Ryan's Budget (Brought to You by Catholic Social Teaching?)

I know we have some Paul Ryan admirers on this blog, and far be it from me to discourage elected officials from wrestling with the implications that Catholic social teaching has for public policy, but I start to feel a little tense when such "wrestling" looks more like "confident proclamation devoid of nuance."  Consider Ryan's explanation of his budget proposal:

Ryan said that the principle of subsidiarity — a notion, rooted in Catholic social teaching, that decisions are best made at most local level available — guided his thinking on budget planning.

“To me, the principle of subsidiarity, which is really federalism, meaning government closest to the people governs best, having a civil society … where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that’s how we advance the common good,” Ryan said.

Last week I subtracted points from a student's paper who equated subsidiarity with federalism.  They may be consistent in their facilitation of similar values, but federalism is a structural feature of government that operates without (much) regard to function; subsidiarity is, at the core, driven by assessments of function. (I trust that Prof. Brennan, who has minced no words in criticizing me for too readily embracing a secularized vision of subsidiarity, is currently penning a very strongly worded letter to Rep. Ryan.)  And then there's the preferential option for the poor:

The Wisconsin Republican said that he also drew on Catholic teachings regarding concern for the poor, and his interpretation of how that translated into government policy.

“[T]he preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life, help people get out of poverty out onto life of independence,” said Ryan.

I agree that CST does not want us to "keep people poor," but it is a matter of some dispute whether any meaningful tax increases for the wealthy can be equated with such an outcome.  I'm not suggesting that Ryan's budget is misguided -- indeed, there is much about it that I admire -- or that he is insincere in his application of CST.  It's simply another example of CST defying easy categorization; I have more respect for folks who acknowledge that.  (And that's probably why I'd be a disaster in politics, where nuance does not seem to go over well.)