Local Congressman’s Decision has Broad Implications

On Thursday, March 21, 2013, Representative Richard Hanna from Barneveld, NY, Republican  representing the 22nd Congressional District in central New York, made the decision to vote YEA on the Paul Ryan Budget Plan for 2014.  As a result, he has finally revealed for all to see, his real intentions and positions.

First, he has joined with 220 other Republicans to give the richest among us special breaks they don’t merit by simply being rich, by being in positions of corporate power, or by their claims to fame.  The richest 1% of Americans -- of which there are about 1.4 million in the nation as a whole-- have been the ones who have prospered through this deep recession because of tax breaks, loopholes, write-offs, and subsidies unknown to the rest of us.  Mr. Hanna has voted in their favor, and thus approved what this budget does for them:

--It reduces the top individual and corporate tax rates to 25 percent. This would give the wealthiest Americans an average tax cut of at least $150,000 a year. The money would come out of programs for the elderly, lower-middle families, and the poor.

--The federal government will be selling a massive portfolio of foreclosed homes owned by HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to private investor conglomerates at extraordinarily large discounts to real value.  These properties will only be sold to those that can bring “a billion dollars or more to each transaction” – entities like hedge funds, foreign sovereign wealth funds, or companies like Goldman Sachs.

--Does away with the current seven tax rate system applied to individual taxpayers, which currently ranges from 10% to 39.6%, and replaces that system with only two rates: 10% and 25%. In the past, Ryan has stated that the 10% rate would apply to taxable income less than $100,000, with the 25% rate applying to all income in excess of that threshold. (Tony Nitti on Forbes.com)
The Tax Policy Center has run the numbers and determined the tax savings generated by the Republican plan when compared to current law. The results:
$200,000 – $500,000:     $9,873 average savings
$500,000 – $1,000,000:     $52,000 average savings
> $1,000,000:             $408,000 average savings
$40,000 – $100,000         average savings of approximately $1,000

--Repeals the alternative minimum tax as well as any and all taxes imposed by Obamacare, including the 3.8% tax on a taxpayer’s net investment income, and the tax on certain medical appliances.

--Transitions the international tax regime from the current “deferral” approach to a full territorial system.  Forbes.com explains:  Under a territorial tax system, U.S tax would never be imposed on income earned by a US company’s Foreign branch from non-U.S. sources. The U.S. would simply allow the Foreign Co.’s home country to tax its earnings. When Foreign Co.’s earnings are subsequently repatriated, the dividends would not be subject to U.S taxation.  By eliminating the U.S. tax on repatriated foreign earnings, U.S. companies will no longer have to pay to bring overseas income “home,” thus encouraging investment in the U.S.  But, on the negative side, this “encourages U.S. corporations to shift activities to jurisdictions with lower corporate tax rates, taking jobs and revenue along with them and eroding the U.S. tax base.”  (Tony Nitti of WS&B on Double-Taxation.com).

--The Ryan Budget purports to be revenue neutral (will make up for lost revenue from rate decreases by closing certain tax loopholes).  Unfortunately, the Ryan Budget does not name the loopholes it would close, deferring to the House Ways and Means Committee.  Does this mean that, on top of a substantial rate reduction, the rich might be able to maintain their mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions because of inaction on the part of that Committee?  You might want to count on it. 

-- Would force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to allow oil to travel from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. It would also end many of the subsidies for renewable energy companies that were included in the Democrats' stimulus bill. Ryan would promote policies that would favor conventional domestic energy sources including oil, natural gas and coal.  All of which is aimed at enhancing the already enormous profits of the huge energy corporations. (Jon Corrido News)

Millionaire Hanna just couldn’t resist all of these goodies for the rich.  In fact, one would expect him to garner some truly useful campaign money from this vote.  Moreover, Hanna has now shown that any worry or concern he may have had before the vote for vulnerable people in his District -- like DSAS or Rome Lab workers, labor in general, Seniors, women and children, schools, Head Start (which he called a “vital” program) -- all that is seemingly out the window.  Richard Hanna has voted against the middle class, against the poor, against children and young people, against wage earners.  Instead, he has shown himself to be a “party man”, and a person voting in his own favor, not that of his constituents.  He can no longer be considered either an “independent” or “maverick” Republican”.  He cannot even be labeled a “moderate,” unless one calls him an “opportunistic moderate” -- one who votes a moderate position only when it benefits his re-election chances, or his campaign revenue sources.

