Bearing the Budget Burden

No phrase has been more misused in an election campaign and has come to have less meaning than the phrase “moral values,” especially after the recently proposed budget that attempts to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and indigent. Were that not outrageous enough, suddenly the White House suggests reimplementing the Patriot Act at the very time that the story of bogus reporter Jeff Gannon of Talon News makes his exit when it becomes known that he is also known as James Guckert, a male prostitute whose full frontal nude photos advertise his sexual services on the Internet. Certainly all people have rights to their own private lives, but when the government seems to be trying to cover its tracks, it should not surprise anyone if the poor and indigent feel more than a little bit of indignation.

The budget cuts also affect farmers, and here the cuts will be felt nationwide. Once the agricultural sector is hit, everybody will be hit in the bread basket – literally. Cut back farmers’ aid and watch what happens to food prices. The mind boggles at the very suggestion. No matter how many subsidy programs the government may add – and under the proposed budget, the government will be subtracting, not adding – everyone will need to learn to photosynthesize like plants to survive or die, because food will become a luxury item.

Many Americans have been raised on a generation of neoconservative largesse and truly believe that the current deficit spending is classic conservative economics. It is far from it. True conservatives are blushing crimson at what they are seeing under the Bush Administration and wondering what can they do to restore dignity to a party that once was known for stability. In truth, quite a few stalwart Republicans are grabbing onto the reins and are doing just that even now. Those Republicans are categorically refusing to allow the budget to pass, saying that it has far too many problems. So all the people who make the erroneous assumption that only liberals are “friends of the poor,” quite a few Republicans are very concerned that the lower income levels have been ignored completely and merit more consideration than they are getting. As much as that may seem out of line with the traditional GOP platform, many Republicans are realizing that radical politics have harmed more than helped the party.

The real problem is: who are the friends of the poor? The most painful part about poverty is the powerlessness of being marginalized, of being made nonentities only because of poverty. In some locations, the financial discrimination is outrageously blatant; I recall an incident of child abuse in Montgomery County in which an impoverished father was told by Child Protective Services, “Sir, you’ll have to hire a lawyer” when his son had been locked out of his mother’s home during hypothermia season,” a clear case of child neglect; by law, Child Protective Services should have reported the case to the police and pressed charges but refused to do so as long as there was a father – who did not have legal custody – from whom they could make financial demands for legal counsel for litigation on behalf of the child. The father sued Child Protective Services for negligence; the case is now before the U.S. District Court. The child’s well being remained a non-issue only because the father did not have the means to pay a lawyer; the fact that a mother locked him out in the snow was inconsequential.

The concept that every person should be treated with dignity and respect seems to be so elementary, so basic, and yet so distant and impossible to achieve in a society that only looks at balance sheets and financial reports. Money matters, but it’s not the only thing that matters. If there’s one thing I have learned since the day I ended up on the street in April 2003, it’s that it really could happen to anyone, and that we really all are human beings.

For those who saw the Thornton Wilder play, The Matchmaker, or the musical upon which it was based, Hello, Dolly!, it was a play that talked quite a bit about money, because Dolly Levi, born Gallagher, as she was quick to add in the play, was forever saying how her late husband, Ephraim Levi, always had wise sayings about money. He always said that “the difference between a little money and no money at all is enormous, and that can shatter the world, whereas the difference between a lot of money and a little money is very slight, and that also can shatter the world.” Interesting, isn’t it?

However, the line that always got the audience rolling in the aisles was when Dolly would say, “My late husband, Ephraim, would always say that money, if you’ll pardon the expression, is like manure. It doesn’t do a bit of good until you spread it around, encouraging young things to grow.” Say that with the flair of Carol Channing, the original Dolly, and you have a good picture of how the audience howled.

Isn’t it a shame that the money wasn’t spread around to encourage things to grow here? We sure could have used it. Instead, we’ve cultivated gardens on the other side of the world that we may never see that may well turn out to be hostile nations. Isn’t it time that we fed our own people and stop feeding others?