Generally I donate money to the second collection without thinking much about it.  I decided not to this time because I wanted to get some more information about CCHD.  I am glad I didn’t give any money.   Before some of the Sunday Masses at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle, a group was handing out fliers which stated over the past few years CCHD has provided hundred of thousands of dollars to a variety of local ACORN groups.  The list of groups sponsored by CCHD in 2007 is a who’s who of left-wing political organizations. 

The Campaign for Human Development falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  They did put out a statement saying CCHD will not give any money to ACORN in 2009 and will investigate how the money they gave to ACORN in 2008 was spent.  It is nice to see they are so thorough in the vetting of organizations.  The Bishops statement summarized who decides where the money goes.  It includes members of various parishes, recommended by the clergy.  Given that around 55% of Catholics felt it was okay to vote for the pro-choice Senator Obama and the pro-choice Catholic Senator Biden, it figures left-wing groups would receive the bulk of the money.

Why did it take this long to figure out ACORN did things contrary to Catholic teachings?  Some of the other groups who received money were:  Green Workers Cooperatives; United Connecticut Action for Neighborhoods Inc.; Tenants and Workers United; the Community Farm Alliance; as well as a number of ”interfaith” organizations.  One group called the Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice endorses such education policies as:

Self-education and Cooperation in Education. Students look at their personal learning styles and gain an understanding of how they learn best. They discuss cooperation in education and think about how they can teach and learn from each other. They learn how to organize themselves and study in a way that is most effective for them.  At the same time, they practice educating themselves and others about issues that affect their communities and their lives.

I went through the list and could not find any organizations which promoted small government or self-reliance (I am sure every group says they promote the latter).  It seemed every group revolved around expanding control over peoples’ lives, especially through government intervention. 

Why does the Catholic Church support such activities?  Don’t they know that it is Democrats who appoint judges who keep abortion legal, who say assisted suicide and same-sex marriages are a fundamental right.  As well, it is the Democratic politians who prevent public money from being spent on Catholic or private education.  It is the government which mandates Catholic organizations provide medical insurance which includes coverage for abortions and contraceptives. 

Years ago the Catholic Church set up schools which taught millions of children (rich and poor alike) the fundamentals of a liberal (the 19th century meaning) education–logic, mathematics, Latin and Greek, and philosophy.  Catholic schools offer the best chance for inter-city youths to get an education.  Yet hundreds of such schools have closed over the past few years due to lack of funding.  Yet the CCHD has money to give to organizations who want to show kids how to educate “themselves and others about issues that affect their communities and their lives.”

The problem is too many Catholics–both lay and clergy–believe the Church is just another liberal organization whose job is to create an Utopia here on earth.  This is the reason why church attendance is falling.  People fail to distinguish the Church from any other liberal organizations and as a result, people align themselves with groups that don’t make them go to church every Sunday. 

The purpose of the Catholic Church is to show people the way to heavenly salvation.  If more people strove for this the earthly problems would take care of themselves.

I wonder how Vice President-elect Biden feels about this?  Wasn’t he chosen by Obama for his foreign policy expertise?  Now Obama may choose the only person with a stronger personality to run foreign policy.  Maybe Biden made one too many gaffes during the campaign to suit Obama.

Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat capable of mounting a primary challenge against a President Obama, if for some reason he falters as president.  By putting her in the cabinet, she will be forced to tow the administration’s line.  More importantly, a Secretary of State Clinton would only be able to comment on foreign policy and not on issues like the economy, health care, and women’s issuses.

If Hillary Clinton remained in the Senate, she would have free reign to talk about all of these issues without feeling the contraint of having to defend the president.  In addition, she could spend all of 2010 going around the country campaigning and holding fundraisers for hundreds of Democratic politicians–and placing herself as an alternative if things are going bad. 

There is a silver lining for the Republicans.  Right now Senators Obama and Biden are leaving the Senate, with a possibilty of Clinton as well.  Though the governors of Delaware, Illinois, and New York get to choose their replacements (all are Democrats) and they will pick Democrats, it will require special elections in 2010 to choose their official replacements (if he had lost, Senator Obama would have been up for re-election in 2010.)  Without popular incumbents running, Republicans may have a chance to pick up a seat or two in the Senate.  If a President Obama picks some other senators–according to politicalbase.com, Jack Reed (D-RI) is being considered for Defense and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is being considered for Energy–the Democrats would be required to defend even more open seats.