Those of you who thought Hanna was on his way to deserving these appellations of “moderate“ and “independent,” must now consider that he has fallen into the arms of the radical right-wing, as have so many others of his party.  As an article on Christian Science Monitor online asks: “So what’s the guiding principle here? Pure social Darwinism. Reward the rich and cut off the help to anyone who needs it.  Ryan says too many Americans rely on government benefits. ‘We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency‘.”

The proof of Hanna’s defection lies in the pudding.  By his YEA vote, here are some examples of what he actually approved for the other 98-99% of us, particularly for those who are most vulnerable.

Ryan’s Plan Threatens the Middle Class. “Each component of the new House Republican budget threatens the middle class while doing nothing to add jobs or grow our economy. It ends the guarantee of decent insurance for senior citizens, breaking Medicare’s bedrock promise. It slashes investments in education, infrastructure, and basic research, all of which are key drivers of economic growth and mobility. And it cuts taxes for those at the top, asking the middle class to pick up the tab. It’s a budget designed to benefit the top 1 percent at everyone else’s expense.” [Center for American Progress]

What the President’s Plan has always contained is a commitment to balanced deficit reduction—which includes both spending cuts and revenue increases—and realistic proposals with numbers that add up.  “Rep. Ryan’s new plan doesn’t come close to fitting that bill. It’s definitely not balanced. Not only would he place the entire burden of deficit reduction on the middle class and the poor but also would actually give the rich additional tax breaks at the same time. And the numbers don’t even add up to real deficit reduction. The tax proposals alone would break the bank, and the spending cuts are unrealistic in the extreme. It’s no wonder that Rep. Ryan didn’t allow the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate the budget’s actual policy proposals.” [Center for American Progress]

Ryan’s Plan Destroys 1.3 Million Jobs in 2013. “Paul Ryan’s latest budget doesn’t just fail to address job creation, it aggressively slows job growth. Against a current policy baseline, the budget cuts discretionary programs by about $120 billion over the next two years and mandatory programs by $284 billion, sucking demand out of the economy when it most needs it and leading to job loss. Using a standard macroeconomic model that is consistent with that used by private- and public-sector forecasters, near-term spending cuts would result in roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013 and 2.8 million jobs lost in 2014, or 4.1 million jobs through 2014.” [Economic Policy Institute]

Ryan’s Plan Cuts Critical Education Programs. “The Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade. 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether. This would derail bipartisan education reforms and deeply undermine K-12 education and college opportunity.  Roughly two million slots in Head Start would be eliminated over the next decade — cutting 200,000 children from the program in 2014 alone.” [OMB]

Ryan’s Plan Undermines the middle class
Nearly every important element of the Ryan budget proposal would weaken the middle class in America. First and foremost, the plan ends the Medicare guarantee of decent health insurance in retirement. It also slashes critical middle-class investments, such as education and infrastructure by 45 percent and 24 percent, respectively. It includes not a single new measure to help the nearly 13 million unemployed get back into a decent job. And on top of all that, the middle class would end up paying higher taxes as well. [Center for American Progress]

Ryan’s Plan Threatens Health Care Coverage
Many seniors would be forced to pay sharply higher premiums to stay in traditional Medicare and keep their current choice of doctors.
New Medicare beneficiaries could pay more than $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050.
More and more seniors would gradually shift to private health insurance plans over time, increasing the privatization of Medicare.
Hundreds of thousands of seniors would become uninsured.
Premiums would increase for most Medicare beneficiaries.
More than 47 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage in 10 years.
Tens of millions of Americans would lose consumer protections that are essential for health and economic security.
States would be forced to slash Medicaid eligibility, benefits, and payments to health care providers.

But the House budget’s cost-shifting approach would not stop with Medicare. The budget would also shred the safety net for the middle class and the most vulnerable people in our society—jeopardizing the health and economic security of tens of millions more Americans. All told, more than 47 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage in 10 years.

The Ryan budget would repeal affordable health insurance coverage for 33 million Americans under the Affordable Care Act. And the budget would eliminate the new law’s consumer protections, which have already benefited tens of millions of Americans.

