No, really, that's the argument the Trump Administration is using to support proposed massive cuts in federal funding to programs like "Meals on Wheels" and Head Start. Because clearly we've spent way too much time focusing on the people who need and benefit from these programs, and way too little time on the people who have to fork over their hard-earned dividends money to pay for them.
'“Just to follow-up on that, you were talking about the steel worker in Ohio, coal worker in Pennsylvania, but they may have an elderly mother who depends on the Meals on Wheels program or who may have kids in Head Start,” Acosta said. “Yesterday, or the day before, you described this as a hard-power budget. Is it also a hard-hearted budget?”
“No, I don’t think so,” Mulvaney replied. “I think it’s probably one of the most compassionate things we can do.”
“To cut programs that help the elderly and kids?” Acosta asked, incredulously.
“You’re only focusing on half of the equation, right? You’re focusing on the recipients of the money. We’re trying to focus on both the recipients of the money and the folks who give us the money in the first place,” Mulvaney explained. “And I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say, ‘Look, we’re not gonna ask you for your hard-earned money, anymore, single mother of two in Detroit … unless we can guarantee to you that that money is actually being used in a proper function.’”'
This ignores that the "single mother of two in Detroit" is probably not paying nearly as much in federal taxes as she's benefiting from those programs (e.g., Head Start).
It also ignores that this budget doesn't actually reduce taxes on that "single mother of two in Detroit" — that comes in a tax cut bill later on, in theory. And one guess as to how much such a bill will benefit the "single mother of two in Detroid" and how much it will benefit the "billionaire real estate mogul in New York".
And in the compassion category of "What Would Jesus Do?", it's worth noting that while Jesus was sensitive to how much people gave to support the poor, the sick, the elderly, it wasn't that they were being asked to give, but that they gave in proportion to what they had, and gave until it hurt.[1]
That's just a small portion of the article as a whole, which is worth a read.
——
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+21%3A1-4&version=NKJV
Yes and will Trump ever have to look forward to the time is his life when a hot meal makes a the difference between life and death and the the human contact of the person who delivers the meal may be the only human contact they have all day.
The boy/man is an inconsiderate, self-centered arsehole.
Essentially the Trump budget is nothing more than the CATO institute's legislative to do list (really, just go and look through their site).
The Koch brothers must be glad that all the money they've dumped there have finally paid off.
The bigger issue is what is congress going to do, are they going to be more afraid of their owners or the voters.
Time to wake up. It's not just Trump. It is Congress that passes the budget.
They only care about you if you're healthy and of military age. Otherwise die, starve, get sick, live hand to mouth in dangerous conditions with poisonous water and air…..
A bomb that took out the Capitol would be a kindness.
+Robert Pratt No, it wouldn't.
But I concur with the rest of your sentiment.
Or we could just skip one presumptive Trump class aircraft carrier and its fleet of dysfunctional F35s and fund Meals on Wheels literally forever.
+Michael Verona …and universal healthcare.
As commented elsewhere, it turns out that 500,000 of MoW's customers … are low income military vets, just the folk that Trump tweeted up and down he was out to help take care of.
That single mom is more likely to end up having to pay for her mom's lunch, and run to check on her herself, while still being a single mom — or take mom in.
As a single mom who took her mom (with Lewy body dementia and Parkinson's) in, which likely accellerated the decline in my own health, I can tell you these things would suck with the cuts that are currently going in. I couldn't have done it. I have no idea what we would have done.
But I saved the government money by keeping mom out of dementia/nursing care and at home. She was happier, and we loved her so much (she died last year at 96 — she wasn't expected to live to 90). My brother put her in a home in 2005 and I took her out. She finally got "to much for my pay grade" as the elder service folks put it, in 2013. She was too ill, and the dementia progressed too far, for her to be safe at home.
The state gave me a small "stipend" — less than it would cost them for one shift of a CNA — to help me out for caring for her 24/7.
These programs are smart money. They are pro-family and economical over institutional care.
In the UK, taking a senior out of their family home is considered a violation of their human rights — even if they live alone. Just as we would have a mail carrier, they have a council nurse who goes around checking in and giving people meds and so on, like a visiting nurse here perhaps but with more kit and authority and daily rounds.
HUMAN RIGHTS for seniors. We really don't believe in that — I can tell you that myself being in a Medicare/Medicaid home myself now. "Old is the new black." It's terrible.
If you want to see this change before you might end up in this situation — start now. You might not be in the situation to change things after these people are in charge of your food, medical, and housing security. It's really pretty damn awful, and my social worker agrees there are individuals here who are abusive, but the ombudsman really can not protect us, and there are no viable alternatives in our community for most of us. So what do we do? If we continue to file complaints, we will all be without housing. Lovely isn't it?