In his column last week, Archbishop John Nienstedt encouraged Catholic Spirit readers to contact their legislators in opposition of SF100, which would allow tax-funded embryonic stem cell research in Minnesota. He addresses the issue more thoroughly in his column this week.
Not only is embryonic stem cell research unethical, he said, it pushes researchers down a slippery slope, with human cloning at the the bottom of the hill. Both are huge violations of the dignity of the human person.
He also points to the medical advances made with other pluripotent cells (think "cells that can morph into any kind of cell") and from adult stem cells.
"Doesn't it make sense for our government to fund this kind of research, rather than using your tax dollars and mind to continue the slaughter of innocent human life?" he asked.
S.F. 100 has had its second reading on the House floor. After its third reading, legislators will vote.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
My extra 5 cents (or, what the bishops want from the Legislature)
First off, the Legislature overrode Pawlenty's veto of the transportation bill by one vote. Six House Republicans voted for the DFL-supported bill. Pawlenty's not pleased with what he called "a whole bucket of tax increases." Drivers will notice the 5 cent per gallon increase at the pump. So, I'll be paying 80 more cents when I put 16 gallons in my Buick. That does add up, but so do Starbucks gande lattes, at $3.20 a pop.
The thing is, there's no money. The February forecast will be unveiled Feb. 28, and analysts are expecting it to be grim. We're in debt, and the way we make money is by increasing the way the state gets money — taxes. However, so many things are demanding financial assistance — good things, like programs that help people in poverty and support education.
But taxes can realistically only be raised so high. And these things aren't the type of things that are bonded. It's not a good idea to put milk and cereal on your credit card because you don't know when you'll pay it off.
******
Some of the Minnesota bishops met with legislators and Gov. Pawlenty last Wednesday to share their priorities for the session. It's a good time to meet with legislators because it's early in the session, said Chris Leifeld, the director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference. However, it's also too early to get a full picture of this session's political landscape, he said.
The bishops — Archbishop Flynn, Archbishop Nienstedt, Bishop Pates, Bishop Kinney (St. Cloud) and Msgr. Grams (New Ulm diocesan administrator) — planned which issues they wanted to discuss with Gov. Pawlenty and the legislative leaders. They addressed embryonic stem cell research, the education tax credit, housing issues, increasing minimum wage, repealing the Minnesota Family Investment Program family cap and the question of using the language "domestic partner" instead of "spouse" in legislation.
"I would characterize [the meeting] as very engaged," said Pete Noll of MCC. "There was good listening from both directions. Of course, no promises were made or anything . . . but there was good interchange, a good responsiveness."
The thing is, there's no money. The February forecast will be unveiled Feb. 28, and analysts are expecting it to be grim. We're in debt, and the way we make money is by increasing the way the state gets money — taxes. However, so many things are demanding financial assistance — good things, like programs that help people in poverty and support education.
But taxes can realistically only be raised so high. And these things aren't the type of things that are bonded. It's not a good idea to put milk and cereal on your credit card because you don't know when you'll pay it off.
******
Some of the Minnesota bishops met with legislators and Gov. Pawlenty last Wednesday to share their priorities for the session. It's a good time to meet with legislators because it's early in the session, said Chris Leifeld, the director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference. However, it's also too early to get a full picture of this session's political landscape, he said.
The bishops — Archbishop Flynn, Archbishop Nienstedt, Bishop Pates, Bishop Kinney (St. Cloud) and Msgr. Grams (New Ulm diocesan administrator) — planned which issues they wanted to discuss with Gov. Pawlenty and the legislative leaders. They addressed embryonic stem cell research, the education tax credit, housing issues, increasing minimum wage, repealing the Minnesota Family Investment Program family cap and the question of using the language "domestic partner" instead of "spouse" in legislation.
"I would characterize [the meeting] as very engaged," said Pete Noll of MCC. "There was good listening from both directions. Of course, no promises were made or anything . . . but there was good interchange, a good responsiveness."
Friday, February 22, 2008
Bye-bye proposed gas tax?
The $6.6 billion (yes, that 'b' is right) transportation bill passed in both the House and Senate, but Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed it today. It's not clear whether the bill could garner the two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate (that's 90 legislators in the House and 45 in the Senate), but the House said might attempt an override as soon as Monday.
Pawlenty called the bill “an overreaching, massive tax increase.”
The bill would raise gas taxes for the first time since 1980. The money would speed up repairs on MN roads and bridges.
