COLUMN: Trump’s budget is unnecessarily cruel
Though you could probably fill an entire Merriam-Webster Dictionary with conservative hypocrisies, their incessant primal screaming about government spending is probably one of their biggest (and most tiresome) harping points in all of New Deal politics. The most recent example, of course, is the national embarrassment that is President Donald Trump’s new budget proposal.
The budget is perhaps one of the most insidious and disappointing pieces of legislation the GOP has produced yet. The fact that it hasn’t passed yet doesn’t take away from the importance of the attempt to convert something this ludicrous into veritable law; the intention behind the budget is more terrifyingly indicative of the GOP’s proposed direction than anything we have seen.
Unfortunately for millions of Americans across states, social stations and political affiliations, advocates of this proposed budget abandon the constituents they pretend to serve — those same constituents they avoid at their own town hall meetings, in their own districts. Most importantly, the budget betrays the very purpose of legitimate industrialized government.
In general, the government exists to uphold an agreement among constituents to come together under representative government for the protection of their rights and general fulfillment of their needs — needs otherwise incapable of being satisfied alone. The society agrees to share the burden of caring for its sick, educating its children, building its businesses and protecting its private property.
However, for those right-wingers and lovely libertarians who endlessly benefit from government-provided, federally subsidized infrastructure, schools, hospitals, programming, clean water, clean air, higher education grants, food and health regulations, police, emergency services, health and safety programs, medical assistance and standardized utilities — but don’t feel obligated to pay for any of it — I highly recommend Somalia. You will love it. There is almost no government and no roads. Four-wheel drive into your Chris McCandless heaven.
And what are the programs the budget seeks to cut first? Grants that fund Meals on Wheels for elderly people and disabled adults, lunch programs for underprivileged kids, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Public Broadcasting Service, aid for college students, public school in general, along with summer school programs and public housing, legal services for the poor, the National Endowment for the Arts, the NIH and AmeriCorps. Most of these things comprise a tiny portion of the total budget. Defense spending, which received a generous increase under the new budget, accounts for 54 percent.
Meanwhile, the president goes on weekend trips to Mar-a-Lago that cost the government around $3 million each and his wife and son will remain in New York, costing the government almost $1 million per week. If you think businessman Eric Trump’s $100,000 trip to Uruguay was worth your tax dollars, but lunch programs for children aren’t, feel free to seek some of that Affordable Care Act-covered mental health treatment. For the right-wingers who pretend the government’s finally cutting the fat, let’s remember the two useless wars and trillion-dollar tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent that the GOP has found suitable to credit with tax dollars, and understand exactly how inconsequential the gutted programs were to both creating the debt and paying it off.
This is not a matter of political belief, or politics as usual. Take the aforementioned programs, for example. For some underprivileged kids, free or reduced-price lunch in school is the first time, and often the only time, they will eat that day. Without Meals on Wheels, many elderly Americans would quite literally starve. Legal assistance for the poor is a necessity of equality before the law. Public education, for many, is the only available education. Grants don’t just make higher education easier — they make it possible. PBS promotes reading and mathematics; its programs support English language learning for children as young as four. I am shocked and appalled by this budget. It is an ideological statement of cruelty.
Trump’s budget is a step toward a dysfunctional second-tier democracy and just a step away from depraved heart murder. It is pointless, callous and irresponsible. The GOP had eight years during which it could have been developing better health care and budgetary alternatives. Instead, they twiddled their thumbs, caused a government shutdown and subjected the world to Sen. Ted Cruz’s dramatic readings of Green Eggs and Ham.
In the meantime, call your representatives. Do not sit by while your rights and privileges, as well as those of your low-income fellow Americans — who also deserve the protection of their common needs, and also pay taxes and contribute to this nation — are easily and crudely disregarded.
Lily Vaughan is a sophomore majoring in history and political science. Her column,“Playing Politics,” runs every Friday.
I wish I had time to fact-check everything, but I’ll start with the “school lunches”. In fact, the reduction for food for poor children is actually a cut in funding for the international McGovern-Dole Food for Education program. This program provides services in other countries, not in this country. The author of this article obviously doesn’t know this. Furthermore, it is honestly debatable whether it has been a successful program.
In this country, the domestic after-school program that feeds children is not at risk, at least according to the NY Times. Additionally, the WIC budget will continue to be over $6 billion, and there is no plan to eliminate school lunches.
Ms. Vaughn needs to spend less time coming up with alliteration like “lovely libertarian” and do more research. I have commented before that less vitriol and more content (and more accurate content) would make for a far more persuasive essay.
I was going to wait to read this entire article to provide a legitimate rebuke of your views, but after reading “Though you could probably fill an entire Merriam-Webster Dictionary with conservative hypocrisies,” and seeing your picture it’s really not worth it. Typical unattractive liberal. Post scriptum: One of the worst and lest convincing pieces I’ve ever read. You must read picture books regularly. “The society agrees to share the burden of caring for its sick, educating its children, building its businesses and protecting its private property.” One of the many statements that you make that is simply unfounded. The United States Constitution doesn’t provide for any of this, except maybe protecting private property. But your order of operations reveals your deep biases and ignorance of the structure of our government.