The President has a new tax plan which, predictably, he is promoting as providing “the largest tax cuts in U.S. history.” The truth is that, if his proposals are enacted, the only people who will be cheering will be the top 1%.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that by 2027 Trump’s proposals would result in a tax increase for a quarter of middle class families. The same tax experts say that 80% of the gains will go to the top 1% of Americans.

There would be a cut in the highest individual rates, a reduction in corporate taxes and an end to the estate tax, which Republicans call the death tax, but which only applies to the relatively few affluent estates worth more than five and a half million.

How do Republicans led by President Trump plan to balance the books? How do they avoid ballooning the deficit which they claim repeatedly is anathema to them? Their main argument is that big tax cuts will lead to significant increases in employment numbers and workers’ wages, which, in turn, will result in larger tax revenue and thus cover most of the increase in the deficit.

Part of their plan involves repatriation of overseas company profits, variously estimated at from three to five trillion, at a new very low tax rate, and the belief that this money will trickle down to ordinary workers to the tune of an estimated $4000 per family. Anyone who believes that this bit of chicanery will end up in increases in workers’ paychecks should look at that bridge that is for sale in Brooklyn.

Every major Republican since Ronald Reagan has given full and seemingly unquestioned allegiance and credibility to the Trickle Down Theory of Economics. In a nutshell, this states that if a government gives big tax breaks to the wealthy, the new money accrued by the rich will somehow be passed on to the middle class and the poor.

A hundred years ago this thinking had a more imaginative name: the Horse and Sparrow Theory, based on its claim that if you feed a horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows to peck on. In the last general election in New Zealand, Damien O’Connor, a leader of the Labor Party there, memorably described the theory as “the rich peeing on the poor!”

Most economists reject the assertion that the way to help the people at the bottom is to enrich the plutocrats at the top. In fact, a few highly-regarded studies show clearly that when low and middle class workers get extra tax benefits in their paychecks it results in a real increase in their living standard and more broadly in improved economic activity in the wider community.

The state of Kansas provides an excellent and up-to-date example of the effectiveness of the Trickle Down Theory, which is also often spoken of as supply-side economics. Sam Brownback rode the Tea Party wave to the governor’s office in Topeka in 2010, and he was re-elected in 2014. He promised to make Kansas “a red-state model” for Trickle Down economics, and indeed he reduced tax rates and the number of brackets and created special accounting privileges for businesses.

But the “miracle” never happened. Instead state education spending dropped by 15%, severely impacting the poorest districts. Pot-holed highways reminded voters how services had deteriorated, and instead of the promised burst of growth, the Kansas economy grew by just 0.2% last year compared to 1.6% nationally.

The Brownback budgeting experiment resulted in revenues dwindling to the extent that the state legislators of both parties passed a budget that increased revenue by 1.2 billion dollars over two years and then overrode the Governor’s veto of this legislation.

The lesson is that this trickle-down template does not work as promised. Huge tax cuts do not magically result in economic growth and more revenue. Common sense strongly suggests that when government wants to give back some money to taxpayers, the results are much more likely to be positive for the community if the money is distributed among those who will spend it rather than giving it to people who are more likely to hoard it. Kansas experimented with Trickle Down and it was a disaster for that state.

The Trump budget proposals would massively re-distribute wealth upwards while trimming social programs – like food stamps – that provide some help for the poor. Where is the outrage about these misguided and cruel policies from evangelical Christians and Catholics, who strongly supported the Trump candidacy, and claim to be guided by the moral standards in the Old and New Testaments?

Giving more money to those who don’t need it while reducing the meager entitlements of the poor is surely the very antithesis of Christian social teaching. Considering this budget in conjunction with various Republican proposals that would end healthcare coverage for millions of struggling middle-income families, which they have now under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, should surely elicit outrage among church leaders. These are quintessentially moral issues that should be heard about from our pulpits.

Pope Francis is very clear about the cruel deception of Trickle-Down Economics: “The promise was that when the glass is full, it would overflow, benefiting the poor, but what happens is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger. Nothing EVER comes out for the poor.”