(I wrote an article on transportation as a moral issue in the Feb. 14 issue of the Catholic Spirit. Check it out.)
I grew up in southwest Minnesota, and the highway that runs 1/4 mile from my parents' farm is considered one of the most dangerous in the state. A story in The Mankato Free Press Feb. 5 highlights just a stretch of it between Mankato and New Ulm — a stretch familiar to me on the 3 1/2 hour drive from St. Paul to the farm.
"I'm sick of pulling dead bodies out of the ditches," emergency responder Brian Luepke told the Press. "If Highway 14 is one of the most dangerous in the state, why hasn't something been done yet?'
It's the funding, and Jim Swanson of MnDOT told the Press that even if the Legislature decides to do something, upgrading the road to its needed alignment and bypass alternatives might still be 10 to 15 years away.
That's a long time to wait. And I know that's not the only part of Hwy 14 in need of upgrading. Or the only highway — or bridge — in Minnesota that needs attention.
There's no money in the budget, and DFLers are resisting to bond transportation. And, really, this is a life issue. People are dying because the roads are in disrepair, or are not suited to accommodate the kind of traffic they're handling.
This might be worth a few more cents at the pump.
Pawlenty called the bill “an overreaching, massive tax increase.”
The bill would raise gas taxes for the first time since 1980. The money would speed up repairs on MN roads and bridges.
(I wrote an article on transportation as a moral issue in the Feb. 14 issue of the Catholic Spirit. Check it out.)
I grew up in southwest Minnesota, and the highway that runs 1/4 mile from my parents' farm is considered one of the most dangerous in the state. A story in The Mankato Free Press Feb. 5 highlights just a stretch of it between Mankato and New Ulm — a stretch familiar to me on the 3 1/2 hour drive from St. Paul to the farm.
"I'm sick of pulling dead bodies out of the ditches," emergency responder Brian Luepke told the Press. "If Highway 14 is one of the most dangerous in the state, why hasn't something been done yet?'
It's the funding, and Jim Swanson of MnDOT told the Press that even if the Legislature decides to do something, upgrading the road to its needed alignment and bypass alternatives might still be 10 to 15 years away.
That's a long time to wait. And I know that's not the only part of Hwy 14 in need of upgrading. Or the only highway — or bridge — in Minnesota that needs attention.
There's no money in the budget, and DFLers are resisting to bond transportation. And, really, this is a life issue. People are dying because the roads are in disrepair, or are not suited to accommodate the kind of traffic they're handling.
This might be worth a few more cents at the pump.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Something extra for the kids
Today Sen. Dan Larson (DFL-Minneapolis) introduced a bill (S.F. 2951) that seeks to enrich Minnesota schools. It’s got a chewy name: Equity and Opportunity in Education Tax Credit, but it’s a tasty deal.
If passed, this bill enhances parental choice in education, said Pete Noll of the Minnesota Catholic Conference. It would provide more opportunities for low and moderate income families to augment their children’s education.
This is how it proposes to work: Corporations or individual taxpayers can apply to contribute to an educational foundation. The foundations may have a specific purposes, like summer tutoring, or tuition-assistance for a private school. Parents can then apply to receive funds from the particular foundation to meet the specific need.
This would benefit all kinds of schools, including public schools, Noll said. Foundations set up for school districts can accept donations, he said. Even homeschoolers could benefit — they could apply for a membership to the Science Museum, for example.
“It’s designed to help the whole educational enterprise — whether that be public, private, religious, homeschool or charter,” Noll said.
The proposal also would help to “level the playing fields” and allow parents to choose quality education for their kids, Noll said. And both parities — those giving and those getting — have to meet requirements outlined in the bill.
However, the whole thing depends on these corporations or individuals giving to these education foundations. The incentive? The donation is 100% reimbursed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
If passed, this bill enhances parental choice in education, said Pete Noll of the Minnesota Catholic Conference. It would provide more opportunities for low and moderate income families to augment their children’s education.
This is how it proposes to work: Corporations or individual taxpayers can apply to contribute to an educational foundation. The foundations may have a specific purposes, like summer tutoring, or tuition-assistance for a private school. Parents can then apply to receive funds from the particular foundation to meet the specific need.
This would benefit all kinds of schools, including public schools, Noll said. Foundations set up for school districts can accept donations, he said. Even homeschoolers could benefit — they could apply for a membership to the Science Museum, for example.
