but the output value ratio is still 1.6, a situation unfair and unacceptable to the more productive workers, which demand, and receive, a raise as well. The move is repeated upwards the salary scale. As a matter of fact, labor unions routinely set the salaries in the collective bargaining at certain ratios to the legal minimum wage. Naturally, the unions are champions of raising the latter. In turn, politicians who depend upon union support, do their best to fulfil that request.

All these extra costs imposed on the companies are distributed in the company’s finances; a major part must go into higher prices for the products sold. The people with below average income suffer the most. In this race between prices and salaries, the only beneficiary is the government, which confiscates and redistributes, thus increasing its power. Another consequence is that more and more companies are pushed outside worldwide competition. Their production moves to China, Thailand, or some other place..

Most important, however, the replacement of Christian mercy for the poor under the auspices of the Church by the forced wealth transfer ordered by the secular government is destructive for the soul and marginalizes the Church in the society.


[2] www.







Dan Fãrcaºiu

Gun Control and Nuclear Disarmament

Whenever innocent people are murdered by some deranged individual, a certain category of people start clamoring for removal of firearms from sane and responsible owners.

The attitude manifested by the inciters to gun confiscation is not unique to the subject, but has been manifested, for example, in the campaign for (unilateral) nuclear disarmament which reached its peak about thirty years ago. The argument put forward, then as now, was that if only the good guys would renounce their arms, the bad guys, somehow, will give up theirs, too.

The difference in approach is that, at least so far, we haven’t seen mass demonstrations, sit-ins, etc. demanding a law to ban “assault weapons.” The anti-gun fight is for now limited to individual acts of the same groups, if not persons, active in the “struggle for peace” of yesteryear. We hear pronouncements of ill-informed TV pundits (who somehow happen to send their children to schools with armed guards), academics thoroughly insulated from real life, and such politicians as Michael Bloomberg and Charles Schumer. They keep insisting that gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens would reduce the occurrence of crimes.

Yet, the empirical evidence goes against their representation. Already in 1998, John Lott has published an ample and very documented study proving that possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a deterrent to crime. Also, local customs are important. Thus, gun-related homicide rate is 2.7 times higher in the Philippines than in the U.S., whereas gun ownership is 19 times higher in the U.S. than in the Philippines, where there are strict licensing laws and firearm possession is limited to a pistol and a rifle or shotgun (no assault weapons).[2]

Likewise, the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe during the Reagan administration, opposed most strenuously and with much property damage by the “champions of peace” played a major role in the elimination of the danger of nuclear war at that time and the demise of the Soviet Union in the bargain.

These arguments have no effect on Messrs. Bloomberg and Schumer; they are men of few ideas and those are all preconceived.

If the concept that “it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun” is so far fetched as these politicians claim, why did they approve of armed air marshals in commercial air flights? It is hard to imagine a stricter gun control for good guys than on the airplane.

To take Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Schumer seriously, they should:

– First provide a statistical survey (not doctored) of the ratio of crimes committed with legal (i.e., committed by the legal owners) versus illegal guns.

– If the ratio is less than one, they should keep quiet about confiscating legal guns until they finish collecting the illegal ones.

– They should start with a report on the success of retrieval of automatic weapons that the Obama administration has distributed among drug trafficking gangs in Mexico.

The attacks on (U.S.-held) nuclear weapons and on gun rights originate in uneasiness of socialists with free people. In the socialist model, the human beings are powerless atoms carried by the flow of historical determinism. Free men attempting to carve their own fate and countries of free men don’t fit the model. They are sincerely believed to be aberrations that impede the progress of the society and need to be eliminated.

The difference in substance between the efforts for nuclear disarmament and those for banning private ownership of guns in the U.S. is that the former addressed a government policy stand and the second a constitutional right of citizens. Therefore, the gun control forces have tried to redefine the meaning of the second amendment; recently, some calls to do away with the second amendment have been heard.

One significant limitation sought refers to the potency of allowable weapons. For example, the former Congressman Bob Michel stated that private gun owners should not have clips as large as he had in the Normandy invasion. In a bout of shouting in front of the state legislature, Gov. Cuomo of N.Y. said that one does not need an assault weapon to hunt deers. Equally clueless, the legislature passed a bill infringing upon the rights of citizens. The constitution has nothing in it about deers, but mentions the importance of a “well-regulated militia.” This phrase is used by some as an argument that militias, that is military formations of the states, have the right to own arms,  but the citizens do not. That interpretation is ignorant.

When the constitution was adopted, members of militias served when called, but did not undergo weapon training. They came to service with their personal weapons and were proficient in their use. The only training needed was for operating in large formations. (They acquired experience in operating in small formations by serving in posses.) The militia units were rather informally recruited and the officers were elected. Information is found in the memoirs of Davy Crockett, relating the Creek war of 1813.[3] It is thus clear that the second Amendment meant that the citizens should possess the same weapons as the army in combat.

It is interesting that the first large-scale involvement of American militias was fighting the lawful government of the time, that of King George III, who the citizens concluded had degenerated into a tyranny. Even after the American revolution, Thomas Jefferson stressed in his writings the right of citizens to take arms against their government if their liberty is threatened.

[1] John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns Less Crime, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998.

[2] Jeff Stacklin, Philippines shootings illustrate worldwide gun violence problem, Yahoo! News, 4 Jan. 2013;–190043649.html

[3] David Crockett, Davy Crockett: His Own Story, Applewood Books, Bedford, MA, 1993 (originally published in 1834), Ch. V.

Encomium to the rich

At this time, many among the politicians, opinion writers, and the general public give themselves to vilifying the rich. On a closer look, however, this attitude can hardly be justified:

– The rich pay by far most of the income taxes at federal, state, and local levels. Yet, they receive exactly the same level of services from the government as the paupers. That notwithstanding, Read more of this post

Four Commentaries on Healthcare


In 2007, Mr. Elliot Spitzer initiated a reform of health care in New York state. Stating that one in seven New Yorkers has no health insurance; he promised to provide coverage for all. Read more of this post

Rape and Abortion

Two scientifically established facts will constitute the premise for this discussion:[1]

First, an embryo is never a part of the body of the mother.This fact is proven by in vitro fertilization combined with surrogate motherhood. In that situation, the biological mother never has the baby inside herself and the surrogate mother receives and carries a child with whom she has no genetic relationship, stipulated by contract to be someone else’s. Read more of this post