Sam Brownback, a devout Catholic, is still preaching the Trickle Down gospel, despite the evidence of its dismal failure in his own state.

The budget that any government proposes reveals clearly the priorities that it has decided to pursue in the coming year or sometimes over a longer period. Budget discussions are due to start in Washington soon after the fall session begins next month.

Unlike the recent Healthcare fiasco where the President rounded on the Republican congressional leaders for their failure to pass a bill while he himself had no alternative proposal, he has spoken clearly about a detailed White House plan that represents his values in the upcoming budget negotiations.

First he wants a massive $800 billion cut in mandatory spending over the next ten years. Nearly all of these cuts come in programs that help the poor, including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP – which used to be known as the food stamp program) and Supplemental Security Income(SSI) which is designed to help the elderly and the disabled.

Consider who these cuts will impact most. Medicaid mostly helps the poor, but dollars from this program are used by States for a variety of programs. For instance, 70% of the people in nursing homes have all or part of the expensive cost of their care paid for from Medicaid funds. SNAP mostly benefits families with one wage-earner; the proposed cutbacks in this program end food stamp entitlement with the seventh offspring. It is hard to believe that such an egregious regulation, discriminating against big families, is being proposed by the party that constantly trumpets its pro-life commitment.

Another important dimension of this Trump proposal is his plan to increase the military budget by $43 billion. At the same time the President wants to make severe cuts to assistance for overseas development programs for poor countries. He also plans to reduce the diplomatic service, which operates out of the State Department, by more than 20%. All of this while the United Nations is warning about impending famines in countries in the Horn of Africa.

The President is also clear about the changes he wants in the tax code. His promise that all taxpayers will see a reduction in their annual tax liability is deceptive because it suggests equal treatment of everyone reporting to the IRS. In fact, millionaires and multi-millionaires will pay far less while the benefits to the average taxpayer will be miniscule.

The conservative rationale for this approach centers on the belief that when the rich get richer there are trickle-down benefits for the poor. This piece of convenient rationalization by the 1% who own over 90% of the wealth in America, was dealt with very trenchantly by Pope Francis when he said: “The promise was when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefiting the poor, but what really happens is when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger. Nothing ever comes out for the poor.”

Mentioning the Pope highlights the fact that a budget is a highly moral document. There is a clear and unambiguous biblical mandate found repeatedly in both Testaments to protect poor and marginalized people. Cutting meager food stamp payments while giving more benefits to those who already have plenty is, at face biblical value, a moral monstrosity.

I read recently of a group of Christians from all denominations who are engaged in weekly prayer and fasting to protest the upcoming budget. In a public statement these admirable Christians wrote: “The biblical prophets remind us that how we treat the most marginal and vulnerable among us is the test of a nation’s moral righteousness. We have deep moral concerns about the way that this budget will impact those we are called to protect.”

Conservative groups in Congress and in the White House meet regularly for prayer breakfasts where they listen to preachers remind them of their ethical obligations. What story do they tell each other about the plight of poor people? Do they have some profound rationale, some deep moral perspective, that could justify slashing food stamp allowances by 25% or programs for the disabled by 20%?

The American way of solving problems is often spoken of as pragmatic. In this approach the truth of any idea is determined by its practical outcomes. Every proposal is viewed not through the prism of some theoretical principle or dogma but is judged solely on its actual impact on people’s lives.

Consider the American health care system and, for now, leave aside any consideration of ideology and assess the way we deal with this vital issue strictly from a pragmatic viewpoint where only results matter.

The annual per capita spending for health care in the United States comes to $9451, but about 40 million people have no coverage of any kind. After all that spending, you might expect that American life expectancy of 79 years would be at the top of the international ratings. Not so. In our nearest neighbor, Canada, where everybody is covered at a cost of $4608 per person, longevity is 82 years.

A few more examples highlighting cost and extent of coverage in other Western democratic countries are instructive. In Germany where people on average live to the age of 81 and health insurance is mandated for everybody, the per capita cost is $5267. In Japan the cost per person for health insurance is $4150 and, on average people live five years longer than in the US – again universal health insurance is required by law there.

