Mitt Romney told CNN this morning that "I'm not concerned with the very poor. We have a safety net there." He'll probably want to bet $10,000 to prove me wrong, but we aren't doing enough to fight poverty and Romney's proposed economic agenda -- a mirror image of the policies of George W. Bush that caused poverty to skyrocket -- will hurt our nation. We should all be concerned.
The non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities recently noted that, "Governor Romney's budget proposals would require far deeper cuts in nondefense programs than the House-passed budget resolution authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan: $94 billion to $219 billion deeper in 2016 and $303 billion to $819 billion deeper in 2021."
That means deep cuts for food assistance to families, affordable housing for seniors and education for low-income children. Romney's proposals are deeply troubling. More so because he seems to live in a fantasy world where those living in poverty are already having all their needs met.
But talk to social service providers and faith-based groups -- or working families who are struggling to get by in the aftermath of the Bush presidency and the refusal of the GOP House to pass reasonable legislation, such as President Obama's American Jobs Act -- and you'll hear story after story about people being turned away from aid because it doesn't exist. There is real suffering in not being able to feed your child.
As Faith in Public Life has noted, it stands to get worse because of GOP economic malpractice.
Constrained by the limits of the shameful 2011 debt-ceiling budget deal, the Obama Administration is warning progressive groups that they won't appreciate the cuts facing human needs programs. Community health centers, childcare assistance and anti-hunger programs (to name a few) stand to be severely impacted by cuts in 2013. The potential consequences of these cuts cannot be underestimated and many difficult moral decisions lie ahead for policymakers.
It's important to remember that we're in this situation because Congressional Republicans threatened to crash the economy on purpose if the White House didn't agree to draconian cuts. Nonetheless, leaders of both parties must be held accountable for their moral (or immoral) budget priorities.
President Obama's heroic efforts in getting his original stimulus plan passed kept more than 30 million Americans from falling into poverty (or into deeper poverty). What is needed now is a plan from both parties to dramatically reduce poverty.
Mitt Romney doesn't worry about those living in poverty. But as a minister in the United Church of Christ, I would argue it is our moral responsibility to worry about the future of every American. That is particularly true of those most vulnerable in our society, people Jesus would have called the "least of these."
Follow Rev. Chuck Currie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RevChuckCurrie
Michael P. McDonald: They're Just Not That Into You, Mitt
Try finding a way to "tax" it instead.
THAT will drive people to start taking care of themselves, whereas handout just teach them to expect handouts.
Not saying either religion is wrong, but if you compare them both to the Bible and require that you're elected representative to be a Christan or Christian derivative, then a Muslim man would be closer to your beliefs than a Mormon.
BOTH parties?
C-SPAN, Pastor. Look into it. What is needed are Democratic majorities big enough that Republicans can no longer obstruct the business of running this country.
But he's not a radical. He's a moderate. He tries hard to be the most reasonable, accomodating guy around. That's what he does. To the great disappointment of some of us who voted for him thinking he was going to kick a** and take names all day every day like FDR. In retrospect it was very naive of me to confuse Obama with Kucinich. I'm still going to vote for Obama in November, but I won't be quite as excited about it as I was in 2008.
We effectively "pay" the poor to BE poor.
All the hue and cry over EPA, OSHA, minimum wage, etc. are tied back to this basic issue.
The best way to "mend the social safety net" is to embrace policies that reduce the number of people who get tangled in it.
Those solutions include fair trade practices, more equitable tax policies for multinational corporations and a determination that goods SOLD in the US be PRODUCED to our environmental and worker safety/ wage standards.
Oh, okay. So I guess those aren't homeless people, they're people who like to go camping in urban environments and are casual about their hygiene.
Matthew 25:45-46 (KJV)
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. [46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
It is interesting that you included another passage from Matthew 25 that referenced eternal punishment. Chuck seems to quote the "least of these passage" a lot but I wonder if he believes the part about eternal punishment? Does he think all scripture is the word of God, or just the parts he agrees with?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/the-second-poorest-county_b_1223702.html
Tim Giago said "Poor leadership, bad management, and no accountability or oversight, these are the daggers that have stabbed deep into the heart of Shannon County, nee, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation."
Mormon politicians tried the termination policy in the 1950s. Half of Utah's Paiutes died during the period between 1954 and 1980.
http://utahindians.org/archives/paiutes/history.html
These issues need to be addressed and not being concerned because there is a "safety net" does not help the American Indian voters decide if Romney will make positive changes for them.
Romney tried heavy handed coercion with Native Americans.
http://www.governing.com/topics/economic-dev/Raid-on-The-Reservation.html
Will poverty decrease if he becomes president? Will economic growth happen on rural reservations? Will there be better management and oversight?
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766”
Thank you.