“It’s designed to help the whole educational enterprise — whether that be public, private, religious, homeschool or charter,” Noll said.
The proposal also would help to “level the playing fields” and allow parents to choose quality education for their kids, Noll said. And both parities — those giving and those getting — have to meet requirements outlined in the bill.
However, the whole thing depends on these corporations or individuals giving to these education foundations. The incentive? The donation is 100% reimbursed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The embryos strike back
This is the last of the Star Wars references, I swear. The cliché was just too obvious, and I couldn't help myself.
Last year, S.F. 100 — the bill allotting tax monies to embryonic stem cell research — passed in the Senate and passed through all the committees it needed to in the House. It just never came to a full-House vote on the floor. Since it’s still the same biennium, all the bills from last year are still alive. Rep. Phyllis Kahn reintroduced her bill this session, and it was passed in committee Feb. 14. Now it’s waiting for a vote on the House floor, which will likely come next week.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a pro-life activist organization, is encouraging legislators to support the Emmer Minority Report, which introduces alternative language to Rep. Kahn’s bill.
A minority report works like an amendment. The Emmer Minority Report would replace the language in the bill that allows for research using human embryos, and redirect the taxpayer dollars to research using alternative pluripotent (or research-flexible) stem cells.
The minority report would also replace the language that currently allows cloning. Right now, S.F. 100 allows cloning of the embryo-baby. It also allows experimentation on that clone, as long as the clone is not allowed to live to 9 months.
Rep. Kahn says her bill does not allow cloning, but what she’s actually done is redefine the term, said Bill Poehler of MCCL. Her bill still allows for somatic nuclear cell transfer, which is the scientific cloning technique.
Under all the scientific and legal language, the issue really addresses the question of when life begins. Is the embryo a human life? If not, when does it become one? Is it at a certain point in time? At three or six months? At birth? How is it, then, that it could be a human person at one point, but not a second before? What changes? Why would it be ethical (according to Rep. Kahn’s bill) to experiment on an 8-month-old fetus, but not on baby that was just born (a few weeks later)?
(The Catholic Church, of course, says an embryo — and the unborn baby at every step of development — should be treated with full human dignity.)
These questions are just the iceberg’s brink of the ethical issues ESCR and SCNT introduce. The question of personhood is deep, and maybe this bill will cause more legislators to consider it.
Last year, S.F. 100 — the bill allotting tax monies to embryonic stem cell research — passed in the Senate and passed through all the committees it needed to in the House. It just never came to a full-House vote on the floor. Since it’s still the same biennium, all the bills from last year are still alive. Rep. Phyllis Kahn reintroduced her bill this session, and it was passed in committee Feb. 14. Now it’s waiting for a vote on the House floor, which will likely come next week.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a pro-life activist organization, is encouraging legislators to support the Emmer Minority Report, which introduces alternative language to Rep. Kahn’s bill.
A minority report works like an amendment. The Emmer Minority Report would replace the language in the bill that allows for research using human embryos, and redirect the taxpayer dollars to research using alternative pluripotent (or research-flexible) stem cells.
The minority report would also replace the language that currently allows cloning. Right now, S.F. 100 allows cloning of the embryo-baby. It also allows experimentation on that clone, as long as the clone is not allowed to live to 9 months.
Rep. Kahn says her bill does not allow cloning, but what she’s actually done is redefine the term, said Bill Poehler of MCCL. Her bill still allows for somatic nuclear cell transfer, which is the scientific cloning technique.
Under all the scientific and legal language, the issue really addresses the question of when life begins. Is the embryo a human life? If not, when does it become one? Is it at a certain point in time? At three or six months? At birth? How is it, then, that it could be a human person at one point, but not a second before? What changes? Why would it be ethical (according to Rep. Kahn’s bill) to experiment on an 8-month-old fetus, but not on baby that was just born (a few weeks later)?
(The Catholic Church, of course, says an embryo — and the unborn baby at every step of development — should be treated with full human dignity.)
These questions are just the iceberg’s brink of the ethical issues ESCR and SCNT introduce. The question of personhood is deep, and maybe this bill will cause more legislators to consider it.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Attack of the clones
I realize that title's a bit dramatic. But maybe not TOO dramatic.
Sen. Phyllis Kahn (D-Minneapolis) has taken up her embryonic stem cell research bill again. I followed this closely last year. In the 2007 session, Kahn's bill passed in the Senate, and it was being heard in the House at the end of the session. It seeks to provide tax-based funding to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) to the University of Minnesota. The U of M is home to the nation's first stem cell Institute.
