Wednesday, March 15, 2006

What's Wrong With This Picture?

The Omaha World-Herald reports that the federal government is cutting back on a USDA nutrition program for low-income families. Two years ago, the program helped 536,196 households; after June 1st of this year, the number will be cut to 477,187. That doesn't seem like a lot, but more than 50,000 households nationwide means over 1,000 per state will lose vital assistance. According to federal regulations, the vast majority of those losing aid will be the elderly, because federal regulations require the assistance go first to women and children.

One measure of a society is how it cares for its members who are least able to care for themselves. By that measure, we collectively are failing miserably. This is inexcusable. It differs only in number, not in kind, from the 19th century British passive genocide against the Irish during the potato famines. Other food was there, but the British exported it and sold it, letting the Irish starve while they made money . . . and gained even more property in Ireland as its native owners died.

The official justification was that the only people who starved were the ones too lazy and shiftless to take care of themselves. Right. And I have a bridge to sell you. Even in the face of credible eyewitness reports of people eating grass in their desperation, the British government refused to assist the Irish.

The British government's stand was utterly reprehensible. And so is our government's stand today. Dubya's projected budget for 2007 is even worse: it will eliminate the program entirely, not just the help for our seniors. We spend and spend and spend for (among other questionable things) the quagmire in Iraq--and I wouldn't even be upset about that if the money were going where it was needed, to wit: to our troops and to their equipment and protection. An awful lot of the money seems to be disappearing, however, most probably into the pockets of those committing contract fraud . . . and more scarily, perhaps even into the hands of those who will use it to do us harm.

What's worse, the money for the war in Iraq isn't even in the regular budget to begin with, so the federal government's spending crisis is even worse than the "official" figures suggest.

Part of the money being cut had paid farmers for their crops, thus putting foodstuffs directly into the hands of the needy. These cutbacks therefore will also hurt an already-reeling agricultural economy. Yet the total amount of money involved is a microscopic pittance of the multitrillion dollar deficits Dubya has run up. "But we have to cut unnecessary spending," she said, sarcasm dripping from her lips.

Let's face it: the poor, even the elderly poor, are invisible to this administration. When Dubya can have his scripted, audience-pre-selected "public" appearances, during which an elderly white male (well-dressed and obviously well-off) claims that the new Medicare drug "benefit" worked well for him, Dubya does not get an accurate impression of the plight of the elderly in this country. Of course, how would he know anyway? Despite his pseudo-folksy manner, he's a child of privilege. Remember, his father--20 years ago-- didn't even know about UPC scanners in grocery stores.

It shouldn't surprise me that Dubya doesn't want to see what's really going on. He certainly doesn't want us to see what he's really doing, either. He gutted the terms of the release of presidential papers; he instructed the NSA to illegally wiretap Americans; his appointees make their departments ignore the Freedom of Information Act; and the government is classifying a geometrically-increasing percentage of its documents. All this in the name of fighting a war on terror wherein he has not even directly engaged our principal antagonist.

It's beyond shameful. It's inexcusable. Nevertheless, I do not see any hope for improvement unless the Democrats can come up with candidates who can articulate a sensible, coherent vision for the future of America and at the same time not be perceived as being soft on defense.

I'll take your bids on that bridge I'm selling now.

No comments: