CIVIC DUTY

Poor Mitt Romney. He seems to have a good idea of how to simplify income taxes by lowering rates while closing loopholes. One of the ways of doing that would be to put a dollar limit on deductions. But he dare not specify any itemized deductions lest special interest groups devoted to particular items, such as mortgage interest, for fear of inviting attack instead of illuminating debate. The Wall Street Journal recently editorialized on this subject.

Reporters, pundits and political opponents always call for specifics from candidates. They, as intelligent people, know that candidates must avoid fulfilling such demands at all costs. To answer specifically is to ask for challenges that cannot cause anything but diversions. The candidate’s main point cannot be made with clarity and without changing the subject. In short, a candid candidate puts himself on the defensive rather than getting the opportunity to explain his position so as to garner support.

Example: Stating that charitable contributions should be eliminated would spring such criticism as the candidate was against research to find a cure for cancer. “He wants my aged granddad to suffer from prostate cancer and die.” No, the candidate says, he only wants lower effective tax rates on a wider base of taxable income. Voters can picture a dying grandfather; they cannot easily visualize a two-axes chart with red and blue lines zigzagging on the vertical values scale and the horizontal time line.

Romney has to resort to saying that he wants a certain figure – he usually picks $25,000, just as an example, he quickly interjects –for allowable deductions, with lower figures for taxpayers with smaller incomes and higher figures for those with big incomes. That helps, but as an explanation that is not specific enough for critics, and maybe even for supporters.

Not defending Romney or his opponent¸ the incumbent president, can it not be said that, oh, if only candidates could be outspoken and say what they really mean? Would such frank speech not help voters?  Sure, such an approach would give opponents fodder, yet counter arguments would necessarily provide better and more informative material on which voters could make decisions. Sound bites are good for ads, but not for enlightenment.

But can that ever be as modern American politics go? The press – meaning the news media -- won’t let that happen. Opponents won’t let happen. Do voters have a say? Theoretically, yes. To do so, they must be attentive, study records, ignore the spin, work their will. The first politician or political scientist to figure out how to bend the current system to something that informs the electorate more precisely shall have earned a Nobel (OK, maybe not such a skewed prize).

However, the reality of the current campaign (too close to call at this writing) is that President Obama is running against a straw man he and his managers are trying to convince voters Romney is. Dog on car roof, teen-age bully, hater of Big Bird, requesting a “binder of women,” wanting to tax the poor and help the rich, having a car elevator in his vacation garage, shipping jobs overseas as a venture capitalist --- that’s the presidential campaign for reelection, not nearly four years of decisions in office. The press goes along, for the most part with stories, but seemed uninterested in similar back-grounding on President Obama. Essentially, the president is not running a campaign touting his term.

Leadership of the most important country in the world would seem to demand more serious attention. How was the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) foisted on the American people? How much will it cost, not only in dollars but in jobs and overhead? Why is not a 15-member, unelected committee for keeping medical costs down not rhetorically a “death” panel?

Many voters may not like Romney, which is their right. But Romney, as a candidate, is more obligated to explain and to defend his proposals for dealing with the country’s problems than to be backed into fending personal attacks that actually have little to do with character or integrity.

American political campaigning falls short of the perfection most citizens would like. But until something else comes along, voters and the more of the citizenry had best educate themselves in their civic duties.

I’LL HAVE F.R.I.E.S. WITH THAT

Fast food empires usually begin with a mom/pop sandwich shop in some modest town in a rust-belt state. So it was somewhat unusual for a lodge-hall culinary delight to catch fire and lead to the Sally­-forth award of F.R.I.E.S. --- the Franchise Regulars International Enterprises Society. That prestigious prize seldom goes to a winner in such a short time; more unusual, it went to a fraternal organization, the Knights of Fluffy Feathered Finch. Council No. 7-3/8 of the KFFF pioneered the featured sandwich that spurred the spectacular development of the honored restaurant chain.

The exciting sandwich was invented one slow BINGO night when the game manager wanted something different from the council hall’s snack bar. Larry Mitchell [incidentally, a distant relative of Gen. Billy Mitchell who was scorned in military circles for advocating aerial bombing of warships] had become bored with the snack bar’s usual fare. Hamburgers, hot dogs, tuna melts, Philly cheese-steaks, potato soup and such appeared nearly every BINGO night on the snack bar’s menu board. Larry regularly asked for grilled cheese on Texas toast. Such a diet twice a week can soon become (how can it be said?) unappetizing. Larry sought variety. He asked snack bar manager and Past Exalted Aviary Tender Tom “Big Chef” Fahey if a special order could be arranged. Big Chef’s affirmation caught Larry unprepared for the alacrity of that response. Larry had expected some dodge and was ready to accept another grilled cheese. But, he felt he should not let the opportunity slip by. With no time to think, he blurted: “Put two split hog dogs on the grilled cheese --- and maybe some tomato.”

“That sounds like fun food,” Tom alliterated.

Astonished, Larry found his concoction pleasing to his palate. For the next few weeks he continued to order his innovative sandwich.

His minions, seeing Larry’s happy countenance upon consuming his novel gastronomical achievement, sought the same delectable viand. Envious BINGO patrons, then, could not be denied.

As was their wont, the patrons always seeking opportunities to play, spread the news to other BINGO venues. Being a smart businessman, Larry was quick to patent the sandwich and copyright its name, Larry’s Fun Food.

