To govern is to choose. In these economic times, and with our bleak budget picture, choosing often means deciding who will get fewer resources — and less help — then they were getting before. Only a very lucky (and very small) minority can expect to remain unscathed by inevitable cuts.
Some will find their property taxes going up, others will find huge increases in college tuition, many more will find government services that they’ve come to rely on scaled back or eliminated all together.
Fortunately, Sen. Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum (R-Pa.) has made the Republicans’ priorities clear for the rest of us.
In a terrific column today, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne spells out the choices being made to keep what ever semblance of fiscal sanity remains in Washington in tact. The important thing to remember is who will win when these choices are made, and who will lose.
Santorum and his Republican colleagues in Congress have decided that low-income working mothers, for example, can suffer a bit.
The GOP has announced major cutbacks in funding for child care programs for mothers on welfare. Child care funding had been expanded under President Clinton as a way to get mothers back to work, earning paychecks, and less dependent on government aid. Because many of these women couldn’t leave their children unattended while on the job, expanded child care funding was a way to help everyone.
As Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), a mother of two, said, “It’s so obvious when you’re out there with these single moms that they want to give 150 percent to get off welfare and provide for their families and achieve self-sufficiency and pride. But they just can’t do it without help, and especially without child care.”
Now, however, with half-trillion dollar deficits and spiraling war costs, Republicans are looking to scale back. Are they starting with fewer tax cuts for the wealthy? Of course not; they’re starting with child care funding for poor mothers.
Santorum explained at a meeting of the Senate Finance Committee last week, “Making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing.”
As Dionne said, “You should be inspired by those words the next time you see a mother working behind the counter at an ice cream place or a Burger King with her kids in tow. Just tell her having the kids around is good for family values. Struggle will build character. The kids can always do their homework in the corner.”
I think what Santorum meant is that he’s comfortable making some people struggle. Wealthy families, as far as the GOP is concerned, needn’t worry about an increased burden. They’re exempt from any considerations of shared sacrifice.
After all, Bush has asked for — and will probably receive — an additional $87 billion to help cover the costs of the war. Every penny will be borrowed, added to the debt, and will fall to future generations to repay (with interest). As Tim Russert noted over the weekend, however, if the White House and Congress agreed to cancel the tax cut for the top 1% of income earners for just one year, the $87 billion could be paid for and we wouldn’t have to borrow a dime.
Out of the question, say the Republicans. Millionaires and billionaires need that extra money in their pockets. It’s the low-income mothers who need child care services who we can make “struggle a little bit.”
As Dionne concluded, “It would be hard to find a clearer example of why the administration is running into increasing bitterness and opposition over its Iraq policies. By refusing to budge on any of its tax-cutting priorities, the administration is putting many of those who agree that more money needs to be spent on Iraq in an impossible position. If they vote for the money, they know they will be adding to the deficit — and creating even more excuses to short the working poor.”