President George W. Bush’s latest proposed federal budget for the nation and Gov. Matt Blunt’s first state budget proposal reveal the true priorities of these two Republican leaders. Both proposals are blatant examples of a disdain for the poor and middle class that trashes their highly vocal claims as adherents to high moral ground and drives disproportionate numbers of African Americans to the Democratic Party. Bush’s plan slashes a broad range of programs that benefit African Americans.
Bush, insulated and apparently insensitive, is content to continue his efforts to make permanent tax cuts for the very rich at the expense of government programs that affect the truly needy. He defends his spending cuts as necessary to curb the exploding deficit caused by his two politically popular but irresponsible tax cuts. Since entitlements account for two-thirds of the federal budget, and even he is unwilling to suggest serious cuts to current Social Security benefits because they would impact 36 million seniors, two-thirds of whom gain half of their income from these payments.
Moreover, the White House admitted on Tuesday that the president’s new Medicare prescription drug bill will cost $720 billion between 2006 and 2015. Yet, some of his proposed cuts that have merit will have such powerful opposition that they stand little chance of passage and the president knows it. Fortunately, there will also be opposition from some in his own party, who do not share his priorities in cutting some of the healthcare, education, small business development and housing subsidies that aid individuals and distressed urban areas.
Both Bush and Blunt claim moral concern, yet they shirk their duty to ensure that the burden of taxation be shared in a more equitable way. If the nation is on a war footing, as the president insists, why does he not call for sacrifices that do not single out the most needy among us? He seeks to cut those programs with the least political support n those that target the weakest groups.
While Bush insists he is interested in making an objective assessment to determine which programs are cost-effective and well-managed, he seems most interested in pushing for a hugely expensive plan to divert some Social Security payments to private accounts. Even this White House has acknowledged that this policy would bring no relief to the current system’s long-term financial problems. Also, in Bush’s campaign for private accounts he says little about the extra one to two trillion dollars in transition costs that will be needed to set up these accounts. These private accounts enrich Wall Street.
Even if prudence prevails and Congress rejects Bush’s fiscally deceptive plan for these accounts, he hopes to increase the number of young supporters for the GOP and its ideology.
We are impressed with an idea being fostered by Post-Dispatch pundit Erik Mink. He maintains that if each of the individual state income tax returns filed in Missouri in 2003 “brought in an average of just $5 more a week, we would have an additional $680 million annually to spend on healthcare. Poorer taxpayers would pay less; rich taxpayers more.” Mink also reminds us that “being poor is not a sin,” and we have a moral obligation to help those who need our help.
Notwithstanding Blunt’s sweeping accusations of fraud and abuse, the most significant reasons for exploding healthcare costs are endemic poverty and an aging population. Helping one’s neighbor is one of the highest moral values, and when we shun our responsibility to each other, we ourselves are diminished.