In the book Price Theory by Milton Friedman, he presents a unique way of thinking about the corporate income tax.  For instance, if the corporate income tax is 25%, it means in essence that the federal government owns 25% of each U.S. corporation.  The reason is by definition, the owners of a corporation are entitled to the profits.  If the federal government receives a portion of the profits then technically they own part of the company. 

President-elect Obama and the Democrats in Congress want to raise the corporate income tax–or in the words of Milton Friedman, the Democrats want to increase ownership in all corporations in the United States.  The problem with this is in the private sector, if you want ownership in a company you must purchase its stock.  Thus you have a financial stake in the well-being of that company and demand management run it in a fiscally sound way–including even re-investing profits into expansion rather than dividends. 

If an individual wants a bigger share of the profits, it purchases more shares of stocks.  Thus the current owners either benefit from higher stock values if they don’t sell or reap (hopefully) a profit if they sell the stock.  When the federal government increases the corporate income tax, it takes away profits from the rightful owners of the corporation without providing anything in return.

What I found troubling was the Catholic vote for Senator Obama (see table here).  Catholics who attend Mass weekly supported Senator McCain 54% to 46%)–roughly the same as those who supported President Bush in 2004 (56% to 44%).  What is depressing is Catholics who did not attend Mass on a regular basis increased their support for the Democratic candidate, from 50% for Senator Kerry in 2004 to 61% for Senator Obama in 2008.  Had this segment of Catholics gone for Senator McCain at the same rate as they did for President Bush in 2004, McCain would likely be president.  Father John Zuhlsdorf posted an article on his blog predicting what the election results bode for Catholics (check out the picture he includes in the article of the celebration of Obama’s election).

Lets face it, the Republicans deserved the drubbing they received at the national level.  Part of it was not their fault (the finacial crisis) but most of it was (scandals, mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, huge budget deficits).  I believe the seeds for this were sown in 1995.  It was at this time the Republicans were riding high, having just taken control of the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years.  Yet they made the mistake most politic parties do–they believed one election makes a mandate.

It does not.

Especially when your party does not control the White House or at least sixty seats in the Senate.  What the Republicans did was try to revamp the whole government–e.g. eliminating whole departments, restructuring Social Security and Medicare.  Don’t get me wrong, I would have like to see this happen, but you have to be a political realist.  That is, you must play the cards dealt to you.  There are too many vested interests here in Washington to do such monumental actions all at once.  What resulted was the government shutdown, which the public blamed on the Republicans.

They never recovered.  In the 1996 and 1998 elections, the Republicans never consolidated their gains in Congress, especially in the House.  They nominated for president an honorable World War II veteran to run against a popular Baby-Boomer.  In 2008 the Democrats gained an additional 17 seats and elected a young charismatic president.  

In every election cycle for the past 12 years (1994-2006) political pundits theorized whether the Republicans would maintain control of the House and/or Senate–not on how many seats the Republican majority would gain.  The Republicans focused on keeping the majority rather than governing as conservatives.  Instead of streamlining government they spent like drunken sailors.  They created huge new federal programs like No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drug Benefits through Medicare.  President Bush deserve just as much blame, but he was not on the ballot this year.

In addition, the Republicans over the past 14 years have not created any political superstars capable of running for president.  Many who I thought had potential–Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, and Dick Armey–all were tarnished over the budget fight and subsequent internal power struggle among the Republicans in the House in 1996.  Gingrich didn’t help himself by having an affair while Speaker.  In the Senate potential conservative leaders like George Allen and Rick Santorum became ex-senators in 2006, the voters revolt over Republican scandals.  The Republican slate of candidates for president this year in my opinion were weak.  I don’t believe any of them could have beaten either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

All is not lost.  I believe Governor Palin, after suffering through through the trials and tribulations of a national campaign, will now become a viable candidate for president in the future.  As well, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisianna.  In the House, you have fiscal conservatives like Jim Flake of Arizona and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin who have spent their time in Congress trying in vain to reform the earmark process and control government spending.  In addition, newcomer Aaron Schock of Illinois, who is only 26 but has served as an elected official at various levels since he was 19.  Sadly I don’t see one Republican senator who can step up and lead the party back to a majority status.

