Day: August 27, 2009

Wheeling Jesuit protest

Supporters are invited to speak up for the fired Jesuit president on a new website, “Save! Wheeling Jesuit University”:

Welcome

It is with great sorrow that we come together today with the departure of our president and dear friend, Fr. Julio Giulietti, S.J. We have all come here to seek the truth, and to know and understand what has happened within the university walls and what has become of the reputation of WJU. In this light, please invite anyone to read the blog and feel free to comment as you wish.

Giulietti was abruptly removed as president earlier this month by his fellow Jesuits acting as the university’s trustees.

Giulietti is shown in a picture with the caption: “Officially still the President of WJU.”

The latest posting is by Charles L. Currie, S.J., who calls Giulietti “a friend and colleague for many years” and tries to pour oil on troubled waters:

No one “wins” in such a situation and the demands of necessary confidentiality prevent folks knowing all the details. I am satisfied that good people on both sides seriously disagreed on what was best for the University and a decision had to be made.

It follows a letter posted yesterday by a supporter who cites “dissent” by Fr. Ed Glynn, S.J., a former WJU trustee, former president of three Jesuit universities, and former superior of the Jesuits’ Maryland Province, who objects to the firing.

The writer, John W. Hwee, of Chestnut Hill, Mass.:

There have been no allegations or evidence of any immoral, unethical, illegal or fiduciary negligent acts by Father Julio. I am appalled and disgusted, but not completely surprised by the underhanded actions of some members of the Board of Directors.

He finds especially “disheartening”

the action of the three Jesuit Trustees [who] fired Father Giulietti without the two-thirds [required] approval [by] the Board of Directors, without the full attendance of the Trustees and while Father Julio was on vacation.

At one point, Giulietti said he would sue the Jesuits.  But there has been no report of a suit.

What doth it profit? That is the question

Trouble is, govt. is not profit-motivated, and what it operates has no independent future. Thus U. of Chi economist Gary Becker:

Supporters of a government-run plan claim that it will be financially self-supporting, and will provide a standard for private plans. To see how this would work out in practice, consider the postal system [italics, coloration mine], a nominally private but basically a very old government-run business. The postal system is also supposed to be self-supporting, but only recently it once again asked Congress for additional [?] subsidies to cover deficits. [It’s subsidized?]

It strains credibility to expect that a large government-run health care option will not run huge deficits. Just as part of the postal deficits are caused by government mandates, such as providing Saturday deliveries at no added cost, so Congress will also impose costly and inefficient mandates on the government health care option, in addition to other inefficiencies of such a government health care organization.

This latter is crucial.  Mandates because what govt. does is wholly service-oriented, which is what makes it appealing to many people.  But do they know what a drain it is and many other services are?  And what happens when the money runs out?

As for the subsidy business, I confess to confusion.  Cutbacks are reported, but not subsidy.  But Becker is a heavyweight in these matters.

Pay off student loans quickly

Remember in The Graduate, where the Dustin Hoffman character was advised to go into plastics?  Now he would be advised to work for a Congress member:

A month after they voted to punish some corporate executives for taking hefty bonus payouts, members of the House of Representatives quietly gave their own staffers a new potential bonus by making even their top-earning aides eligible for taxpayer dollars to repay their student loans.

Or for that matter, for any boss in the federal government, where things have been booming for quite a while:

The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released its annual data on compensation levels by industry (Tables 6.2D, 6.3D, and 6.6D here). The data show that the pay advantage enjoyed by federal civilian workers over private-sector workers continues to expand.

If you live by the visual aid, here’s your cup of tea:

Fed vs. private compens

It didn’t start with Obama, as you can see.  But we don’t think the trend will slow down now, do we?  As matters stand, he may be the last of the big-time spenders.  I’m getting a sandwich board announcing, “The end is near.”

As this fellow said two months ago,

Rising unemployment, stagnant wages, falling housing prices … The US economy has overcome such crises time and again in the past. But President Obama and his allies in Congress are gearing up to wallop families and businesses with an array of new taxes to fund a host of spending plans. These won’t just hit hard at average families — they threaten to derail any economic recovery.

Get ready.

Later: Government is a growth business.  A case in point:

On Aug. 4, 1977, Jimmy Carter declared war on energy dependence and created the U.S. Department of Energy. Every president since has done the same. Today, 31 years later, the Department of Energy’s budget is $26 billion. It employs 16,000 people and 100,000 contract employees.

So what if we’re finally energy-independent?  Huh?

We are no closer to energy independence than we were in 1977.

The whole concept of achieving it with a new department is a flop.  F-L-O-P. 

“And you want the federal government to run health care?” asks Barry Goldwater Jr. in American Spectator.

 

From your friends in Washington

Instapundit calls them “dick panels.” They work this way:

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

Fine, you say. Let them. They put warning labels on lots of things. So put them on uncircumcised members.

However:

Under ObamaCare . . . when the government starts paying more and more of the health-care tab, they will point to ambiguous cost savings down the road in this and other cases, decades down the road to pressure Americans into surrendering their choices now.

So. For uncircumcised deliveries you expect reimbursement from Daddy Health Care? Sorry, fellows and girls. You made your bed, lie in it. No snip-snip, no payout. It’s how it works, don’t you know?

As Hot Air explains:

The advocates of ObamaCare insist that medical decisions will remain between doctors and patients and not involve mandates from government. However, the same people also cheer the idea of government coaching doctors to adopt practices, and to back up those choices with pressure from payment schedules, [Italics added here] which will result in de facto [not here] diktats, especially when it evolves into a single-payer system.

This they will do “in the name of AIDS prevention even though the risks are manageable and the effect less than certain.”

Because they know what is best for you.