In spiritual lives:
No entitlement, no transparency, but yes, accountability

		Notes from the  Vicar General  Msgr. Paul J. Swain

Three words we hear often these days are entitlement, transparency, and accountability.

They are used in evaluating the institutions that are currently under the microscope. These include government, which seems in gridlock; corporations, where cooking the books and sweetheart compensation packages seem so prevalent; and the decision-making process in the Church, which seems so mysterious.

They even apply to the nation's pastime, baseball, where athletic accomplishment may be drug induced.

Where is the line between what we need to, and have the right to, know, and what is simply curiosity? What are leaders entitled to because of their office, and at what cost? How open and public should decision-making be? Issues of justice, privacy, good order, and good stewardship must be part of the dialogue for it to be productive.

In privileged positions

Elected officials, corporate and union executives, bishops and priests, and even major league baseball players, have one thing in common. They are in privileged positions. Along with this status comes temptation to take themselves too seriously, or over time to think they are entitled to, rather than the beneficiary of, the generosity of those who support them.

People are generous to priests. While basic support is necessary, we are ordained to serve, not to earn an income or build a stock portfolio.

It is easy to fall into the mind set of the secular culture that seems to emphasize what we are owed in this world, rather than what we can share. This is especially true when we consider the bounty we have in America, while millions suffer from lack of food, water, shelter, and health care.

Approaching each day

The beautiful and powerful Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew (Mt:6) sets forth the way in which all of us should approach each day, and therefore our passing life on earth.

So do not worry and say, 'what are we to eat?' or 'what are we to drink' or 'what are we to wear.' All these things the pagans seek . . . But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides . . . Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself.

In our spiritual lives

In our spiritual lives there is no entitlement: Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven . . . For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

In our spiritual lives there should be no transparent "show" for others to see: When you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will repay you.

In our spiritual lives, however, there will be accountability: For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

History has shown that all institutions, including government, corporations, baseball, and the Church, periodically need to be called to account for the failing of their human leaders. Unlike the others, the Church, instituted by Christ, remains under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And so too can be our lives. Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself.

Vote on budget makes one wonder:
What do parties stand for?

		Eye on the  Capitol  John Huebscher

State budgets by their nature contain a myriad of items, and any legislator can point to several items his constituents will like or dislike to justify a vote for or against a budget.

Having said that, the votes for and against this budget bill suggest that partisan philosophy was not a factor for many of the lawmakers.

Because the two parties share control of the legislature, any budget bill will represent a compromise between the Democrats who run the Senate and the Republicans who hold the majority in the Assembly. Thus no budget will reflect the views of either party.

Conference committee

The budget bill was the product of a conference committee consisting of four Democrats and four Republicans. Legislative rules provided that six members had to agree to the package before it could be voted on by the full legislature.

Three of the four Republicans and three of the four Democrats voted for the package in the conference committee.

Generally bi-partisan agreements result in a compromise that represents a "middle ground." Thus, the votes to pass such agreements are generally provided by the moderates in each party, with the more liberal Democrats and the more conservative Republicans in opposition.

That was not the case this time.

In the Senate, all 17 votes to pass the bill were cast by Democrats. Not one Senate Republican supported it.

In the Assembly, the opposite was true. All 50 votes to pass the bill came from the GOP. No Democrat crossed over to vote for the same bill that every Senate Democrat but one voted for.

Voting patterns

It is difficult to attribute these voting patterns to philosophy. One would think that a budget that included no new taxes and backed by 50 Assembly Republicans would appeal to at least some Senate Republicans, even if spending cuts were smaller than many would have preferred.

By the same token, one would expect that at least some Assembly Democrats would vote for a budget that protected the programs 17 of 18 Democratic senators voted to protect. But neither happened.

This will make for some interesting campaigning in the fall.

Upcoming campaigns

In State Senate contests, one can easily imagine Republican challengers attacking Democratic incumbents for supporting the budget, using the rhetoric of Democratic Assembly representatives who denounced the budget deal as they do so.

For their part, Democratic challengers can cite comments by Senate Republicans as they lay into Assembly Republicans for their votes in favor of the budget.

Political parties are supposed to represent philosophies of government or approaches to public policy that differ from those of other people.

Yet the votes of Wisconsin's state senators and Assembly representatives on the budget repair bill leave one wondering what, if anything, the political parties stand for.

Perhaps voters will ignore the budget as a factor in deciding which candidates to support. But if a lawmaker's vote on the budget repair bill is to be a litmus test, it is hard to tie that vote to an endorsement of a party's platform.

John Huebscher is executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.