I saw a quote today which should guide the Republicans:  Failure is only the opportunity to begin more intelligently. Let’s hope they do.

I also had the opportunity to vote for a U.S. senator and U.S. representative, which is suprising since the nation’s capital is not allotted a seat in either chamber of Congress.  The technical name is “shadow” senator and representative, though that adjective is not included on the ballot.  These are basically honorary titles for individuals who are suppose to lobby for DC statehood.  It came about in 1990 when Jesse Jackson moved to Washington.  There was speculation he would run for major.  But as George Will wrote, Jackson will never run for an office he can win because he does not want the responsibility.  Jackson could have been mayor, but it would have meant have to make decisions.  Instead, he found some archaic idea from the nineteenth century called a “shadow” senator.  Some U.S. territories sent people to Washington to lobby for statehood.  So Jackson ran for “shadow” senator and won.  Anyway, I did not vote for any candidate for either seat because I make it a point not to vote for any position that is not constitutionally mandated.

So in many ways it didn’t make sense to vote.  I vote because I believe it is a privledge few humans have in this world.  The editors at National Review had a good article as to why one should vote.  Besides, I wanted to vote to at least cancel out the vote of one non-informed (i.e. stupid) voter.  My fellow blogger at politicalbear.com–The Cranky Conservative–had a reference to one such voter.  I also saw a clip on Youtube which the support of Senator Obama is quoted as saying if he is elected she would not have to pay for gas or mortgage any longer.  I find the comment ironic since Senator Obama calls people who don’t to pay higher taxes selfish, but voters like this woman will vote for Senator Obama because she believes a President Obama will give her money her everyday living expenses.

As a member of the Knights of Columbus, one of the charities we work with is The Little Sisters of the Poor.  They run old-age homes in many cities around the world.  Given they took a vow to help the poor they provide better care than most for profit homes (even the most expensive) because they see themselves do God’s work.  Most old-age homes receive a bulk of their funding from Medicare–not The Little Sisters.  Even though they are a Catholic organization, they take in anyone who is old and needy regardless of their religion.  Yet I can’t give more to them because I have to pay taxes, which in turn will go towards those who support Senator Obama’s agenda.   

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal has a very good critique of Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne’s defense of Senator Obama’s belief on taxes.

Dionne’s description, though, is worse than tendentious. It’s downright Orwellian. According to him, to tax people less is to “give” them money–as if the money never belonged to them. When the government increases taxes on some people so as to write checks to others, in Dionne’s world that is “cutting out the middleman”–the “middleman” apparently being the productive economy, not the bureaucrats who administer the redistribution schemes of Dionne’s dreams.

We could be in for a long few years.

Lets hope Senator Obama’s quote about bankrupting coal plants did not come to late to sway voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

On the blog Chicago Boyz, they posed an interesting question which I wish someone one had asked Senator Obama weeks ago:  If your economic policies are so good why is the city of Detroit such a basket-case.  For over forty years liberal Democrats have control the city and have done nothing more than allow crime to run rampant and watch as its population decrease by 50%.  In the past decade almost all of the major cities of the country have seen a resurgence, with upper- and middle-class people moving back into the city.  All of the major cities except Detroit.

I guess the author is partly correct since the latest GDP figures put out by the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed the economy contracting 0.3 percent in the third quarter.  What I wonder though is where are all the political commentators who were calling oil executives the devil for manipulating the markets and driving up oil prices?  Why isn’t Congress back in session having hearings on why the price of oil is falling so much? 

If they controlled the price, why are they allowing it to fall?  The reason is they don’t control the price of oil.   I am sure Senator Obama would like to have hearings because every day the price of oil drops means less government revenue collected in his proposed windfall profits tax.  The oil price rise was a classic bubble, which would eventually burst.  Just as the housing market and the dot com stocks. 

What surprises me is the Democrats have not come out and accused President Bush for the price drop.  The reason is President Bush wants to help Senator McCain win the election so he had his oil buddies in Texas get together and decide to lower the price.  I am sure if Senator McCain does happen to win the election, someone will write about such a scenario.