The House budget would also transform Medicaid, replacing guaranteed federal funding with block grants to states. This would shift costs to states, which are already under enormous strain. According to the Congressional Budget Office, states would be forced to reduce eligibility, benefits, or payments to health care providers.

Here, from the Center for American Progress, is a review of the likely consequences:

• In 10 years the block grants alone would reduce enrollment by more than 14 million people, or almost 20 percent (presumably by establishing enrollment caps or waiting lists)
• To slow the growth in health care costs substantially, states would most likely cut benefits that are not typically covered by private health insurance. Benefits that are critical for people with severe disabilities—such as case management and mental health care—would be at risk. Also at risk would be comprehensive preventive care, screening, and follow-up treatment for children, known as Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment, or EPSDT.
• States would likely increase premiums and cost-sharing substantially—limiting access to needed care for the most vulnerable people in our society.
• Since payment rates under Medicaid are already low and inadequate in many cases, health care providers may not be willing to accept even lower payment rates. 
• In 10 years the House Republican budget could reduce payments to hospitals by more than $84 billion each year, or 38 percent. Hospitals would receive much less revenue as a result of reductions in payments, benefits, or eligibility. At the same time, the loss of coverage and benefits would increase the cost of uncompensated care substantially, placing an enormous burden on hospitals.
• All told, the House budget would cut Medicaid by more than $1.4 trillion over 10 years. But these cuts would not go toward deficit reduction. Rather, they would largely pay for expensive tax cuts. In essence the House budget seeks a massive transfer from the middle class and the most vulnerable in our society to high-income individuals.

Under the Ryan Plan, billions of meals would be missed by struggling families amid deep job losses in food-related industries
According to americanprogress.org, the House budget proposes to give states “more flexibility” in how they administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which ensures millions of Americans do not go hungry. What this really means is deep cuts to this effective program, which would inhibit its ability to respond during times of recession and would likely mean cuts to eligibility and benefits.  Under the House budget proposal, millions of people could be kicked off the nutrition assistance that stands between them and hunger, or could see their benefit set so low that it would be difficult to afford three meals a day, causing great harm because 76 percent of SNAP households included a child, elderly person, or disabled person.

Cuts to supplemental nutrition assistance hurt more than struggling families. Small businesses, including grocers and retailers who benefit from community members using these benefits to buy food for their families, would see fewer customers coming through their doors. If divided evenly over 10 years, an annual $13.4 billion cut would result in as many as 8.2 billion meals lost and 184,000 jobs lost in just one year.

The Ryan Budget would continue non-war defense spending at the expense of caring for our returning veterans
The House budget’s cuts in supplemental nutrition assistance, for example, could affect veterans and military families since $31 million of this funding in the last year for which complete data are available, was spent at military commissaries to help feed military members and their families who struggle against hunger.

The House budget will squeeze other domestic safety net programs that serve veterans and non-veterans alike. For example, a veteran lives in one in five households benefiting from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides heating and cooling assistance, and 1.2 million veterans used mental health services in 2010.
Yet the Ryan budget leaves the non-war defense budget untouched -- even with $70 billion in cost over-runs -- caused by management failures in the Department of Defense military contracts from the past two years alone. We could easily reduce the unprecedented level of baseline defense spending and invest in growing our middle class, without undermining our national security. But the House budget does the opposite.

The American people need to recognize the consequence of enacting the House budget plan in the coming fiscal year: it will tilt our economy even further in favor of the wealthy at the expense of broad-based economic prosperity for the middle-class and lower income Americans.  Representative Hanna has come down on the side of those who believe austerity is the way to reduce spending, in spite of the horrific consequences for those who need a helping hand or a short-term rescue or an opportunity to get back on their feet.  Like it or not, Government programs are an essential part of our economy, as are government jobs.  Apparently, Mr. Hanna does not see it that way.

Congressman Hanna has abandoned his constituents, and the time is fast approaching (2014) for them to abandon him!

CHILD NEGLECT and a Filibuster

I wrote last week about the neglect and abuse of children that Congress produces by its inaction,  and by its failure to understand what outcomes its actual legislation produces.  Along comes Senator Rand Paul to put an explanation point on what I wrote.  First, he manufactures an issue that does not exist.  Second, he stresses the power of the Executive branch of government as a negative while he fails to see what Republicans like him have been doing to use the power of Congress to prevent the passage of legislation meant to aid people, particularly children.  Third, comes forth the utter hypocrisy of all he stands for on this issue of drones attacking American citizens, while ignoring real children being killed by hunger, guns and inadequate health care.  His filibuster was not the heroic speech that some like-minded conservatives suggested, but a rant about a made-up problem and issue that, at best, might occur in a country run by Tea Party-like right-wing radicals.

For a Senator who serves on the Senate Sub-committee on Children and Families, his legislative record is a vote against children at almost every turn.  Let‘s mention just a few instances:

* Note: Rand Paul has a 100% conservative voting record according to CPAC. * Voted Nay on extending student loan interest rates, and on prohibiting an increase in those rates;

* Introduced Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013 (nothing about protecting children from gun violence) * Introduced an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease

* Introduced an amendment to prevent the creation of duplicate and overlapping Federal programs 

* Co-sponsored repeal of Affordable Care Act more than once

* Co-sponsored Health Care Bureaucrats Elimination Act - Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board charged with developing and submitting to the President, for Congress to consider, detailed proposals to reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.

* Co-sponsored Repeal of the CLASS Entitlement Act - Repeals provisions of the Public Health Service Act enacted under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (entitled the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act or the CLASS Act) which establish a national, voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports for individuals with functional limitations that will allow them to maintain their personal and financial independence and live in the community.

* Sponsored Parental Consent Act of 2011 which mainly prohibits mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved; also prohibits federal funds from being used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socio-emotional screening program. (Unhelpful in terms of dealing with aberrant or violent behavior of teens)

* Co-sponsored Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011with cuts in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) budget, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Indian Health Service, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Health (NIH), and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (all of which involve children#‘s well-being)

While chipping away at budgets and departments that essentially contain programs benefiting children, this member of the Sub-committee on Children and Families has not, to my knowledge, sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation that benefits children in any major area, including health, nutrition, housing, education, pollution control, or community services for children with special needs, since he came to the Senate. Exactly what is he doing on that sub-committee?  Oh, I know -- protecting children from being attacked by drones!

Therein lies the real shame of this man‘s wasting of the Senate’s time.  Instead of dealing with the major issues of our day, he makes a major calamity out of a non-existent issue.  How many American citizens have actually been killed by drone attack on our soil?  Not one!  But how many children were killed or injured by gun violence in the last year we have full statistics (2010)? -- Over 18,200! Senator Paul needs to get his priorities straightened out.

However, to be fair, we must point to the main reason for Mr. Paul’s filibuster.  It was to keep talking until the White House clarified whether it has authority to kill U.S. citizens on American soil with drones.  Administration lawyers said in all but the most extreme cases, the answer is no.  Speaking about hypothetical circumstances, Paul mused for hours about what kinds of circumstances might prompt the White House to unleash drones on Americans and what kinds of Americans might be targeted.  After 13 hours, Paul finally closed down his filibuster, having gotten an answer to his hypothetical question.  The real question for Paul, of course, is the power of the Presidency.  Although he seeks it openly, h,e fears it, and wants us to do the same.  He has a tendency to see things where they do not exist, as we shall see in just a bit. 

What makes this even more unpalatable were the reactions of arch-conservative talk show hosts, plus those of members in the Senate and the House.  They lauded the courage and leadership of this man; Rush Limbaugh even describing the filibuster as a watermark for changing the direction in which Washington is moving.  In my estimation, these reactions are more than adequate reminders that the radical Republicans are neglecters and abusers of this country‘s children.  It‘s past time to realize that they are the epitome of what is wrong in Congress: lack of attention to the needs of our citizens, especially our children, and being absorbed in non-issues, or manufactured issues that have little basis in reality.  (I won’t be caught saying this very often, but kudos to John McCain for speaking out against what Paul was trying to do!)

In regard to wasting the people’s resources and time, let us take a brief look at examples of  legislation on which Senators like Rand Paul spend precious time:

*Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011

*Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 *A bill to limit suspicious activity reporting requirements to requests from law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes.

*A bill to require the Attorney General to establish minimization and destruction procedures governing the acquisition, retention, and dissemination by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of certain records.

*A bill to remove the extension of the sunset date for section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act

*A bill to provide judicial review of National Security Letters.

*A bill to modify the roving wiretap authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

*A bill to require judicial review of Suspicious Activity Reports.