Soon Larry had his own restaurant a few blocks from the lodge hall on Route 1. Folks streamed in. Larry’s sandwich garnered fans – gourmets but more particularly gourmands – throughout the neighborhood. Within months the sandwich became cult food throughout Fairfax and surrounding counties. Even the starring glutton from the Travel Channel’s Man vs. Food showed up with a film crew. Tourists from around the country made it a point to stop in when visiting Mount Vernon and other attractions.

Meanwhile, Big Chef saw Larry’s success in two lights --- the business potential, and a possible lawsuit to share the bonanza. Some judge might understand Larry’s good fortune could not have become reality without Big Chef’s cooperation. The board of KFFF agreed.

The legal challenge was nearly simultaneous with Larry’s launch of the Larry’s Fun Food franchise operation. Thanks to the Travel Channel’s free publicity, business people from around the fruited plain were storming the new LFF general offices in Crystal City.

Big Chef’s litigation became a federal case. The Hon. George Wimpy, whose great uncle had contributed to the unbridled popularity of the hamburger, was assigned the case. Despite rumors of bribery, which were unfounded, he dismissed the case.

A renowned architectural partnership founded by a student of Frank Lloyd Wright got the commission to design a standard store building for LFF franchisees that would be distinctive. F. Fulton Frieze, a man without conscience, lifted a basic idea from McDonald’s and sketched a façade featuring golden bicarbonate cups.  Surprisingly, Larry enjoyed the humor in the idea. The late Ray Kroc might not have appreciated the riff on his iconic Golden Arches, but it was no crock to Larry.

When Larry and his family moved into their 100 room chateau overlooking the cascades in the Potomac, Big Chef was invited. Tom, a gourmet in his own right, expected elaborate canapés accompanied by countless flutes of Dom Perignon, but the butler and his staff from silver salvers offer tapas shaped like Larry’s Fun Food and unlimited Arnold Palmers poured from Waterford pitchers.

Contemporaneous with the reception was the presentation of the Sally-forth trophy, a gold-plated paper tray of french-fries by the F.R.I.E.S. president. She asked the butler if he could possibly rustle up a Big Mac.

_______

JOB DID SHOW HIS PATIENCE, AFTER ALL THAT

It’s the future. Catholic hierarchy failed to convince secular authorities that religious freedom under the First Amendment meant the government could not force church-backed organizations to buy insurance that gave its employees free contraceptives and paid abortions, and the other sexual passes.

Now (it is still the future) Catholic hospitals, schools and colleges, charities and other eleemosynary organizations must pay the government stiff fines for failing to provide their employees such insurance coverage. For Catholics, it has always been God and country. Now they must choose. The University of Notre Dame [I hope as a ’51 grad] chooses God. Its accountants tell it that the university will go broke in matter of a year or two by defying the government. It will have to dig into its massive endowment of several billion dollars to say alive. Meanwhile, many of its Protestant and Jewish professors decamp along with a Catholic or two.

Elsewhere in the Catholic community of health-givers, educators and charities, many groups hang tough. Some, especially hospitals, have to close because of the onset of federal regulation overseen by bureaucrats whose hubris braces the overarching power of regulation.

People – Catholic and non-Catholics – who had jobs are now unemployed. Patients and impoverished clients are now without the help they were getting. Public institutions performing similar tasks are now flooded with imperiled people seeking help. Some what-have-we-wrought?-politicians emerge with the closures.

But what of the Church and its loyal members who have upheld doctrine over material wellbeing? They are beginning to understand the minds of countless Catholics who suffered persecution in the past, whether that be the “mild” type encountered by immigrant Irish and Italians in the early part of the 20^th century or that of the priests and nuns tortured and sometimes executed by the Nazis or the Christians killed by gnawing lions in the Coliseum of ancient Rome.

These, perhaps, soon to be persecuted Catholic leaders and church members will feel more like the Christians who manage to exist in countries ruled by Sharia law. Or like the Chinese Catholics that refuse to follow the state-imposed church.

But, what of the rank- and-file Catholic? Even before the ham-handed government lowered the boom, fallen- away Catholics undoubtedly outnumbered the practicing Catholic. What about the nominal Catholics who attend Mass most Sundays but believe contraception is okay? Are they standing with the brave and loyal Catholic hospital administrators and university presidents and charity executives who pay fines or close shop rather than violate their consciences?

So, let’s suppose all this bad stuff happens. The Church will suffer. More brickbats will be tossed. News purveyors will pile on, portraying practicing Catholics as dupes of the papist Vatican. Neighbors will become naysayers of Catholic teaching. Churchgoer numbers will probably fall precipitously.

And God will let it happen.

Historically, persecution has weakened the Church before it grows stronger. Like immunization, a little bit of the bug grows resistance to the disease.   

Job was beset with deaths in his family, boils and other painful afflictions. This Old Testament figure still cited when someone is said to have “the patience of Job,” is meant to be the consolation for sufferers. His misfortune is not a sign of hatred, says the Catholic Encyclopedia, but the proof of Divine love.

Could it be that God will permit the United States mandate-behemoth to force a pillow over the mouth and nostrils of the Church to encourage it to struggle for life, life more vigorous for the effort?

Job came out all right. He’s in Heaven.

His – ours? – was a struggle. We must continue to struggle.