March 5, 2007VOL. 45, NO. 5Oakland, CA

COMMENTARY

•It is time for U.S. military troops to leave Iraq

•One good tax break for the working poor deserves another

•What does a homeless man at the freeway exit
have to do with Lent?

It is time for U.S. military troops to leave Iraq

By Douglas W. Kmiec

Our family did not receive its usual White House Christmas card this year. I know thousands of these are distributed, but I can’t help feeling that the president may be frustrated with me for no longer supporting the war in Iraq.

I did support the war. Indeed, in the weeks leading up to the war my pastor in Washington, D.C., where we were then residing, asked me to present the case for intervention before the parish community.

I agreed, though it was no easy task, as Sen. Ted Kennedy and his wife were fellow parishioners.

In early 2003 a plausible case for intervention could be made. For more than a dozen years, the now-executed Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at one U.N. resolution after another. What was he hiding? Few at the time thought it a charade. Few at the time were willing to take the risk.

There also was some reason to believe – and many of us surely wanted to find – a connection between al-Qaida and Iraq. At least this would make terrorism somewhat explainable, though in 2007 we know it lacks even this thin veneer of explanation.

Finally, there was ethical justification: humanitarian intervention. Saddam was not above murdering his own people, and as one commentator summarized the teaching of the late John Paul II: “Arms must be silent whenever possible, and all peaceful avenues explored. But when the wayfarer is attacked by the evildoer, then the good Samaritans must intervene, including with force.”

These justifications were more powerful than today’s opponents are willing to concede or remember.

The day of my presentation, Kennedy’s in-laws, Eunice and Sargent Shriver, made a special point of complimenting me for a case well made -- a point of pride then and of embarrassment now.

The reason for war having been established, there was every constitutional reason
to support the president’s exercise of war power. Article II of the Constitution designates him as commander-in-chief. The Congress by overwhelming margin had authorized use of military force in the most expansive terms. While there would be much Jesuitical argument that this fell short of a formal declaration of war, in truth and in history there have been few declared wars (five) and hundreds of military interventions.

The founders understood that this nation could resist external attack only by the unity of the presidency and “its energy and dispatch.”

The president, having made his case, deserved the full range of that legal authority.

The Supreme Court in the year just concluded was deeply mistaken to short-change him by giving credence to nonexistent habeas claims for the enemy or by deconstructing the president’s well-conceived system of military commissions. Congress was right almost immediately to reverse the court.

Did the president’s actions prevent another 9/11? Who can say? Who would not have wanted those actions to be taken to find out?

But it is 2007, and we know the justifications for the war were illusory. Whatever Saddam’s motivations for bluffery, the weapons of mass destruction were not to be found. The 9/11 commission established the absence of a connection to al-Qaida. As for humanitarian intervention, well, the insurgency long since has wiped out the humanity of our assistance.

The president’s justification for escalating the Iraq war with an additional 22,000 troops is unconvincing. More, it is deeply disappointing.

It manifests little respect for public sentiment and makes no genuine effort at convening a diplomatic summit with European and Middle Eastern nations that share the desire for a stable, peaceful Iraq.

However well-intentioned the initial intervention in Iraq may have been thought to be, and however noble the sacrifice made for those original intentions shall remain, the time for American troops to leave Iraq is now. If we return to rebuild in the company of the world community, Mr. President, you can count that as a victory.

(Douglas Kmiec is professor of Constitutional Law and Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University’s School of Law in Malibu.)

One good tax break for the working poor
deserves another

By Steve Pehanich

Taxes are a complicated and exasperating matter. No one wants to pay them, but all benefit from the services provided.

When you earn near the Federal poverty threshold, however, taxes can literally break the bank – except for one tax break that benefits the working poor. It’s called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and it helps ensure that if you work, taxes will not make it harder to escape poverty.

Americans, in particular, appreciate when people work hard. The ethic is well ingrained in our national psyche – sometimes too much so when we assume that only self-reliance, and not economic and societal inequalities, contribute to poverty.

Furthermore, Catholic social teaching says that work is the normal way of caring for oneself and one’s family and that government should take steps to ensure that we have the opportunity to do so.

It is contrary to American “common sense” that people work hard and still fall behind. The EITC is one good way of ensuring that work pays off and is widely acknowledged as one of the most effective anti-poverty tools in the United States.

Very few tax policies are appreciated on both sides of the ever-widening gap between liberals and conservatives. The EITC is one of them, yet the IRS estimates that as many as 7 million eligible taxpayers do not take advantage of it.

Workers who qualify for the credit, says the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C., will have their tax burden reduced and may even get extra cash back from the IRS – especially if they have children.

For example, take a family with two parents and two children that earns 150 percent of the Federal poverty threshold – about $29,000 per year. Without the EITC they owe $550 in taxes. However, the EITC is worth almost $2,000, meaning they do not have to pay the $550 and receive $1,450 back from “Uncle Sam.”

That money can help such a family quite a bit. It can cover late bills. Fix a leaky roof. Pay for community college. Or repair a broken car.

As the family’s income rises, the credit is reduced until the point where it ends completely – at about $38,000 per year for a family of four or about 200 percent of the poverty guidelines.