*A bill to modify the criteria used by the Corps of Engineers to dredge small ports

*A bill to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any program, project, or activity carried out outside the United States, including the territories and possessions of the United States.

*Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012

*A joint resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya and the Government and people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same.

*A joint resolution declaring that the President has exceeded his authority under the War Powers Resolution as it pertains to the ongoing military engagement in Libya.

*A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner no longer held the confidence of Congress or of the people of the United States.

*A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Perhaps this is enough to pinpoint the difficulty with Ron Paul.  He likes to find obscure difficulties or flaws that he can make into major legislation.  It must be such fun to be able to criticize the administration, block meaningful programs, and find all kinds of national security details.  But where is the legislation that might speak to real national issues, and thereby address existing problems, like the need to provide a world-class education to our children and young people.  His answer, I fear, is bound up in a joint resolution that he co-sponsored in 2012.

S.Res.99 - A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitutions of the United States and the several States, and that, because the use of international treaties to govern policy in the United States on families and children is contrary to principles of self-government and federalism, and that, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles of law in the United States regarding parents and children, the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.

Perhaps this is the epitome of what we are referencing about Rand Paul and other radicals.  Not only does he confess that he believes centuries-old documents are the primary protectors of children, along with family of course, making it abundantly clear that he does not support a declaration of Children’s rights ratified so far by 193 countries, including Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia, plus all other member countries except Somalia, South Sudan and the USA.  He believes that national governments should not get in-between parents and children, and that international laws that guarantee rights to children threaten US laws that support the primacy of parents. It comes down to a conflict of national and international law, in his mind, but in many areas of the Convention, there is no conflict.  Again, Rand Paul and 36 other co-sponsors have made up a crisis of legal conflicts in order to disparage the positive aspects of this Convention.

What does the Convention cover?  Essentially Wikipedia says it supports the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children.  “The Convention requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children as possessions or chattel, ownership of which was sometimes argued over in family disputes.”

“In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws. The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.”

“The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, and to have their privacy protected, and it requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.  The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children.”

In its General Comment 8 of 2006, the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that there was an "obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children".  Article 19 of the Convention states that State Parties must "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence".

Rand Paul and his cohorts apparently need to read this Convention more carefully.  It just so happens it addresses many of the real issues and problems that children face the world over.   Perhaps they and he would do well to take a look at the Principals of Legislation published on their website by the Children’s Defense Fund as a guide, not only to the importance of the U.N. Convention’s provisions, but as a guide to future legislation aimed at children‘s well-being, and to the defense of children against austerity measures.

“Any budget cuts”, says CDF, “must improve and not worsen the state of America’s children by:

1)    Protecting investments in children and low-income families from cuts.  Since the Budget Act of  1985, the fundamental principle of protecting children and other vulnerable populations has been a cornerstone of deficit reduction -- every automatic budget cut mechanism has exempted low-income assistance programs from all cuts.

Children are the poorest age group in America, with more than 1 in 5 children (1 in 3 in communities of color) living in poverty.  Polls show that almost 60% of Americans oppose cutting investments in anti-poverty programs

Cutting children from the budget now will cost us more later, increasing poverty rates, drop-out rates and jobless rates

2)   Investing in children to create jobs and promote economic growth for the nation.  For instance:

Early childhood programs have an estimated inflation-adjusted return rate of 10% or higher; society as a whole enjoys the majority of the economic return

Investments in high school education that raises graduation rates have been shown to yield a public benefit of $209,000 per student, and an economic benefit to the public purse 2.5 times greater than the costs

3)   Ensuring the most advantaged Americans and corporations pay their fair share.  Corporate tax deductions, exemptions, and credits cost the nation about $103 billion in lower tax receipts in 2011.  Each hour, about $11.8 billion is lost through these loopholes -- money that could instead be invested in:

Annual salaries for 420 Head Start teachers; or Pell grants for 3,100 low-income students; or WIC benefits for 23,600 women and children for a year; or SNAP benefits (food stamps) for 9,700 children and adults for one year.”

The priorities of Congress are so upside down right now, that Senators like Rand Paul cannot comprehend the harm they are doing to our most important resource: our children.  Apparently, they would rather let them languish in homelessness, poverty, hunger and ignorance than invest in their future and the future of our nation which stands to benefit from the potential talents and earnings of our youngest citizens.  Our job right now as concerned citizens is to stand up for all of this nation’s children, and to let Congress know that we will not tolerate the proposed austerity measures of sequestration and the Ryan Budget which clearly amount to child abuse and neglect.