The Minnesota Catholic Conference strongly opposed this bill because of the Catholic Church's position on human life. ESCR not only requires the destruction of a human embryo (one of the first stages of a human life), but it could also lead to human cloning.
The bill (S.F. 100) was taken up in a House committee Thursday. Chris Leifeld at the Minnesota Catholic Conference submitted a letter to the House Public Safety and Civil Justice committee. He wrote:
"Regardless of the potential medical benefits, it is wrong to rely upon the destruction of some human beings for the possible benefit of others." He pointed to alternative means of obtaining stem cells, such as from adults and umbilical cord blood, as the direction to which legislators should focus their attention.
Sen. Phyllis Kahn (D-Minneapolis) has taken up her embryonic stem cell research bill again. I followed this closely last year. In the 2007 session, Kahn's bill passed in the Senate, and it was being heard in the House at the end of the session. It seeks to provide tax-based funding to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) to the University of Minnesota. The U of M is home to the nation's first stem cell Institute.
The Minnesota Catholic Conference strongly opposed this bill because of the Catholic Church's position on human life. ESCR not only requires the destruction of a human embryo (one of the first stages of a human life), but it could also lead to human cloning.
The bill (S.F. 100) was taken up in a House committee Thursday. Chris Leifeld at the Minnesota Catholic Conference submitted a letter to the House Public Safety and Civil Justice committee. He wrote:
"Regardless of the potential medical benefits, it is wrong to rely upon the destruction of some human beings for the possible benefit of others." He pointed to alternative means of obtaining stem cells, such as from adults and umbilical cord blood, as the direction to which legislators should focus their attention.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Justice, not charity
Raising minimum wage is not an issue of charity; It's an issue of justice, Archbishop Harry Flynn told the House Commerce Committee late Thursday afternoon.
He was testifying to advocate DFL Rep. Tom Rukavina's bill that would raise minimum wage to $7.90 by 2009.
Currently, the state minimum wage for large employers is $6.15. For small employers, it's $5.25. The Federal wage is currently $5.85, and if an employee is subject to both state and Fed. minimum wage laws, then he or she receives the higher rate.
In July, the Federal minimum wage will increase to $6.55, which exceeds MN's minimum wage. The Fed. min. wage will be $7.25 by July 2009.
Right now, 32 states have minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum wage. Three states have minimum wages lower than the Federal minimum wage. If Minnesota fails to pass legislation this session increasing the minimum wage, it will be included among those few states with minimum wages lower than the federal rate.
The archbishop spoke with conviction and passion. "Increasing the minimum wage to $7.90 doesn’t quite get us where we need to be, but it would be a significant improvement from where we are and the limitations of the federal minimum wage law," he said.
From some of the legislators' aside comments, it was clear that the archbishop's public work over the years has been greatly admired by Catholics and non-Catholics like. In anticipation of the archbishop's retirement, Committee Chair Joe Atkins thanked him for his service.
One of the best parts of the whole thing, however, was the playful banter between Archbishop Flynn, Rep. Rukavina and Rep. Atkins.
When those testifying in opposition to the bill (the MN Chamber of Commerce, MN restaurants, MN grocers) were introduced, Ret. Rukavina said, "The Archbishop will pray for them."
Rep. Atkins replied "Rep. Rukavina, I just hope he's praying for you."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Planes, trains and automobiles
The 2008 legislative session kicked off yesterday, and right away the DFLers threw transportation on the table.
Why does it matter so much this year? Because it’s a bonding year — the Legislature is planning to run the state credit card on long-lasting projects. Roads, bridges, light rail — they’re going to be around awhile.
When I talked to the Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Steve Murphy last week, he said that everybody — Republicans and Democrats (and the Independents, too, I suppose) — realizes that something needs to be done about the transportation infrastructure. They just disagree on how to pay for it.
He really wants to reduce the number of deaths and accidents on Minnesota roads, which is what keeps him fighting for money to fund transportation issues. However, Sen. Murphy isn’t keen on bonding the expenses. He’d rather see the gas tax raised.
Yesterday, DFLers proposed a 7 ½ cent/gallon gas tax for transportation projects. They also want a half-cent increase in metro area sales tax to fund public transit, like buses and the light rail.