Staying with pragmatic considerations, how do the millions of uninsured people manage in the United States? They get no preventive care, no check-ups which often identify medical problems early and allow for lifestyle changes or palliative medications. So when they get sick they are rushed to the nearest emergency room where the cost of treatment is at a premium.

Economic and practical considerations alone strongly indicate that having tens of millions of uninsured people who can’t afford preventive care is a very inefficient and wasteful way to organize a health coverage system.

Where is the famous American pragmatism which works in many other areas of the economy? We are paying far more than other Western countries but living shorter lives, and tens of millions of our citizens have no medical coverage. Leaving aside for now humanitarian considerations, just from a business point of view, this is a dreadful deal.

President Trump and most of his cabinet are billionaire business people. We were told repeatedly during the Presidential campaign about all the problems that the Obama and Bush leadership teams failed to solve because of incompetence. Stand back and just watch how the super-rich apply business acumen to running the country.

Obamacare was and still is their first big bete noir and candidate Trump promised daily to scrap it. However, in doing so he promised that there would be no cutbacks in Medicare or Medicaid and somehow deductibles and co-payments would also be trimmed. Trumpcare would increase the number of people covered while ending the Obama mandate that required all citizens to buy health insurance.

Well the Healthcare Bill that passed the House of Representatives with the enthusiastic support of the White House, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, would end coverage for over 22 million people by massively reducing federal Medicaid payments to the States. The President was elated that the Bill passed, and he invited all the House Republicans for an unprecedented celebratory drink in the White House.

A few weeks later as he tried to persuade moderate Senators to vote for Senate leader McConnell’s proposals, he called the House effort “mean.” Then he tweeted that Obamacare should just be repealed and the messy business of replacing it could be dealt with at a later date. That would result in 32 million being removed from coverage. Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up!

Pulling back from all this talk about fixing or replacing Obamacare, one has to ask why the United States, the most powerful and richest country in the world, doesn’t have a health care policy that covers all residents. The other Western democracies cover all their citizens, irrespective of age or income. Why is America different?

Excluding millions who can’t afford to pay insurance premiums does not meet acceptable humanitarian standards. The present inhumane policy of the survival of the fittest demeans our democracy.

Obamacare, while well short of providing universal care, brought coverage to millions previously uninsured. All the emerging Trumpcare proposals instead of expanding the numbers covered have the very opposite effect.

More than 80% of evangelical Christians and close to 60% of non-Hispanic white Catholics supported Trump last November. Yet I see no evidence of a Christian influence in White House policies, especially in this vital area of life and death for so many where the poor are really vulnerable.

Adding insult to injury, the money saved in Medicaid, which mostly helps the poor, by any version of the Republican proposals goes mostly in massive tax savings for the rich. This is not hidden or camouflaged in any way – Robin Hood in reverse in broad daylight. The amount involved hovers around 700 billion.

Maybe we should set aside moral considerations about Trumpcare and not consider the repeated biblical injunctions about how the poor should be treated. It may well be more productive to concentrate on the pragmatic arguments for radical change because the present system costs far too much and fails to cover millions of citizens.

Asking Is the pope Catholic is widely understood as a rhetorical question indicating that the only answer has to be “yes.” How could anyone cast doubt on the pope’s religious affiliation?

Amazingly, a small but powerful minority of Catholic theologians and church leaders are doing just that, and they raise real doubts about his commitment to what they consider core Catholic beliefs.

A minority of these dissidents believe that the church has already veered into schism while others assert that Francis’ statements on some important moral issues have caused serious confusion and bewilderment among the faithful.

How does one explain this extraordinary situation?

In 2014 and 2015 the Synod of Bishops met at Francis’ invitation to consider how best the church could minister to the modern family in all its permutations, including divorced people in new relationships and members in same sex partnerships.

