Personal Responsibility? Tell that to a 5 year old...
While some may feel justified in limiting entitlement programs for adults, I think it has gone too far when you limit services for children in need. This budget, once again, protects the interests of the wealthiest individuals while increasing the deficit. The excerpts below detail the cuts that were passed and are taken from a letter written by The Children's Defense Fund regarding the budget just passed by Congress:
Mandatory Programs: The budget requires that mandatory programs be cut by $35 billion. For example, the Senate Finance Committee must cut $10 billion from the Medicaid program. The House and Senate Agriculture Committees must cut $3 billion, leaving the food stamp program vulnerable to reductions.
Domestic Discretionary Programs: The budget caps domestic discretionary program funding at $843 billion. These are for federal programs funded through the annual appropriations process. This cap will mean $24 billion must be removed from the budgets for Head Start, education, housing, and nutrition programs such as WIC for fiscal year 2006.
Tax cuts: The budget authorizes the Congress to pass $106 billion in unpaid-for tax cuts, of which $70 billion can be passed by a simple majority instead of with the possibility of extended debate.
The vote in the House was 214-211, and the vote in the Senate was 52-47. In the House, 195 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 15 Republicans voted against the conference report on the resolution. All those in favor were Republicans. In the Senate, 43 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 3 Republicans voted against the conference report, while 52 Republicans voted in favor.
4 Comments:
It really amazes me that they're chopping these programs off at the knees while they pump the defense and homeland security budgets to previously-unheard-of new highs. Is there a fundamental disconnect between this nation's presidential administration and the needs of its citizenry? I would argues yes, in a way I've never witnessed in my lifetime.
I think its shameful that we do not take care of our most helpless citizens. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world. Why do we have so many children living in poverty? Once again, this administration and Congress shows this country where their priorities lie - with the "elite", Bush's self-proclaimed "base".
What I don't get is the apparent contradiction between the administration's stated goals--specifically with regards to education, i.e. No Child Left Behind--and cuts to programs like Head Start. Unfortunately, it looks to be a case of lobbying power. The groups that most need the assistance--the poor, impoverished, children, etc.--do not have the organizational ability to advocate for themselves and therefore it is the programs that benefit them the most that seem to be first on the chopping block. Is this a campaign finance issue? If Congressmen weren't so reliant on PACs and special-interest groups for campaign money, if they were all publicly funded, do you think they would be better able to respond to the needs of ALL of their constituents?
I think there are a lot of issues here, but campaign finance is certainly one of them. If elected officials truly had to answer to their constituents instead of the powerful lobbyists who poured money into their campaigns, they may be in a better position to align their stated priorities with their legislative and funding decisions.
The most upsetting thing to me is the fact that we continue to offer tax cuts, predominantly for the rich, while cutting programs for the most vulnerable.
Post a Comment
<< Home