Time to concentrate on the common good

With good reason newspapers like this may not urge readers to vote for certain persons or parties when an election is imminent. The non-profit status, called 501-c-3, of a religious publication could be revoked by Internal Revenue. Note that only about 10 prosecutions of this have ever resulted nationwide. It is the same with politics in the pulpit. Charitable organizations rely on tax-exempt status to survive. The pandemic has made staying afloat for parishes and dioceses a completely unforeseen calamity. Parishioners and readers ask me why I do not recommend candidates who correspond with my views.

So now that we are mercifully past the endless TV ads about who should get our vote, many of which were repeated in the same minute, we can look at why we are legally bound to non-partisan content when people in other countries have no such restriction. Is this federal legislation an unjust infringement on our First Amendment right to self-expression? People argue that advice from such sources would greatly help to make a political choice since the issues are so fraught that millions stay home on election day for that reason. As it is, the U.S, Catholic bishops reissue a document, somewhat updated, every four years to try to do that, but only by discussing issues, not candidates or parties.

Tax legislation says it would be unfair for non-profits like churches to promote office-seekers or their platforms because members of those organizations may dislike the choices of their leaders. Labor unions often have this problem. Why should government subsidize those leaders with tax mercy? When you read the every-four-years document of the bishops, you might discern that many prelates are conservative curators of tradition while others favor changes of social or economic policy. But where they agree is in the morality of political and economic issues of interest to all. Churches may speak about morality.

For instance, in the 1930s people wondered about the morality of Social Security, the providing of some minimal pay-out meant to keep seniors from starving. Even the name “social” made opponents claim that it was horrid socialism. It was government taking money from some and redistributing it to others only because they had grown old. Rank Marxism, they claimed. But because the very life or death of many vulnerable people hinged on this periodic meager payment, even the traditionalists backed down, even during the Great Depression. Today few traditionalists fail to cash their checks on principle. It seems to boil down to who deserves the program that they themselves had paid into. By the way, the U.S. bishops back then publicly supported Social Security.

But this further boils down to the government’s responsibility to its constituents’ common good. Did you know that it even had one? All members of a society qualify for government concern since all are part of the common good. All who earn above a slight minimum, allowing for fair deductions, are bound by law to pay income tax. So all who meet a certain standard become entitled. This should begin to sound like a federally set minimum wage for all capable of work. That is a controversial item being advanced by some on the left. How one addresses that is a litmus test for how one feels about the concept of the common good. This is something called for by our moral code, and thus by Catholic press and pulpit.

Deciding what merits being a part of the common good is up for argument. Does a $15 per hour minimum wage? Does legalized recreational marijuana?  Other countries with serious regard for the common good provide even more than does our government. The Scandinavian countries are said to have a higher social agenda than ours, while much of the rest of the world can only envy ours. But note that our all-consuming military largess is two thirds of our annual discretionary budget, more than the military budgets of China, Russia and the next five richest nations combined. They don’t have that worry in Scandinavia. Funding the nation’s appetite is at the base of the matter: do we want to pay for everyone getting benefits that cost money?

With relief that the election furor is over, perhaps we can return to the neglected mega-problem of COVID-19 and what government aid will be forthcoming, like that sent out last spring and summer. This might be another social issue of the common good on which people of all parties can agree.