 

GOP Attacks On Children

It is far past time to bring out more truth on Republican malfeasance.  After all, the Republican attack on women was and is, horrific, but so is their attack on science and research; their attacks on Chuck Hagel and other Presidential nominees; their attacks on voting rights; their attacks on people with vulnerabilities-- especially the elderly, the poor, laborers and immigrants, and those with disabilities.  Republican radicals are willing to take away benefits, voting rights, decent wages, health care, food programs, housing repair, infrastructure rehabilitation, adequate schools, and a clean environment just so they can weaken, and eventually destroy, the power of the federal government.  In doing so, they put people at risk because the federal government is the protector of the people; a resource and an advocate for those who have needs that cannot be met by individual states.  In my estimation, the Republicans in Congress are now engaged in an attack on our children, whether or not they, and the public-at-large, see it for what it is.

Let us begin by reminding ourselves of the attempts by radical Republicans to repeal what they have described derisively as “Obamacare.”  Congressional Republicans voted over 30 times to repeal part or all of the Affordable Health Care Act.  In doing so, whether intentional or not, they were attacking the CHIP program, which was an integral part of that legislation.  CHIP provides health insurance coverage for nearly 8 million children up to the age of 19 in families where the income is too high to qualify for Medicaid but who can’t afford private health insurance coverage. In that Act, there was a substantial raise in the amount of money being made available to the states for the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Act also included authorization of this program through 2019.  While many will be transitioned over to Medicaid, other recipients will see a 23% rise in the CHIP federal matching rate  beginning in October 2015.  This will result in added federal money going to the states for children’s health care, but radical Republicans, by their repeal votes, betrayed their willingness to harm children who fall under these provisions.

Another area that the radical Republicans were attacking as they sought Affordable Care Act repeal was Medicaid, in spite of the fact (or maybe because of it) that the program was therein expanded to include more needy families that don’t meet the extremely low poverty guidelines, thus covering more children.  It was the Ryan Budget that exposed for all to see, the heinous attitude of the radicals toward the Medicaid program.  By proposing to devolve the Program to state control,  their sights were set on either diminishing or destroying Medicaid, because state administrative and staff costs would eventually eat away at that Program’s services and its benefits.  Unfortunately, that would mean that children and young people, many with developmental disabilities and other handicapping conditions, would be harmed by cut-backs in coverage, to say nothing about those that would have been added under the Affordable Care Act!

On top of that attack on health care, these same congressmen decided to try to cut back on school meals, on food stamps, on grants to families in poverty and special need.  The latter is called WIC and is a program meant to feed pregnant women, infants and children, and would alone be cut by $7.6 billion.  Other cuts to domestic programs that would harm low-income children youth and infants include: $2.3 million in juvenile justice; $1.3 million in community health centers; $210 million in maternal and child health block grants; and $27 million denied to poison control centers.  Bet you thought I was referring to the sequester cuts, didn’t you?

No, that was the story with a Continuing Resolution back in 2011.  But now that “sequestration” has come into view, let’s take a look at what went into effect on March 1, 2013.  Let’s first be quite clear:  sequestration will cause severe harm to programs benefiting the middle class, the working poor, and those caught in poverty, especially seniors and children.  Cuts to education grants to states alone will affect projects for smaller classes, after school programs, and special education programs for children with disabilities.  Even though the proposed cuts are to take effect over a period of ten years to spread out the pain, nonetheless, they total $1.2 trillion and  some programs who are not equipped to handle it, are going to feel the axe right away in order to begin meeting the year-by-year goals.

Start with the fact that thousands of pre-school children will have to be dropped from enrollment in Head Start.  Although some districts may be able to delay cuts until the beginning of the new school year, there will be cuts come September.  Reduced funding means reduced student numbers but also reduced staff numbers, so that the staff themselves face hardship brought on by unemployment.  How does one go about choosing which children and which staff must be cut?  

