This essay responds to an Austin Hill article, “Note To Catholic Bishops: Obamanomics Is Evil, Too”, and to resulting comments posted at http://townhall.com/columnists/Column2.aspx?UrlTitle=note_to_catholic_bishops__obamanomics_is_evil,_too&ns=AustinHill&dt=10/11/2009&page=full&comments=true&submitted=true#postComments

Before the Reformation, Governments didn't do much to aid the poor; most government action, where it existed, was in ensuring just laws governed internally, and in prudently conducting affairs of state to internationally advance the national well-being. Charity? The Catholic Church's established monasteries (and such) cared for the down’n’out with large land holdings, herds of cattle/sheep/etc, and lots of crops. From these sources, the Catholic Church also attended to aged people’s retirement needs. Most Church holdings were staffed by monks (& nuns & such) who worked as much as they prayed; some became corrupt (as Luther pointed out), becoming rich even as they aided the poor and elderly. 

Then, in the Reformation, kings grew desperate to fund their wars. They sent assessors to the monasteries (and like places), then sent troops to seize all that was of value to the King. The former social safety net was no more; kings spent the wealth on affairs of state, not on citizens. The monks, nuns, etc were even displaced (most of the time) from their former lands. The poor became poorer. Kings (especially in England) created Debtors Prisons to horrible and yet so well described by Charles Dickens and others. 

Since giving up on healing the Reformation’s rifts, the Catholic Church has gotten into a habit of advocating to governments to help the poor. (Funny how socialists owe even that philosophical thought to the Catholicism that they despise.)

I assess government has no proper role in wealth redistribution; socialism has everywhere proven to be little more than a political front for political power grab, and has proven to have *nothing* to do with the general welfare of all citizens. On the contrary, charity is the proper realm of free-will offerings, not of forced taxed coercion. Governments should concentrate on Rule of Law (internally) and affairs of state (externally). Governments would then leave religious & secular charities unhindered in their proper role of caring materially & spiritually for those who are poor in wealth & spirit. Most especially, the government is wasteful in directly competing with private charities, pitting inefficient impersonal taxation against directly effective in-person free-will offerings. Government exerts a monopolistic & coercive effect in its ‘competition’ against charities, and yet is one of the most grossly inefficient mechanisms for relieving the plight of the poor. As European experience has proven since 1950, government welfare has hardly elevated the poor, but done yeoman’s work in impoverishing the middle class.

I assess the Catholic hierarchy is wrong when advocating governments ‘care’ for their people in any manner of direct handouts (welfare, medicare, etc). Perhaps it’s time for the Catholic hierarchy to investigate ways of encouraging governments to simply get out of the way.

Could hardly be worse than what happens today.

2.  Get serious about defending the country in its border regions, including citizens therein

    a.  arm & man the border commensurate with the low-intensity guerrilla conflict that it is

    b.  enhance ‘eyes in the sky’ with spectral remote sensors and people who know how to use spectral signatures, comm-linked to vectorable ‘boots on the ground’

             - -  actual border defense operations

             - -  monitoring of identified “outward movers”, whether ID’d through traffic stops or self-identification 

    c.  enact a Constitutional Amendment clarifying triggers for USA citizenship, or seek a new lawsuit for the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling that a child born in the USA of illegal immigrant parentage has USA citizenship

         - that ruling is NOT the way the Constitution was written

         - outragious 'Dred Scott' decisions (including a grafting of citizenship though from illegal immigrants) are proper for overturning

    d.  Enact fully-funded federal legislation to *dramatically* increase, by start of Fiscal 2010, the numbers of LEGAL immigrant applications that USA Immigration officers can review and grant, though not for illegals until they have first left the USA

These 4 steps to national defense on the border, are in accord with international, national, & moral law:

     a.  the international “nation-state system” recognizes each country's right to self-defense
         - by inherent definition, self-defense is meaningless if a nation cannot control its borders

   b.  our Constitution entrusts national defense to elected officials
         - and of the smaller-scale version (self-defense) to the citizens