We all gripe about paying – and, oh, what fun it is – but it sure beats the alternative of earning nothing, owning nothing or, just as bad, working hard and still falling behind.

The fairness of the tax system is another question. As a society we need to make sure it is fair for all – individuals and corporations, home owners and renters, married and unmarried people.

“Justice and taxes” just doesn’t have the same ring as “death and taxes.” But we can always work toward more fairness.

Fortunately, there is an effort in California to do just that by creating a state EITC. Introduced by Assemblymember Dave Jones of Sacramento, the measure would create a similar credit on state taxes. Several other states already do that.

Part of the pain of paying taxes – aside from the obvious dollars involved – is the whole exercise of filling out those tortuous, confusing forms.

Fortunately, many non-profits operate Voluntary Income Tax Assistance (VITA) sites to help low-income people, seniors and others file.

I’ve even heard that IRS agents volunteer at these centers – proving once again that stereotypes are not a good thing. The Apostle Matthew, also a tax collector, is another strong argument for not judging too quickly.

Too many low-income people pay too much to get their tax returns done when this service is available for free. But there is a further danger – quick refund loans
Commercial tax preparers have promoted this lucrative side business, which in reality is a short-term loan – often with exorbitant fees and rates.

National outrage at the high rates has caused many people to be leery of these loans, but they are still a problem for many, especially military personnel, according to the Department of Defense.

Providing for the common good requires all of us to contribute. Supporting our neighbors through taxes and other means lifts our communities. But fairness is essential.

Some caring tax policies for the poor like the EITC are not too much to ask from our government.

(Steve Pehanich is executive director of Catholic Charities of California, whichprovides public policy assistance to the12 Catholic Charities agencies
in the state.)

What does a homeless man at the freeway exit
have to do with Lent?

By Julie McCarty

I encountered Christ the other day, while my car was stopped at one of those long traffic lights at a freeway exit ramp. He was standing at the side of the road, a polite distance from the car ahead of me, holding a cardboard sign with writing I could not make out—except for the giant word “HELP!”

Christ saw me, but I did not see Him. All I saw was a beggar, wrapped from head to toe, only his eyes showing, bracing himself in the sub-zero wind.

Inside my warm car, I thought all sorts of judgmental thoughts, wondering why he wasn’t inside, why he wasn’t working, why he wasn’t going to the “proper places” for help.

Another side of my brain was arguing with these thoughts. Having volunteered for a very short time to work with the homeless, I knew why he wasn’t inside.

I was aware that some people don’t have the “right requirements” for assistance.
I remembered how this same frigid wind had burned my cheeks just two days before. And I saw a bag of dried raisins and cherries sitting on the seat beside me.

I kept this inward debate going so long that the light turned green. Relieved, I went on my merry way, home to a warm house, a hot dinner, and a loving husband.

When I powered up my computer the following morning, I saw my next writing assignment sitting on my desk, a column about—of all things!—almsgiving.
What have I done? I thought. I couldn’t even hand over a $2 pouch of dried fruit to a beggar freezing in the Minnesota cold!

Jesus was no stranger to poverty.

Born in a humble stable and raised by working class parents, Jesus knew firsthand what it was to struggle for survival. His family knew the trials of fleeing a country to live in a foreign land (Egypt) in order to save their baby.

As an adult preacher, Jesus wandered on foot from place to place, sleeping outdoors, with “nowhere to rest his head” (Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58).

As an adult, Jesus did not only serve the poor and suffering, he identified with them. So great was his solidarity that he declared all who tend the poor are also tending to the needs of Christ (Matt. 25:31-46).

The very first Christians so believed this that they sold personal property to give to those most in need (Acts 2:45).

They realized what St. Basil the Great would teach later in history: “The bread you store up belongs to the hungry; the cloak that lies in your chest belongs to the naked; the gold you have hidden in the ground belongs to the poor.”

When we see great suffering in modern times, we may wonder if God really cares for us.

But Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta saw it a different way: “If sometimes our poor people have had to die of starvation,” she wrote, “it is not because God didn’t care for them, but because you and I didn’t give, were not instruments of love in the hands of God, to give them that bread, to give them that clothing; because we did not recognize him, when once more Christ came in distressing disguise—in the hungry man, in the lonely man, in the homeless child, and seeking for shelter.

God has identified himself with the hungry, the sick, the naked, the homeless. . .”
Lent is a time for seeking out those who suffer and doing what we can to provide for their needs.

We look for Christ in the faces of those who some people scorn: the prisoner, the immigrant, the sick, the unwed mother, the homosexual or lesbian, the guy from the “other side” of political or religious disputes, and the hidden face of the unborn.

We do what we can to alleviate suffering immediately and work to change unjust laws or unfair social structures.

We seek to love our so-called enemy, as Jesus taught us to do. In showing mercy and compassion, we discover Christ in his “distressing disguise,” the face of the homeless man at the freeway exit.

(Julie McCarty, M.A.T., is a freelance writer and author of “The Pearl of Great Price: Gospel Wisdom for Christian Marriage,” Liturgical Press, forthcoming July 2007).

back to top

home