from the article: “Winters nicely deconstructs, in both senses of the word, Ryan’s assertion that his opposition to federal social spending reflects the Catholic doctrine of “subsidiarity” — the notion that issues should be resolved “at the level of social organization closest to the individual.” Problem is, Winters writes, Ryan is not advocating innovative anti-poverty programs at the local level.”
This does not make sense: Ryan is not running for local office. If he were running for local office, that it might make sense to ask him about his positions on local issues.
Further, the article assumes that federal social welfare spending is actually good for the poor. All the evidence is to the contrary. First of all, are the poor really poor? In America, the “poor” are on average more obese than the non-poor. They also tend to have mobile phones, air conditioning, cable television, free time, clothing, medical care, shelter, public education, etc... - all things that the poor, as understood in the rest of the world and in, at least as I read it, the Bible, would not be expected to have. So I am not really sure how applicable Catholic social teaching is to this situation. One also has to look at the differences in competence on the part of the bishops when it comes to different kids of issues. For example, when it comes to which economic policy will best help the American poor, assuming they really are poor, the bishops have zero claim to greater competence than anyone else (and many of them are quite daft on the subject). However, when it comes to faith and morals, such as whether it is ok to kill unborn children or same-sex sexual activity, then yes if you are Catholic you should get on board with the bishops. All of this is to say that Paul Ryan has a far greater claim to Catholicism than do the likes of liberal so-called Catholics like Pelosi, Biden, John Kerry, the Kennedys, et al.
Daft is right.
A number of bishops, in typical liberal fashion, appear to live in a fantasy world in which dollars miraculously multiply like the loaves and the fishes, and in which no destructive consequences will result from open borders and taxpayer funded welfare to the world (coerced via brutal taxation from people who are not necessarily any better off than the ones who are sneaking in to avail themselves of the sweat of others' brows).
They don't understand that what they're advocating will eventually end up sinking the whole ship (resulting in far greater and more widespread misery than before.)