[Sawyer] Poverty, Lies, And Feeding Tubes

by John Sawyer
April 6, 2005

The Terri Schiavo debacle has turned into the surrogate of caring about life. It seems as if one advocates for the removal Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube, then it is they who are violating the sanctity of life—it is they who are killing an innocent disabled woman. Just recently, we saw another surrogate issue—homosexual civil unions—become the centerpiece of the Republican Party's 2004 agenda. This wedge issue drove evangelical Christians to the polls in order to prevent the so-called systematic dismantling of the American family by the granting of gay civil unions.

Never mind that Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter has converted him to sympathizing with the gay minority, and never mind that President Bush has yet to call for a ban on sodomy and gay marriage in his first 100 days. No, it seems that wedge issues are all that they are—issues designed to scare Americans sufficiently for an election victory, and then its back to closed-door politics.

And now we have come full circle to another wedge issue—the debate over the end of life and Mrs. Terri Schiavo. Scandalous Republicans who sought to display their courageous stance on the moral issue of life paraded her suffering through the media.

But, as the world waited and watched for the reinsertion of Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube, we forgot the several symbolic feeding tubes removed from the livelihood of the working poor through Mr. Bush's grossly inadequate budget. All while the defense department has seen a 4.8 percent increase in funding (not counting the dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), many social programs that are the lifeline of so many have been drastically cut or reduced.

Of the 150 cuts, education represents 48 of the proposed cut programs. That represents—in part—nearly $2 billion in reductions from programs like Upward Bound and the like. Imagine if someone cut your child's chance for career training.

Bush's budget also proposes to dismantle the Community Development Block Grants, which fight poverty. Assuming Congress assents to these cuts, community action programs that allow for housing, nutrition, employment services and education could be totally cut from the lifeblood of the American poor. Food Stamps will have stricter eligibility guidelines, and many welfare-to-work families could get caught in the cross hairs denying an ever-growing American poor the food they need for themselves and their families. I would imagine that the ability to feed one's family is a life issue—just not one worth stopping congressional business.

Stay with me here, I know this is tedious, but it's the physical reality of the poor. It's a reality we must face.

The Home Energy Assistance Program is being reduced by 8.4 percent and will deny many Americans their ability to heat their home, cook their dinners or even run a hot bath for their children. The EPA is seeing a cut of 5.6 percent, all while corporate polluters are being allowed to trade and buy emission allowances. Could constricting our breathing be a life issue as well?

And what about Agriculture—the veritable lifeblood of our state? Payments to farmers will be reduced by 5 percent along with a $250,000 ceiling on farming subsidies. That cut reduces the current limit of $360,000 annually. This Agriculture budget got looked over, and the National Family Farmers Coalition said, "Bush's budget benefits Corporate America—not Rural America."

In short, the 2006 fiscal Bush budget is pulling the plug and the feeding tubes from various social programs that could effectively deny many Americans the very sustenance they need for life. This budget does not represent the fabric of morality that is preached in the halls of Congress, nor does it represent the true message of life.

President Bush and the regressive right have declared a war on life—one that violates that sanctity of each human being and the very American principle of loving thy neighbor. This budget is not Christian, it is not moral, and it is most certainly not pro-life. It is without heart, it is without love, and it is without—dare I say—a soul.

COMMENTS

Page 1 of 1 pages

100 recent comments »