Governor Pawlenty, who allotted almost 40 percent of his $1 billion bonding proposal to transportation projects, opposes the tax increase. He said he would veto the bill. He vetoed something similar last year.
It’s true that the 35W bridge collapse Aug. 1 has put our state’s aging infrastructure in the public forefront, but it’s something that legislators have been working on for years, Sen. Murphy said. He’d like to see a 10-year overhaul of the whole system.
So, why do I, a Catholic, care? Because it’s money, and the way we spend it says something about our priorities. Because transportation projects work toward the common good. Safer roads mean less deaths, which shows a value for human life. Better public transit means that more people can get around on less fuel, so that’s better for the environment. It also means that low-income people and homeless people who may not have cars are able to better access our community, which affirms their dignity.
The frontpage story of this week’s Catholic Spirit takes a deeper look into the morality of the transportation debate. Give it a read, and let me know what you think. How do you think the Legislature should handle this?
Why does it matter so much this year? Because it’s a bonding year — the Legislature is planning to run the state credit card on long-lasting projects. Roads, bridges, light rail — they’re going to be around awhile.
When I talked to the Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Steve Murphy last week, he said that everybody — Republicans and Democrats (and the Independents, too, I suppose) — realizes that something needs to be done about the transportation infrastructure. They just disagree on how to pay for it.
He really wants to reduce the number of deaths and accidents on Minnesota roads, which is what keeps him fighting for money to fund transportation issues. However, Sen. Murphy isn’t keen on bonding the expenses. He’d rather see the gas tax raised.
Yesterday, DFLers proposed a 7 ½ cent/gallon gas tax for transportation projects. They also want a half-cent increase in metro area sales tax to fund public transit, like buses and the light rail.
Governor Pawlenty, who allotted almost 40 percent of his $1 billion bonding proposal to transportation projects, opposes the tax increase. He said he would veto the bill. He vetoed something similar last year.
It’s true that the 35W bridge collapse Aug. 1 has put our state’s aging infrastructure in the public forefront, but it’s something that legislators have been working on for years, Sen. Murphy said. He’d like to see a 10-year overhaul of the whole system.
So, why do I, a Catholic, care? Because it’s money, and the way we spend it says something about our priorities. Because transportation projects work toward the common good. Safer roads mean less deaths, which shows a value for human life. Better public transit means that more people can get around on less fuel, so that’s better for the environment. It also means that low-income people and homeless people who may not have cars are able to better access our community, which affirms their dignity.
The frontpage story of this week’s Catholic Spirit takes a deeper look into the morality of the transportation debate. Give it a read, and let me know what you think. How do you think the Legislature should handle this?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Be informed
Yesterday, the Star Tribune ran an overview of some of the issues Minnesota legislators will be facing this session. It listed abortion, the budget, heath care, bonding, energy, illegal immigration, the outdoors amendment and transportation. Glancing over the agendas put forth by the Minnesota Catholic Conference and Catholic Charities’ Office for Social Justice, there’s a lot of overlap — abortion, health care, immigration, the environment.
MCC might take special interest in the energy debate — in 2006, Archbishop Flynn presented a letter signed by 30 religious leaders to Senator Norm Coleman which stated that global warming is a religious issue and called for energy policies guaranteeing the decrease of “global warming emissions.” Last year, he spoke to the MN legislature on the issue.
I have to admit, the number and complexity of the legislative issues that matter to the church can seem daunting. How does a person figure out what’s even going on, much less know how a solution should be sought?
Here’s a suggestion:
The Office for Social Justice will be sharing its legislative agenda at four briefings around the Twin Cities starting in two weeks. They’ll be addressing affordable housing, immigration, health care, criminal justice, child care and MFIP and global warming.
(FYI, “MFIP” is the Minnesota Family Investment Program, which is the state’s welfare program for low-income families with children.)
I went to a briefing last year, and it was fascinating. Patrick Ness, the public policy manager for OSJ, has a knack for explaining the issues without using too much jargon. So, if you go, you’ll learn something important whether you’re just curious but green or this is old-hat.