Two approaches were evident in this all-male assembly. One group argued that only an exclusive marriage union of man and woman is morally permissible. Divorce is completely out except where the divorced partner has received a church annulment. They argue that it has always been church teaching that someone in a second marital relationship – while the first spouse is still alive – is committing adultery which rules that person out from receiving communion.

The second group, following more liberal thinking, doesn’t dispute the church history of teaching against allowing the remarriage of divorced church members, but they stress that a pastoral approach to people in new marital relationships should not exclude them from participating in the most revered Catholic sacrament, the Eucharist.

These theologians point to the example of Christ who scorned many of the pharisaic laws of his time in favor of a perspective characterized by mercy and forgiveness. Pope Francis supports this approach.

Cardinal Muller who was Francis’ doctrinal leader in the Vatican made no bones about his opposition to his boss: “No power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel or the pope, has the power to change church doctrine.” This confrontational statement implied that the pope was acting beyond his authority when he opened the door to divorced church members receiving communion in his statement, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) published following the bishops’ synod deliberations.

Four other cardinals, including the American Cardinal Burke, wrote a formal letter, called a “dubia” or doubt document, in the fall of 2016 disputing parts of Amoris Laetitia. They argued that it is an article of faith that church doctrine can never change, and they were clear that the ban on adulterers – their language – receiving communion could never be lifted.

Many conservative theologians supported the cardinals’ dubia and urged Francis to meet with the dissidents to assure them that he fully supported traditional doctrine. Talk about papal heresy was only mentioned by a few clerics and theologians on the far right but there is no denying that many church conservatives are openly dissatisfied with Pope Francis.

There are other issues that seriously divide the Catholic Church. Francis’ predecessor, Benedict, spoke of homosexual relationships as profoundly disordered and against the laws of nature. Francis would never use such negative and demeaning language. His attitude to gays is best summed up as “live and let live and don’t play God.”

He has met with transgender people and many gay partners in his office in the Vatican, at all times proclaiming that, especially in matters of sexual ethics, only God judges and even as pope he is not asking for a share in this responsibility! He appointed Blase Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago even though Cupich openly supports welcoming homosexual couples to the altar rails for communion.

Francis travelled to Sweden to celebrate with Lutheran leaders the contributions of Martin Luther to religious progress. He pronounced that Luther was “a witness to the gospel” and the Vatican issued a stamp honoring him. Traditionalists were aghast at this behavior. They have consigned Luther to the hottest corner of hell and recall the history of hatred and wars that they say his heretical revolt against Rome started 500 years ago.

They accuse Francis of relativism, an excessive openness to changing with the times. In the world of Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics what was morally wrong a thousand years ago continues to be wrong for all time and in all cultures. This is basic teaching for nearly all traditionalists. There is no place in this thinking for what is derided as situation ethics which allows for variations in what is right and wrong, depending on place, time and circumstances.

These divisions are very evident in the American church. The United States conference of bishops at their recent meeting in Baltimore agreed that following on Amoris Laetitia they will publish a document next year on meeting the complex needs of families in the United States. It seems that many of those attending want to use Humanae Vitae, the discredited 50-year old encyclical of Paul V1 which condemned the use of condoms and contraceptive pills by Catholics, as somehow a template for their 2019 letter.

This does not augur well for a pastoral letter on the changing demands of family life. It is also depressing for progressive Catholics that the bishops elected a conservative Kansas archbishop to oversee the Pro-Life Activities Committee over Cardinal Blase Cupich who mirrors Francis’ pastoral approach.

Pope Francis is the most respected public figure in the world. His people in what he calls the field hospital of life are behind his agenda to move the church forward from a mostly static and immovable institution to a dynamic positive force for all people in the 21st century. He surely deserves our prayers and goodwill.

