_________________________
Note to readers: Early this morning, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a budget proposal (217-215) that, if enacted, would make severe cuts to our nation's most vital anti-poverty programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and child care. The margin was small because of your prayers, phone calls, e-mails, and letters to the editor. Thank you. In the coming weeks, the budget will face a House-Senate negotiation, followed by separate votes in each chamber. We will continue to raise our voices to demand justice for the poorest among us.
The prophet Isaiah said: "Woe to you legislators of infamous laws ... who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan."
The prophet Isaiah said: "Woe to you legislators of infamous laws ... who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan."
Today, I repeat those words. When our legislators put ideology over principle, it is time to sound the trumpets of justice and tell the truth.
It is a moral disgrace to take food from the mouths of hungry children to increase the luxuries of those feasting at a table overflowing with plenty. This is not what America is about, not what the season of Thanksgiving is about, not what loving our neighbor is about, and not what family values are about.
There is no moral path our legislators can take to defend a reckless, mean-spirited budget reconciliation bill that diminishes our compassion, as Jesus said, "for the least of these." It is morally unconscionable to hide behind arguments for fiscal responsibility and government efficiency. It is dishonest to stake proud claims to deficit reduction when tax cuts for the wealthy that increase the deficit are the next order of business. It is one more example of an absence of morality in our current political leadership.
Budgets are moral documents that reflect what we care about. Budget and tax bills that increase the deficit put our children's futures in jeopardy - and they hurt the vulnerable right now. The choice to cut supports that help people make it day to day in order to pay for tax cuts for those with plenty goes against everything our religious and moral principles teach us. It says that leaders don't care about people in need. It is a blatant reversal of biblical values - and symbolizes the death of compassionate conservatism.
The faith community is outraged and is drawing a line in the sand against immoral national priorities. It is time to draw that line more forcefully and more visibly.
I applaud those House members who have stood up for better budget priorities and fought hard all year to keep issues of basic fairness at the forefront of this debate. And I thank those on both sides of the aisle who stood up and did the right thing in voting against this bill, despite pressure from the House leadership. These strong voices provide some hope for getting beyond an ideology that disregards the role of government for the common good.
7 comments:
Amazing. Did our representatives even watch what happened after Katrina?
c hand, it would be great if what you suggest was in fact the way things work out when funds are cut in this manner. What actually happens instead is that hundreds of thousand of people are simply cut off of the benefit--in this case over 200,000, which is better than the House first attempted to pass that would have cut 400K off from the program. This says nothing about Medicaid, child care, Pell grants, etc.
Beyond the details here is the fact that present leadership is creating the expectation that investment will not be made in low income communities, but always at the other end of the economic continuum.
All this while an extremely questionable war is draining our resources. The idea of investing even a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war among low-income persons and their communities is unthinkable to the current leadership.
c hand, you have asked a most important question which gets at the heart of why people can't see the benefit of funding programs that are aimed at improving life for the poor.
Every dollar spent on WIC, early childhood education, Medicaid case management or affordable housing has amazing potential to not only save us money down the road (preventive investment) but the data shows that such spending leads to stronger lives for the people involved, including better health, work experience, earning power (thus spending power and tax base).
To be even more base in a capitalistic way, every dollar of food stamp funding cut, is a dollar Safeway doesn't get! Money invested at the bottom is spent quickly and circulates rapidly in low income communities. Every dollar spent on a housing voucher allows a developer who is interested in this market to develop more housing. Everyone benefits.
The image of "pouring money down a hole" has always been inaccurate. It goes into the market economy. I also think it is clear that money spent at the bottom has more positive impact on all of us than money "poured down that hole" at the top!
As Larry points out, these programs are not simply "wealth transfers" (as they are frequently referred to in matters of macroeconomics and such). They are funds that are put into immediate use; unlike many of the funds sitting in the banks of wealthy Americans, food stamps and other funds provided to the poor are immediately reinvested in the economy.
The reason why they should not simply be understood in terms of "wealth tranfers" is that, as Larry mentioned, they actually save us more money down the road in the form of decreased health problems (which would be covered by public health care systems at rates that are exponentially higher than preventative treatment), decreased unemployment, homelessness, etc.
It seems to me that the current budget cuts are saving us money in the short term only to cost us more money in the long term. If America truly wants to retain its position as not only the leader of the global economy but also the best country in which to live, this is not the wisest policy.
c hand, in my opinion one very unfair comment was posted against something you said. I made the decision to remove that one and, unfortuantely, a few others that were fine, but would have made not sense w/o the one I considered unfair. My apologies to you and the gent who posted last--what you both said was fine, I just didn't like the tone of a comment put up by an anonymous poster.
Post a Comment