The briefings will start at 7 p.m. and last until 9. The schedule is:
Feb. 28
Guardian Angels Church
8260 Hudson Blvd N
Oakdale, MN 55128
(651) 738-2223
www.guardian-angels.org
March 3
St. William Church
6120 5th St. NE
Fridley, MN 55432
(763) 571-5600
www.stwilliams.com
March 6
Christ the King
5029 Zenith Ave. S
Minneapolis, MN 55410
(612) 920-5030
www.ctkmpls.org
March 11
Faithful Shepherd Catholic School
(Sponsored by St. John Neumann)
2244 Columbia Dr.
Eagan, MN 55121
(651) 406-4747
www.fscsm.org
MCC might take special interest in the energy debate — in 2006, Archbishop Flynn presented a letter signed by 30 religious leaders to Senator Norm Coleman which stated that global warming is a religious issue and called for energy policies guaranteeing the decrease of “global warming emissions.” Last year, he spoke to the MN legislature on the issue.
I have to admit, the number and complexity of the legislative issues that matter to the church can seem daunting. How does a person figure out what’s even going on, much less know how a solution should be sought?
Here’s a suggestion:
The Office for Social Justice will be sharing its legislative agenda at four briefings around the Twin Cities starting in two weeks. They’ll be addressing affordable housing, immigration, health care, criminal justice, child care and MFIP and global warming.
(FYI, “MFIP” is the Minnesota Family Investment Program, which is the state’s welfare program for low-income families with children.)
I went to a briefing last year, and it was fascinating. Patrick Ness, the public policy manager for OSJ, has a knack for explaining the issues without using too much jargon. So, if you go, you’ll learn something important whether you’re just curious but green or this is old-hat.
The briefings will start at 7 p.m. and last until 9. The schedule is:
Feb. 28
Guardian Angels Church
8260 Hudson Blvd N
Oakdale, MN 55128
(651) 738-2223
www.guardian-angels.org
March 3
St. William Church
6120 5th St. NE
Fridley, MN 55432
(763) 571-5600
www.stwilliams.com
March 6
Christ the King
5029 Zenith Ave. S
Minneapolis, MN 55410
(612) 920-5030
www.ctkmpls.org
March 11
Faithful Shepherd Catholic School
(Sponsored by St. John Neumann)
2244 Columbia Dr.
Eagan, MN 55121
(651) 406-4747
www.fscsm.org
Friday, February 8, 2008
Can we still wear a dragon costume?
So, it's a bonding year, you say. Well, it's also the Chinese Year of the Rat. What does that even mean?
Every odd-numbered legislative year is a budget year (like 2007). Every even-numbered legislative year is a bonding year (like 2008).
The difference?
A politically savvy friend of mine compared it to the way people typically spend their money:
"A budget [year] is like a checking account — you put money into it," he said. "You take your paycheck and put that money into your checking account, and then you stay in your budget.
"A bonding year is like using your credit card. You borrow money, essentially, and the state is the guarenteer of the bonds. You buy really expensive but really long-term things. . . . Things that are public infrastructure get built with bonding dollars, and they get bought with the 'state credit card.'"
So, in a budget year, it's like buying eggs, laundry detergent and paying rent. The state will spend money on the things that need funding, but will continue to need funding or are smaller needs. In bonding years, you buy the new car, the boat, the house, which, for the state, are things like roads and bridges, waste water treatment plants and university buildings. These are things that won't be paid off for generations.
OK, I realize most people don't put their cars on their credit card. Or their houses. But bear with me for the analogy here. Just like credit cards have limits, do do the bonding bills. They can only bond a predetermined amount.
And sorry, I have very little say say about the Year of the Rat, other than what you can find on Wikipedia. However, I was born in a Rat year, so I'm a pretty big fan in general.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Nuts and bolts
The 2008 Minnesota legislative session starts in five days. I have to admit, before last year, this wasn’t really circled on my calendar the way Christmas, Easter and the season premiere of The Office were. I’m guessing that most of you are in the same camp. So, here’s a rundown of some of the basic things that are helpful to know about this legislative session:
• Duration: February 12 to May 19.
• It’s the second session in the legislative biennium.
(“Biennium” has two meanings, but they’re related. Biennium refers to the two-year legislative term, which begins on January of an odd-numbered year, and ends in December of an even numbered year. This is what I meant above, but just to be clear . . .
Biennium also refers to the two-year period by which the budget is set. Last year the legislature laid out the budget for July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009. Next year, the legislature will pass bills on how to appropriate funds for July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011.)
• It’s a shorter session than last year's. All second sessions are.
• It’s a “bonding year.” Last year, the legislators passed a budget. This year, they’ll be working on bonding bills.