I invite readers to join me in a modest experiment in theoretical economics.
The manager in a town with a population of 5000 finds that she has a surplus of a million dollars coming to the end of the financial year. She decides to distribute it in whatever way is deemed most likely to generate economic activity that will benefit the whole town.
One senior advisor strongly recommends that she divide the money among the 50 richest and most financially successful local people. This expert was very clear that these rich people, all with life stories indicating a high level of success in fiscal matters, would make the best use of the $20,000 check that each would receive, and this would redound to the advantage of the whole community.
Another advisor had a very different perspective. He counseled that the money should be distributed among the 500 poorest people in the town. He argued that the $2000 that each person in this arrangement would receive would generate far more economic activity locally than the other option. This expert pointed out that by giving the surplus one million to the people struggling at the bottom of the economic ladder she could be certain that most of the money would be spent quickly with nearly all the advantages accruing to local businesses.
You are the judge of the two approaches, the first is aptly called trickle-down and the second can be dubbed trickle-up, but please don’t write this off as just an intellectual game. It is really serious and the choices involved are being made every day by Republicans in Washington in favor of option one: give more money to the rich, give them big tax breaks – 650 billion over ten years in the most recent proposal – and somehow everyone will be better off.

Some readers may recall Pete Hamill’s articles in the New York Post in the 1970’s when that newspaper had real credibility in the tristate area. He wrote about the outrages of his time in strong, direct language. From the carnage in Vietnam to family-destroying poverty at home to the disgraceful plight of nationalists in Northern Ireland, Pete conveyed his deeply-felt disgust and harsh criticism of the status quo. This was not just an intellectual exercise for Hamill because his heart was openly in every paragraph.

I thought of his genuine espousal of the journalism of outrage when I heard the contents of the Republican Bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare. Their proposal involves removing about 20 million people from the health insurance policies that they now have, and the savings in Medicaid and in the current subsidies for individuals and families, estimated at 600 billion over ten years, will go in tax reductions to the rich – and the more affluent you are the more you benefit. Yes, a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives passed this bill and then joined the President in the White House to drink champagne to celebrate their sordid success.

The Democrats have condemned the new Bill in the strongest terms and promised to defeat it in the Senate. But where are the church leaders, the moral leaders, where is their outrage? Why have I not heard a sermon about the moral abomination of this legislation? Has nobody read the bible, both Testaments, where abusing the poor is the first cardinal sin?

Paul Ryan, a churchgoing Catholic, led this assault on the poor as Speaker of the House and, shamefully, was a central part of the subsequent celebratory backslapping in the White House. I have not heard any suggestion that he has even received a finger-wagging by any church dignitary or theologian for his leadership in passing this morally repulsive legislation.

The argument that Ryan and others trotted out repeatedly on television is that everybody will have access to any health care policy they want. Of course, nobody ever said that access is the problem because the poor, including millions of workers, can’t afford to pay for a policy without government subsidies. Access is obviously not the issue – paying for coverage is.

They also argue that the government should not force young healthy people to have insurance coverage, thus rejecting a central tenet of the ACA. This runs counter to a needed sense of community and solidarity among Americans and neglects the obvious point that today’s ebullient youth are tomorrow’s vulnerable seniors.

The first moral question in Catholic social teaching for judging any proposed legislation asks: How does this impact the common good? Promoting a culture of selfishness has disastrous consequences in any community and clearly fails the critical “common good” test.

Allowing young people to opt out of coverage is a blatant pander to people’s worst instincts. Who pays for the uninsured young person who gets sick? Who foots the bill for the uninsured young woman who discovers she has a latent pre-existing condition? I’m alright Jack and don’t look to me to cover the insurance costs of older vulnerable people – unless of course I am in an accident and must rely on the government to pay for my emergency care!

Obamacare has problems that need to be addressed, but the central item in the Republican agenda since the Bill was passed eight years ago has been to repeal and replace it completely. Amazingly, they had eight years to come up with an alternative and the disgraceful Bill that just passed the House is the best they can do!

In arguing against the Affordable Care Act, Republicans repeatedly cite problems in some states where there are issues leading to large increases in the cost of some policies. Indeed, there are issues that need to be dealt with, but it is also a fact that overall insurance prices have increased less under Obamacare than in the years before its introduction.