In another story, I read an story which said Joe Perry of Aerosmith is a Republican.  You have to wonder how many other rock stars are closet Republicans?  Maybe the courage of Joe Perry will inspire others to come out as well.

Yesterday Betsy’s Blog commented on the conviction of Senator Ted Stevens on corruption charges.  She has a very good take on the story:

Ted Stevens is one GOP senator I certainly won’t miss.  The Washington Post points out the pettiness of the gifts that Stevens has been convicted of accepting.

The amount of freebies that Mr. Stevens accepted to renovate his Alaska “chalet” is significant, but the individual components — a Viking grill, a vibrating Shiatsu massage lounger, a five-foot steel sculpture of migrating salmon — underscore the petty needlessness of Mr. Stevens’s crime.

It brings to mind one of the great lines that Sir Thomas More speaks in A Man for All Seasons.

Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?

Senator Stevens, you gave up your integrity for a Shiatsu massage lounger?

I think that pretty much sums of why Republicans will lose many seats in next Tuesday’s election.

The George Mason University Economics Department has a good website called Econtalk.org, which offers weekly podcasts with talks on various economic issues.  Last month it had a very good one on the workings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  If you want a non-technical explanation of the recent demise of these two institutions I would recommend listening to it.

Michelle Malkin has a great post today recapping the media bias against John McCain and their fawning over Barack Obama over the past year.

The latest uproar over the people Barack Obama chooses to spend time with is Rashid Khalidi—a former spokesman for the PLO.  The controversy is a reported tape of Sen. Obama at a farewell dinner for Mr. Khalidi at the University of Chicago.  Sen. Obama says he attended because they were both on the faculty at the university.  Also at the party was William Ayers.  My question is there are hundred of professors at the University of Chicago—did every one of them attend?  If it is the case that every professor attends a farewell party for a departing colleague then this would not be a big deal.  I bet that only close friends attend such functions.  Another question is why does Senator Obama seem to choose to spend time with people who hate the United States?  As a politician one has to spend time with people you don’t like or agree with in order to help your career.  What I wonder is how does Mr. Ayers and Mr. Khalidi help further Sen. Obama’s political career?  Would such radicals associate with politicians they don’t agree with?  Maybe if he was running for a local election, but when you are running for the Senate it doesn’t make much sense.  Either Sen. Obama is not very political astute or he spends time with them because he favors their causes.  It is something Senator Obama needs to address before the election.

By this I mean what I would call non-Constitutional authority. Presidential scholar Richard Nuedstadt wrote, a president’s ability to lead is not based on his constitutional powers but on his ability to persuade the other political actors to do what he wants. The unfortunate thing for Senator McCain (though fortunate for the U.S. and Iraq) regarding the surge is it worked. As a result, the stories of the war are buried inside the nation’s newspapers.  As well, the financial meltdown hurt his standing with the voters.

Now I don’t agree with everything Senator McCain proposes—especially regarding campaign finance reform. But he is a solid conservative in many areas and the alternative is far worse. Senator McCain would nominate judges who believe it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the laws, not make them. It is likely the next president will nominate at least two Supreme Court justices. A President Obama’s picks would set the conservative movement back a whole generation. Senator McCain wants to cut capital gains and corporate income taxes to spur economic growth. Senator Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and give 95% of all Americans a tax cut—even though about 50% of this total pays no taxes at all. Senator McCain would like to put changes in the tax code to make it easier for people to purchase health insurance on their own rather than through their employer. Senator Obama wants to lead us toward nationalized health care.

In addition, I feel only a President McCain would have the political courage to cut spending. I know Senator Obama has criticized Senator McCain when he talks about eliminating pork-barrel spending, saying it “only” represents $18 billion out of a $3 trillion budget. True, but as Senator McCain’s economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin said, if you are unwilling to cut the small, painless items, how will you be able to reign in the big ticket items like Medicare and Social Security? The government can’t balance the budget solely on the revenue side of the equation—it must at some point tackle the spending side as well. Only Senator McCain has shown during his time in the Senate he is willing to do this.

Thus I feel Senator John McCain is the best man to become the 44th President of the United States.