Then let us turn to the opposition to the President’s proposal for universal pre-school.  Radical Republicans don’t seem to care that early education is the backbone, the foundation, for children’s progress in learning.  They worry more about where the money for this program will come from than they do about the fact that this is one of the best things we can do for children.  It’s short-term and long-term effects are well documented in spite of some claims by the Radicals that Head Start was some kind of joke. It wasn’t, and isn’t,   They say its effects don’t last beyond third grade, but they never say to what “effects” they are referring.  As with all their other fabricated falsehoods (like “voter fraud” and “death panels“), they never say exactly what they mean.  Which effects of Head Start end at third grade?  Reading ability, socialization skills, attention span, health improvements, self-esteem?  Detractors fail to tell us.  And, since the Program itself has several different functions and goals -- education, how to learn, attention to health and social needs, parenting skills -- this is not a program to be judged on just one skill or effect.  It has many, and universal pre-school would hopefully follow its examples.

So where can the  money come from for universal pre-school?  From anywhere we choose!  For instance, although the Radical Republicans soft-pedaled it, there was a recent report of a “super-computer” project in DoD that cost a billion dollars, but turned out to be a complete waste.  How many other contracts under DoD are a complete or nearly-complete, waste?  We all know the answer.  Let’s find them, expose them, discontinue them and use the funds for pre-school education.  How about some of those contracts let to private firms providing all kinds of support to our troops -- are they still needed?

Apparently, radical Republicans (and recalcitrant Democrats) don’t particularly care that education is all about children and young people making their way in our world (the 21st century, not the 20th or 19th).  Nor do they seem to care that the sequester cuts can have harmful effects on children and families.  The Washington Times has published a list of programs for families and children that will be impacted by the sequester cuts.

* Approximately 10,000 teacher jobs, 70,000 children in Head Start, and 7,200 special education teachers, aides and staff are on the chopping block;
* Up to 2,100 food inspector jobs are at risk, which would put families and children at risk in lost food production and outbreaks from food-borne illnesses;
* Some 12,000 scientists and students who conduct research for critical diseases would see their jobs come to an end;
* Cuts to mental health could impact 373,000 mentally ill adults and emotionally disturbed children who need treatment;
*  Cutting funds for Title I schools could impact 2,700 schools and close to 1.2 million underprivileged students;
* About 600,000 women and children, including infants, could be dropped from WIC from March until September;
* Many families could be affected by lay-offs and furloughs from federal (and states thereby affected) government jobs, many of whom are women with children.
* Close to 125,000 families that receive rental assistance would see that come to an end, adding to the number of homeless children which is already at epic proportions: 1.5 million children are estimated to be without a home and that is about 1 in every 50 children.  But that’s just part of the story. 

A report by the National Center on Family Homelessness offers a snapshot view of child homelessness in America and a summary of the unique needs of homeless children.
Hunger: Children without homes are twice as likely to experience hunger as other children. Two-thirds worry they won’t have enough to eat. More than one-third of homeless children report being forced to skip meals.
Health: Homelessness makes children sick. Children who experience homelessness are more than twice as likely as middle class children to have moderate to severe acute and chronic health problems.
Education: Homeless children are twice as likely as other children to repeat a grade in school, to be expelled or suspended, or to drop out of high school. At the end of high school, few homeless students are proficient in reading and math – and their estimated graduation rate is below 25%.
In addition, the report claims that homeless children “endure a lack of safety, comfort, privacy, reassuring routines, adequate health care, uninterrupted schooling, sustaining relationships, and a sense of community. These factors combine to create a life-altering experience that inflicts profound and lasting scars.”

There is another area where such an attack is not quite so evident, but the outcome is the same: children are being harmed.  That of course, is our precious environment and how we treat it.

“America’s Children and the Environment” is an EPA report released in January 2013 that presents key information on environmental stresses that can affect children’s health.  It shows the status and trends of contaminants in air, water, food soil, etc., biomonitoring of chemicals measured in the bodies of mothers and children, and effects on health of childhood diseases. After all, studies show that the origins of adult diseases (like high blood pressure) are often affected by childhood diseases.  Others are showing that prenatal and postnatal pollution exposures lead to adverse changes in children, including: blood pressure elevation, reduced cognition, behavioral problems, and abnormal somatic growth.

