The details and the implications of President Bush's proposed FY2006 budget are coming into clearer focus. The results, if adopted, will be terrible for the nation.
Bush intends to cut discretionary domestic spending by what will amount to $214 billion over the next five years. The cuts would total only $18 billion next year, but the kicker is that the budget plan involves imposing spending caps on programs for five years.
Consider the impact both in terms of real dollars (adjusted for inflation over the period in question) and in terms of who will be affected.
No Child Left Behind, the President's own education strategy, would see a 12% reduction in funds over the next five years--$11.5 billion lost.
The Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program--recognized as one of the best for the money, especially as a preventative strategy to reduce the number of low birth-weight infants and thus, the high cost of neo-natal health care costs--would be cut by $658 million. Translation in real terms: 660,000 women would no longer receive coverage.
Head Start, the highly successful early childhood education initiative, would be cut by $3.3 billion so that by 2010, 118,000 fewer pre-schoolers would be ineligible.
Clean water and clean air funding will decline by 20% by 2010. My oldest grandchild will be 8-years-old by then.
Community development programs that allow cities to invest in tough, impoverished neighborhoods--like here in Dallas--will lose $9.2 billion and will shrink by 36% by 2010.
Most of these cuts would be in funding sent first to the states.
Just what Texas needs, more funding losses. I can't wait to watch the Texas Legislature make up the difference in lost revenue for programs that benefit low-income Texans. We have such a great track record in the state of caring for our neighbors at the bottom!
David Border, columnist for The Washington Post, reported these facts recently (Sunday, February 27, 2005) and then went on to point out something even more important. While these cuts are being proposed--cuts that will disproportionately affect the nation's poor, no plan is forthcoming on how to address the funding crisis for the real big ticket entitlement programs that serve the middle class (i. e. Medicare and Social Security).
So, let's see. Tax cuts, deep tax cuts, made permanent for the top. Harsh cuts running out half a decade at the bottom. No policy plan on sustaining things in the middle. Border reported that David Walker, the head of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, called current budget policy "unsustainable."
Anybody awake enough to notice a problem here?
Announcement from Duke Memorial UMC
1 week ago
10 comments:
As long as it doesn't affect the stuff I'm a part of, whatever he decides to do is fine.
(my tongue is in my cheek)
Now I remember why I've never voted for the guy!
As long as the American public continues to disagree with the direction of this administration, both in foreign policy and domestic policy (according to a NYTimes poll) but Bush's approval rating stays up(?), I don't see much hope for a change in funding for programs that help people who don't have a voice (translated $$).
I don't think it's a question of being awake, because I don't think anything President Bush is doing is a surprise. You may disagree, I may disagree, but it seems a majority of Americans, however slight, favor these policies. Or, at the minimum, re-elected the President in spite of his support for these policies.
The minority is an uncomfortable place to be, especially when the trends seem to suggest that things are likely to get worse, before they get better.
Maybe Christians can make up the difference, or imagine this, do MORE than what the Government has been doing. If people in need are not being helped to the level they should be, the first place for me to look is in the mirror, not at Washington. Does that mean I think President Bush is justified in cutting aid to those in need? No. What I am saying is don't blame the Government for something we should have been doing since the get-go. The blame starts and stops with us.
Just one person's perspective, and I realize probably not a popular one on this blog.
David U, I actually think that your comments are in line with the idea behind this blog: the government, the business community, the church community and the not-for-profit community are not doing enough . . . they never have, and never will. However, to me, the point of this blog is to analyze these shortcomings as a way of deciding how we should live our own lives.
Larry's blog is not simply an angry jeremiad, lambasting the government for neglecting the poor and increasing the problems which we pay it to correct (and we must never forget that the government is there to work FOR us to improve our lives and communities). Although Larry's blog does that, it does more: this blog challenges us -- as individuals and churches (by which I mean communities) -- to see ourselves in the context of our world. As His followers, Christ challenged us to take His cup and to bring the Lord's Heaven into this world. This blog is one of the better roadmaps that I have encountered.
Within the secular world, non-profits exist to do the work that the government is either unwilling or unable to do (or, in many cases, simply unable to do well). I think that your comments fit right alongside Larry's other blogs on the role of the churches and their congregation. We must be willing to take up our own cross, bear it as the Lord would ask, and know that no earthly suffering can compare to the suffering of Christ on his cross.
David U. -- I don't think it's a question of the popularity of your view (here or elsewhere). We would all like to see churches and Christians do more.
I think it's a problem of capacity. I've posted this statistic before, but if every single churchgoer tithed, and every cent was spent on the poor--no church buildings, no salaries for pastors--then the church could make up about half what the government spends on the poor.
Much as we might like to think we could handle the problem without the government playing the principal role, it just isn't possible.
I LOVE Larry's blog, and I love Larry even more! It is a blog I read everyday, even though it makes me feel guilty many times. If there is a picture in our dictionaries beside the entry "servant"......then I think Larry's picture is there.
John, you mentioned that if we all tithed and it ALL went to the needy, it still would not cover what the govt is doing at present. Who is limiting us to tithing? Is tithing sacrificial giving? Just a thought.....much harder to implement, I know.
God bless Larry and his ministry, and I wish the govt. gave ministries like his 10 times what they are doing now, and I wish we gave 100 times more. Again, starting with the ugly guy in the mirror! :)
David, of course people could give more, and some do (although the vast majority do much less), I was just trying to convey a sense of the scale of the problem.
Federal government spending on poverty is probably between 40 and 200 times what churches spend--and I think 200 is a better estimate.
It's three times the total of all charitable giving. I haven't even tried to calculate how much state and local governments spend on poverty programs.
I don't think we should do art, music and education--or that churches should do without buildings and pastors without salaries.
I may react a little strongly to statements like "Christians can make up the difference" because I know it's not possible and it's not going to happen.
I had a "maybe" in my statement about Christians making up the difference, brother.
You may be correct in saying "it's not going to happen". I am not convinced of the "impossible" situation. Does Matt. 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37 and Luke 18:27 have relevance here? I would certainly think so. I understand why we sell ourselves short, I don't think we should sell God short.
Thanks for your insights John. You obviously have more data and have done more research in this area than I have.
If we had every thing figured out, there would be no need for faith.
Thanks for all the insight on what we need to be doing as individuals. It is important to note that we "the people" are the basis for the government.
One thing we could do is to work hard on the priorities the government has -- for example is it better to sink over $100,000,000,000 into a defense against rocket attack that obviously does not work (in the last three tests the defending rocket never left the ground)or in the health of our children.
What has each of us done to voice our concerns to those who represent us -- or if they don't really represent us what have we done to get someone in office that does?
Post a Comment