All other Western countries have universal coverage for their citizens and their costs per capita are significantly less than in the United States. These other countries follow different approaches, some involving private insurance companies and employer-based systems as well as the government-pays-all arrangement. Surely, the United States could design a system that respects the positive aspects of our history of providing medical coverage while mandating that everyone must have a policy.

In an interview a few years before he ran for office, Mr. Trump opined that it is unacceptable that any citizen should be without health care coverage. And, indeed, during questions at a recent press conference with the Australian prime minister, he commended the system in his visitor’s country as better than what exists in America.

More people are covered under Obamacare than ever before, but, while that is a big step in the right direction, it too is insufficient. The blatant unfairness of the Republican Bill highlights the need for universal coverage, for a system that ensures proper preventive care for every citizen as well as good professional treatment when a person is ill. That should be seen as a human right and a moral imperative

CTA Contributor – Art McGrath 1.17.17

Cardinal Dolan’s recent letter to his Bishops, Priests and Deacons covered in the attached National Catholic Reporter article sadly reflects a defensive posture one wouldn’t hope to read in a letter from a Pastor’s Pastor.  I suspect the lack of transparency, collegiality and co-responsibility in the New York Archdiocese called for in Vatican II contributes to the apparent atmosphere of paranoia and lack of trust he so clearly describes in his letter.  Who would ever expect a letter from the Servant of the Pastors of the Archdiocese to speak to his priests using the words, conniving, stingy, nasty, money grabbing and mistrust.  Apparently obedience and conformance to the Cardinal’s expectations are more important than building trust, community and ownership of the pastoral work of the archdiocese.

To read the letter, click the following link.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/cardinal-dolan-contemplates-selling-ny-chancery-biting-letter-priests

The title of this article will put many people off – climate change is viewed as involving very complex issues and few people want to hear about disappearing coral reefs or the impact of thawing permafrost on the heating of the planet. It is much easier to espouse an opinion on how to deal with the dictators in Syria or North Korea or to take a stand on that famous wall on the Mexican border.
Most people are engaged with day-to-day issues that impact their lives – taxes, prices in the supermarket and the effectiveness of our educational system. However, in this context we need to consider the longer-term effects of our behavior and the policies that our government pursues. American Indian wisdom urges us to take responsibility for how our actions or inaction affect people’s lives “seven generations” from now.
Americans are divided on the reality and seriousness of global warming. More than 95% of climate scientists are clear that we are facing urgent problems caused mostly by carbon emissions in the atmosphere, mainly generated by coal and oil. The rising ocean levels and retreating glaciers are clear warning signs of impending disasters. If our temperatures rise another three degrees Celsius, environmental experts warn that the consequences for our planet will be cataclysmic.
Those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus argue either that the whole climate change crisis culture is a creation of the liberal scientific establishment, or that, while climate change is real, it is no different from unavoidable natural phenomena that have been experienced in previous geological ages.

These deniers and doubters are now in power in this country and, true to form, they are slashing the funding for agencies and programs that are in place to protect the environment. For instance, Mr. Trump has promised to promote coal-fired power plants that are clearly unhealthy for the air people breathe, while oil pipelines leaking dangerous vapors also have his approval and blessing.
It speaks volumes for the President’s attitude to the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and to the whole question of climate change that he appointed Scott Pruitt to head the agency. Mr. Pruitt, a former attorney general in Oklahoma, repeatedly challenged the authority of the EPA, the agency he now leads, to regulate mercury levels or smog and carbon emissions. Surely a case of placing the fox in charge of the henhouse.
The new stress on America-first style narrow nationalism which is also to the fore in parts of Europe is not helpful for those arguing for clean energy because this is an international problem. Polluted air and water obviously do not recognize border divisions. The Paris Climate Agreement, negotiated under the aegis of the United Nations in 2015, achieved real progress with 195 governments committing to take action to lower greenhouse gas emissions in their countries.

More people are becoming aware of the dangerous reality of rising sea levels and coastal erosion, and the Paris Agreement was a serious international effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mr. Trump and his advisors have talked about pulling out or re-negotiating this important international agreement. Certainly, his negative approach and attitude in this area compare poorly with his predecessor, President Obama’s firm commitment to combating policies that damage the ecosystem.