Something we rarely think about is the effect upon children from opposition to environmental protection by means of budget cuts, regulation tampering, and policy decisions influenced by big business.  These brands of action have the potential to produce deleterious effects especially on vulnerable children.  From “Slesinger’s Blog” on NRDC - the Natural Resources Defense Council - comes some effects of the budget for the next fiscal year:

• Will make it difficult to protect our health from toxins in air and water by slashing fund for the EPA;
• Will prevent communities from building needed drinking water and sewage systems by cutting almost $2 billion from funds used to make these systems affordable to local governments;
• Will decimate efforts to establish a clean energy economy by slashing funding for research on energy efficiency, renewable energy and alternative fuels, and even for the Energy Star program;
• An Earmark includes a provision gutting the ability of the EPA to extend the reach of the Clean Water Act to developers, livestock factories, and mining operations that dump waste water into United States waters;
• Utility, refining and coal interests have an Earmark relieving them from controlling carbon pollution that they spew into our air.

The salient point to be made is exactly that made in the article itself: “putting health protection on the chopping block means dirtier air, dirtier water, and more children…at risk.”  We cannot escape, no matter how unaware we are to these matters, that inadequate or negative legislation about climate and the environment, about health care and about education have harmful effects on children, not just adults.

And now, we come to what I believe is the ultimate betrayal of our children.  No, not the federal debt, which Republicans cast as the most worrisome aspect of our federal government: spending beyond our means and therefore creating a burden that will be placed upon our children and grandchildren because it will be left to them to resolve.  As I have posted here before, history does not support that concept.  The paying off of debt is a burden on adult taxpayers, and in the past, such an outcome has been well-achieved without austerity measures that might affect the current lives of children.  A balanced approach to the deficit is paying off: it is going down because of the combination of cuts and taxes that our President and his Democrat colleagues have pursued.  The winding down of two wars is also beneficial to that end.  At any rate, it appears that we are on the right track, in spite of Republican rhetoric and inaction.

No, I speak of the potential failure of our congressional leaders to stand up against the NRA and to put into law the President’s proposed common sense restrictions on the gun violence being perpetrated upon adults, and upon children and teenagers.   The Republican opposition to: a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles and over-sized ammunition magazines, to universal background checks and gun registration, plus inattention to reform of our mental health system, especially as concerns young people having difficulty with aberrant behavior and violence, threatens the lives of more of our children and young people.  Is this their way of saying that the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness are not unalienable rights, but gun ownership is the right on which all others depend?  Never mind that these are the people who bluster about debt, but are silent on death that comes to so many of our children because of the culture of violence that they largely ignore.  Gun violence reform is paramount for the promotion of the health and safety of our children.  They have an unalienable right to be protected, and we have the solemn duty to protect them.

One of the organizations with a lengthy record of concern over how guns and children don’t mix is the Children’s Defense Fund.  They have prepared reports on this issue for more than 20 years, and they are still doing so.  Their latest report on “Protect Children, Not Guns”, displayed on www.childrensdefense.org, provides us with some statistics that our Congressional representatives need to take seriously when they oppose reasonable gun control.  Consider the following:

• A child or teen dies or is injured from guns every 30 minutes
• In 2010, 18,270 children and teens died or were injured from guns
• More children and teens die from guns every three days than died in the Newton massacre
• Three times more children and teens were injured by guns in 2010 than the number of soldiers wounded in action that year in the Afghanistan war
• The number of children under five who died from guns in 2010 was more than the number of law enforcement officers who died from guns inn the line of duty: 82 children under five compared to 58 officers.

Some will strenuously object that Congress is not intentionally involved in an attack upon children.  I suspect members in Congress would vigorously and contemptuously deny any such intention.  But, that is exactly the problem here:  the denial of cause and effect.  If you cut programs, deny opportunities, ignore the effects of raping the environment, side-step the lack of a world-class education for our poorer or even our middle-class children, and then pile on the denial of the need for better and greater health coverage for so many of our children, plus refuse to restrain the killing of innocents with guns, while also denying that homelessness is a major problem for children -- that all adds up.

It adds up to neglect and abuse.  Whether they intend it or not, whether they like the appellation or not, congressional representatives who are guilty of being immune to, or unaware of, the outcome of their legislative actions, inactions, and votes, are perpetrating a full-bore attack on the well-being of children and young people.  Such an attack, in my estimation, is nothing short of child abuse, and in my opinion, there is no higher crime than the neglect and abuse of children.  The time has come for parents and grandparents to see beyond the titles and privileges, and to call these representatives out for what they are failing to accomplish for the children of this nation.