This Trump admin keeps on rolling into infamy. I've pretty much given up ever having a rational political discussion here on Skybox but some things I just cannot ignore... like this little tidbit from the guy responsible for the budget cutting in the Trump machine: "Mulvaney agreed that he knew the bill would hurt children and prevent them from having access to nutritional food from organizations like Meals on Wheels, but he wants people to know he’s suffering too. “Yes,” he began. “I don’t have a business card to give to you today, John, because, at the Office of Management and Budget, we have to pay for our own business cards. So it does start at home but it’s already started" No business cards? Damn I hope he doesn't starve.
Well, as usual, everything is so simple for the Democrats. Just take a proposal, distort it's effects, and fail to discuss or debate the rationale for the proposal. "OH MY GOD! TRUMP WANTS TO ELIMINATE MEALS ON WHEELS!!! WHAT ARE THE POOR GONNA DO". Nowhere in the budget proposal is Meals on Wheels mentioned. The administration has proposed eliminating the Community Block Grant Development Program...which gives Meals on Wheels approximately 3% of it's budget. "Oh, now here's something we can jump on and make them look like heartless bastards." A thoughtful debate on CDBG programs might be in order. But why have a thoughtful debate when we can throw rocks and accusations. And I'm not sure I go along with eliminating them. I believe that a lot of good is done with that money...but at the same time it's money just handed out to the communities, and I know that each year in my own town everybody and their brother are trying to grab some of that cash for their own particular program, some of which are good and some of which in my suspicions involve a bunch of people just justifying their jobs and lining their pockets. Here is the statement in the budget proposal; How about discussing that (I'm not sure I buy it) instead of having a pissing contest? You're the one wanting a rational discussion and you and your buddies are talking about business cards.
Without delving in to the specifics it just appears that too often lately the new administration just wants to throw the baby out with the bath water instead of rolling up the sleeves and dealing with the truly misdirected funds and waste. I suspect the same sort of issues are prevailing on the EPA budget cut proposals.
Re: EPA budget cut proposals: When you feel froggy and want to talk actual experiences of a recipient of how the EPA affects a business let me know, if you want to talk political media dogma on what you read don't bother responding. No my heart has nary a tendril of concern about reducing their budget and seeing their power reduced.. But maybe my definition of rational discussion is different than others on this topic from personal experience....
No rational discussion can begin without the acceptance that we are $20 trillion in debt and run an annual budget deficit of $500 billion, give or take. Only by piling on more debt daily and devaluating our own currency by printing more money can we continue to function at even maintenance levels. So... I don't think anyone is against meals for the poor people per se. But shouldn't we establish a cost and then eliminate another government expenditure of equal value? And if we want to run a balanced budget, should we not eliminate two other expenditures to tally twice the expense of Meals on Wheels in this illustration? And continue in this fashion until we balance out and then start trimming even more to reduce the debt? That, to me, is a serious discussion.
I'm certainly rational about the benefits of eliminating waste.... and greedy agendas. But when you drain the swamp you have to make a serious effort to pick out the good alligators from the bad ones. :wink:
See, now I can at least accept that as part of a rational debate. A good example of your point would be the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Trump's budget doesn't just reduce it...it eliminates it. I live here...a part of me understands an attitude of "those states are polluting it...they should fix it." Another part of me says that the Great Lakes are very important to national interests and the problems of the Great Lakes are not only caused by local mismanagement. But also keep in mind that the President's budget proposal is just a starting point...hopefully in a rational debate. :?
I lived in the Great Lakes region for 31 years. The clean-up and restoration of the Great Lakes and connected waters like Lake St. Clair near Detroit was nothing short of miraculous. It was so encouraging to believe that American government felt it was important to achieve this.... to regulate those polluters who would ruin such a resource for everyone else. Those are valuable natural resources to all Americans.... not just to the citizens of Detroit, Cleveland and Chicago. So that is a good example of very worthwhile programs that need to be maintained and enforced and you cannot do that without policing the would be offenders.