• We’re facing a budget deficit. Basically, the economy didn’t work in the favor of the budget set last year. Twice a year, in February and November, the budget is forecasted. In November, a $373 million deficit was projected. Some expect it to be closer to $1 billion when the February forecast comes out later this month.
• Duration: February 12 to May 19.
• It’s the second session in the legislative biennium.
(“Biennium” has two meanings, but they’re related. Biennium refers to the two-year legislative term, which begins on January of an odd-numbered year, and ends in December of an even numbered year. This is what I meant above, but just to be clear . . .
Biennium also refers to the two-year period by which the budget is set. Last year the legislature laid out the budget for July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009. Next year, the legislature will pass bills on how to appropriate funds for July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011.)
• It’s a shorter session than last year's. All second sessions are.
• It’s a “bonding year.” Last year, the legislators passed a budget. This year, they’ll be working on bonding bills.
• We’re facing a budget deficit. Basically, the economy didn’t work in the favor of the budget set last year. Twice a year, in February and November, the budget is forecasted. In November, a $373 million deficit was projected. Some expect it to be closer to $1 billion when the February forecast comes out later this month.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Why do we care?
That’s really the first question, isn’t it? Why does the Catholic Church in Minnesota care about what goes on down the hill from its beloved Cathedral?
(By “down the hill,” I mean the Capitol, which is technically a down-hill jaunt from the Cathedral and the Catholic Spirit offices. I know this, because it is definitely an uphill walk on the way back.)
Back to the question: Why does the Catholic Church have something to say about politics? Isn’t there a separation between church and state?
Well, yes, and no. The U.S. bishops address these questions in their 2007 document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility.” The bishops issue a document every four years on political responsibility and faithful citizenship. And in a keen anticipation of our query, the first question the document answers is “Why does the church teach about issues affecting public policy?”
Hmmmm . . . Why indeed?
It goes on to say that respect for the dignity of the human person is the core of Catholic moral and social teaching, and that Catholics must promote the well-being of all people. It reminds us that Pope Benedict XVI wrote in "Deus Caritas Est" that “charity must animate the entire lives of the lay faithful and therefore also their political activity, lived as ‘social charity’.”
I like how “Faithful Citizenship” (let’s call it FC for short) lays out the big question: “Some question whether it is appropriate for the church to play a role in public life.” Not only is it appropriate, it’s NECESSARY for the church to get involved, it argues. One, Christ told us to. He obliged us to teach about the “moral values that shape our lives — including our public lives,” FC states. Second, the U.S. Constitution lets us. “[It] protects the rights of individual believers and religious bodies to participate and speak out without government interference, favoritism, or discrimination,” the document states.
(By “down the hill,” I mean the Capitol, which is technically a down-hill jaunt from the Cathedral and the Catholic Spirit offices. I know this, because it is definitely an uphill walk on the way back.)
Back to the question: Why does the Catholic Church have something to say about politics? Isn’t there a separation between church and state?
Well, yes, and no. The U.S. bishops address these questions in their 2007 document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility.” The bishops issue a document every four years on political responsibility and faithful citizenship. And in a keen anticipation of our query, the first question the document answers is “Why does the church teach about issues affecting public policy?”
Hmmmm . . . Why indeed?
“The church’s obligation to participate in shaping the moral character of society is a requirement of our faith. It is a basic part of the mission we have received from Jesus Christ . . . . Christ, the teacher, shows us what is true and good, that is, what is in accord with our human nature as free, intelligent beings created in God’s image and likeness and endowed by the Creator with dignity and rights.”
It goes on to say that respect for the dignity of the human person is the core of Catholic moral and social teaching, and that Catholics must promote the well-being of all people. It reminds us that Pope Benedict XVI wrote in "Deus Caritas Est" that “charity must animate the entire lives of the lay faithful and therefore also their political activity, lived as ‘social charity’.”
I like how “Faithful Citizenship” (let’s call it FC for short) lays out the big question: “Some question whether it is appropriate for the church to play a role in public life.” Not only is it appropriate, it’s NECESSARY for the church to get involved, it argues. One, Christ told us to. He obliged us to teach about the “moral values that shape our lives — including our public lives,” FC states. Second, the U.S. Constitution lets us. “[It] protects the rights of individual believers and religious bodies to participate and speak out without government interference, favoritism, or discrimination,” the document states.
Thus, “Our nation’s tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions and concerns into public life. Indeed, our church’s teaching is in accord with the foundational values that have shaped our nation’s history: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)