The President uses job creation as his main argument for supporting the development of the coal and oil industries. In fact, the biggest area of sectoral employment growth in the last decade has been in the renewable energy industry. The costs of solar and wind power have dropped significantly in recent years and close to three million new jobs have been created by companies promoting these new clean technologies.
There is also a strong moral dimension to this issue. All the world religions agree that we have a profound solemn obligation to respect all creation and preserve the land, sea and air with their myriad forms of life for future generations.
Pope Francis in his compelling encyclical, Laudato Si, published two years ago, wrote of global warming causing “severe droughts, floods, fires and extreme weather events – contributing to the heart-rending refugee crisis.” He has added an eighth Work of Mercy to the traditional seven, calling it “Care for Our Common Home,” and he urged all Catholics to go to confession to seek absolution for their sins against God’s creation.
Global warming should not be a political party consideration in the United States. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue; liberals or conservatives cannot claim it as their own. Traditional conservatives and liberals always called for serious consideration for the long-term consequences of government actions, and indeed, a recent poll showed that a slight majority of voters describing themselves as liberal or moderate Republicans support implementation of the Paris Agreement on the environment. President Trump should listen to these voters.

Merchants in the Temple: Inside Pope Francis’s Secret Battle Against Corruption in the Vatican
by Gianluigi Nuzzi

Benedict XVI was the first Pope to resign in about 600 years.  It seems that one of the major causes of the resignation was that the Vatican bureaucracy (Curia) seemed increasingly out of his control and the resulting condition was placing the health of the Church at risk. The problems within the Church were demonstrated by the highly confidential report Benedict commissioned that was subsequently leaked to the public by his butler. A major priority of the  conclave resulting from his resignation was the selection of someone who could bring some control and order to the Curia, hence Jorge Bergoglio – Francis.  Merchants in the Temple written by Nuzzi is based on more leaked information and is about Francis’s efforts to bring the Curia under some control and organization.

The book chronicles Francis’s efforts to bring the bank, real estate, human resources and the budget under his control. On the mundane/micromanagement level there is an amazing review of a secret audio recording of the Pope’s meeting with the senior Cardinal leaders of the Curia about among other things the importance of using purchase orders (PO).  It seems hard to imagine that the Holy Father would have to concern himself with POs, but he wanted a stop to the irresponsible way in which the Vatican was buying things.  The book chronicles times when the Curia paid for things that were not ordered or delivered (AKA fraud).  Francis is quoted as repeating several times in the meeting that if there is no purchase order “we don’t pay.”

Francis brought in major accounting firms including some from the USA to follow the money in the various departments (dichasteries).  He eventually found almost $2 billion that was off the books (not in their budgets) across the departments.  It seems the Cardinals considered these as rainy day funds.  A cornerstone of Francis’s reforms was the establishment of  the Secretariat for the Economy with authority over all economic activities of the Holy See and the Vatican City State. He appointed Cardinal Pell of Australia to run this new centralization of finances for the Holy See.  Even his appointment of Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin resisted transferring control of the annual Peter’s Pence collection to the Cardinal Pell operation. Historically Peter’s Pence had been used to cover annual deficits in the dichasteries but was intended for the pastoral work of the Holy See.

The real estate situation was ripe with opportunities for favoritism, fraud and abuse. The immense real estate holdings of the Holy See around the world were managed by APSA, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See in order to provide the funds necessary for the Roman Curia to function.  There is plenty of shocking reading in this area about the types of bad behavior that was rampant.  Human resources was not centralized in the Vatican and each dichastery had their own HR operation again allowing for uncontrolled hiring and compensation.

Overall the book is an unexpected and intriguing look into the inside operations of the Vatican and gives some explanation and understanding as to why even such a savvy and determined Pontiff as Francis has trouble trying to improve things.  While Francis has made some important progress and changes within the administrative and management structures of the Church he has a long way to go before real accountability will exist for the material resources of the Church.