Jonathan Gruber and abuse of power

I'm getting political because this is about morality. This touches on sins that, according to Catholic tradition and Scripture, "cry out to heaven for vengeance": oppression of the poor and defrauding the worker of his just wages. Not to mention a violation of the Eighth Commandment against bearing false witness. 

This man, this Professor Jonathan Gruber of MIT, this elite, arrogant academic who called the American people stupid time and again (watch the video), happily pocketed a cool six million of those taxpayers' dollars (suckers!) while admitting to deceiving and manipulating the public in order to force through Obamacare (watch the video), a scheme that has cost many working folks their health care plans and has raised premiums and deductibles through the roof. 

I repeat: For the privilege of perpetuating a massive fraud about which he openly brags, Gruber was paid $6 million dollars. Take a look:

The question isn't Why does Jonathan Gruber still have a job at MIT? (though it's a good question), but why is he still walking around free?

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Government has unlimited power and resources, which is why it is infinitely more dangerous than any corporation. Gruber is untouched because this was government work, and the most powerful people in the nation were totally on board with what he did (even if they now conveniently deny knowing the chap, which is laughable in this age of video proof). 

Corrupt government, unlike corrupt business, is almost never accountable. If one or more executives in the private sector had been caught committing such massive and systematic fraud while raking in millions, we know what would happen and how the press would be all over it. Think Enron and Bernie Madoff for starters. 

I guess my question is for those who have supported Obama and Obamacare. What do you think of this? What do you believe about the morality here? Do you believe, as Gruber stated, that the ends justify the means? That lying and scheming and obfuscating are necessary to get to the "good outcome" that will bring about wonderful things?

One of the reasons I write this blog is that I want a record for my children and grandchildren. When the world has gone haywire (and when hasn't it, really?), I want a written account of what I believed and why. This scandal is an injustice and I will use my very small voice to speak against it. I am on the record.

I am very much interested in the reactions of my readers, and especially those on the left. 

Subsidiarity: Why haven't I heard this before?

I think of this as a boring but important post. I'll keep it short, so stay with me. (And try to stifle your yawns!)

You've heard of "social justice" but have you heard of "subsidiarity"?

I hadn't, until about a year or two ago. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity has been added to my list of "Why haven't I heard this before??" (along with the three stages of holiness and the natural law).

So, here we go...

The definition of "subsidiarity" according to Wikipedia:

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle [which holds] that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. 

The definition of "subsidiarity" according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

[T]he principle that central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. 

In other words, if something can be done by a smaller and more simple organization (as opposed to a larger and more complex one) then it should be. The family is the simplest, most "local" organization in the social order, followed by such organizations as the neighborhood, city, state, nation, and the like. The more complicated, further removed and more centralized an entity or authority, the less effective, more impersonal, and even more harmful are its interventions into areas proper to smaller and more local authorities.

Subsidiarity holds that decisions and policies should be made at the lowest level possible, and intervention by higher and bigger social organizations should only be undertaken when those lower levels truly need and desire a supporting (not usurping!) action.

What's really cool is that subsidiarity is a Catholic principle, sprung from Catholic social teaching.

Pope Pius XI wrote of it here:

As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. (Quadragesimo Anno, 1931)

Sixty years later, Blessed John Paul II warned of the dangers that come from violating the principle of subsidiarity, namely, the modern welfare state:

[E]xcesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. 

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. (Centesimus annus, 1991)

The role of the family must not be usurped by communities and cities, the role of cities must not be usurped by states, and the role of states must not be usurped by the federal government. Worst of all is when the federal government overtakes a role proper to the family.

On a personal note: It's frustrating when well-meaning Catholic proponents of social justice claim that a vote against more and bigger federal social programs is somehow "un-Catholic." Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, as the Catholic principles of social justice must never be divorced from the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

But the misunderstanding is not really their fault, as they probably have never even heard of subsidiarity. Which leads me back to my original question:

Catholics, were you ever taught about the principle of subsidiarity?





.