IFC Director Chris Moran is circulating an article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy (President's Budget Seeks to Cut Many Programs That Subsidize Charities) that explains some of the impact of the Bush budget on social services.
This proposed budget is a serious local concern. If we wish to maintain responsible levels of social services, the pressure will increase on the local budget and on local taxes.
Here are a couple of examples of cuts given in the article:
The Community Development Block Grants program, through which local governments give money to charities and other groups for housing and economic development, would be eliminated. Grants for that program totaled $4.7-billion in 2005.
All money for vocational education, which totaled $1.2-billion in 2005, would be eliminated.
On the other hand, some items are getting increases:
The Compassion Capital Fund -- which provides grants to local charities, including programs run by religious groups -- would get $100-million, nearly double the 2005 figure.
Former Reagan budget director David Stockman explained many years ago how tax cuts are used to create deficits thereby squeezing the federal budget to force cuts in social services. They got started with Reagan. Under Bush, they are moving in for the kill.
It would be great to get some comments from those more directly involved with providing (or paying for) social services in Orange explaining some of the particulars of these impacts.
Issues:
Comments
I think that the CDBG cuts
I think that the CDBG cuts are tragic. This is a great program that does nothing but good for communities like ours, and the citizens who live there. It is focused on impoverished areas and families, and has helped soem great programs in the area.
I also like how the budget included 0 money for Iraq and Afghanistan. Guess our troops will be home real soon, huh?
Additionaly, to shift from secular funding (not sure if this is what to call it), to faith based funding is not the way to go IMO, it leaves out whole groups of people.
First off, how do you define
First off, how do you define "responsible levels of social service?" Most every time funding is increased for one project some must be removed from another.
I love how Bush-bashers complain about the war costing too much, then have statements like: "I also like how the budget included 0 money for Iraq and Afghanistan. Guess our troops will be home real soon, huh?"
Some people are never satisfied, and Bush can do ZERO right in their eyes - regardless the actual situation.