OK. Dave and I seem willing to negotiate in this budget exercise. Iam willing to concede the value Meals on Wheels. What can you offer up as a counter to this worthwhiole program with the idea of offsetting the expenses?
Sometimes things are feel good, like the meals program. But you do have to look at it rationally and see if it is accomplishing it's goal in a way that makes sense financially. Example is the Head Start programs. That's feel good, helping kids right? But a number of reports have come out that say, well it's not really working as intended. So the govt isn't getting it's money's worth and the kids aren't doing better. But it's such a feel good thing that to say we need to stop funding it makes it seem like you are against helping poor kids.
No agenda. No ax to grind. Just a rhetorical question and an observation. If and when you make a donation to a charity - let's say Meals on Wheels because it's the topic of the day (I agree with Stu's info that we're talking only about 3% of its budget) - do you make that donation looking for results? Or do you make it because you want elderly shut-ins to get decent nutrition that they can't afford otherwise, which in fact is the result of the program? I don't have a problem with budget cuts for charitable organizations, but don't insult my intelligence by telling me the money provided isn't producing the desired results. It helps people who can't help themselves. It's charity, period. If the party in charge believes the Federal Government shouldn't be in the charity business, just say so. Be honest about it. The party's base might be satisfied with the explanation, but the "swing" portion of the electorate, who most of the time makes the difference, will see through the spin. I'm an independent who is watching what happens over the next four years. I see this elected government on 2 levels: the administration and the congress. I'm not going to comment on either at this very early stage. I just was moved to make the above observation on what's being "debated" here.
I see your point Sid, the individual donor is seeking to do something to help people and doesn't really look at the bottom line. So lets take a fictional Meals on Wheels Charity, say they do deliver meals to 50 clients a day and that those 50 clients are worthy candidates not just some people who signed up to get a free meal delivered to them. What if you found out that only 20 cents on the dollar went toward the actual feeding of the clients and that 80 % went to admin costs such as salaries and benefits to those running the charity? I certainly would stop my contributions to that Charity, even though somebody would say but what about those 50 people? Well I feel sorry for them, but that Charity is a scam. I forget which one of the Cancer Funds was exposed as a scam, only 3% of the money donated actually went to Cancer. The rest fueled the lifestyle of the family running the Charity. So to me there has to be a look at how the thing is run, and if it's not doing the job in a financially sensible way then something has to be done.
My youngest son has told me that his vision is one day many different jobs being handled by automation/robotics. That people won't have to work because of it. I counter that by saying to him that people have no choice.... that for anyone to get paid and reap rewards and pleasures or necessities in life work is essential and unavoidable. If there are parts of the meals on wheels program that are beneficial and helpful and should be kept whole it comes with a price. Not enough people are out there volunteering time and equipment for free. Some expenses are just necessary.
Geez... leave it to mainstream media sources to try and tell a clearer picture: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/18/meal-on-wheels-trump-budget-proposal-cuts/99308928/ It sounds like MoW is indeed a small part of the Community Block Grant budget but it could be more seriously impacted by cuts at Health and Human Services.
Terry, I've always been a bottom line guy. If you and/or the administration have information that I don't have that says MOW is top heavy and that the revenue is not being spent efficiently, then by all means removing 3% of its budget will force the organization to taper its administrative costs, which is a good thing, and I stand corrected. My point is that on its face it appears that the administration's direction is agenda-driven, to distance the Federal Government from the social service business and "liberal" programs, and that the "insufficient results" issue is a smokescreen. Ultimately, as the budget process moves along, it may be revealed that your scenario is the correct one. If so, I applaud the cut. MOW won't go away because of a 3% cut in its budget. Full disclosure: I have a soft spot for MOW. My Dad drove and delivered for MOW for several years during his retirement. I went on a few runs with him, which convinced me he was doing a good thing.
I'm looking at it strictly as a business proposition. Taking that program figure of $227 million , lets just come up with an equivalent cut in some other area to offset it. I would offer up just about anything in the budget of the Dept of Education to get the ball rolling.