Actually, if you look at Romney's policy agenda, you will see that "fixing it" could not be further from his plan, unless it's doublespeak for "eviscerating it." Romney calls for immediate across-the-board cuts in nonsecurity discretionary spending. That would mean slashing the budget for many of the programs that comprise our safety net, by 5%, according to his spending proposal. These cuts would come on top of the 17% cut already affected by this summer's Budget Control Act.
Further, according to analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, his proposals to cap total spending at 20% of gross domestic product, along with increasing already bloated military spending, cutting taxes and pursuing a balanced budget, would necessitate enormous cuts to vital programs. "The cuts would measure 21% in 2016 and 36% in 2021," the center said. "If policymakers exempted Social Security from the cuts and then cut all other nondefense programs by the same percentage, the cuts would rise to 30% in 2016 and 54% in 2021."
Funding could all be gutted that helps low-income students afford college with Pell grants, enables low-income women and their children to eat a more nutritious diet, covers the cost of the highly successful Head Start early-education program and pays for job training, housing assistance and veterans' health care.
In short, Romney's plan would incinerate the very safety net that he claims to be his excuse for expressing no interest in addressing the needs of the "very poor." Oh, and how poor are the poorest 5% or 10% of Americans he seemed to be referring to, exactly? Even the census, which tracks household income for all Americans, doesn't say with precision, although it does note that households with annual income of $15,000 or less made up 13.7% of our population in 2010. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned about them.
If Romney's lack of concern about the very poor came with a real plan indeed to fix a tattered safety net so that poverty rates could begin to decrease, he might be less vulnerable to the charge of being out of touch with voters. But as long as his gaffes and policy prescriptions continue to belie either a lack of understanding of the economic plight of Americans or a cynical political calculation that both ignores and will exacerbate that plight, Romney will go the way of his fellow "oops"-prone 2012 presidential candidate.
When he joins the ranks of the also-rans, don't worry about him. Given that his net worth is somewhere between $85 million and $264 million, if anyone in America has a "very ample" safety net to fall back on, it's Mitt Romney.
Romney calls for immediate across-the-board cuts in nonsecurity discretionary spending. That would mean slashing the budget for many of the programs that comprise our safety net
The safety net is covered by mandatory spending, not discretionary spending. Accross-the-board cuts in non-defense discretionary spending would not touch the safety net.
Non-defense discretionary spending accounts for only about 15% of the entire US budget. A 5% cut to 15% of the budget is a drop in the bucket of our spending problems.
There are two types of government spending — discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending, which accounts for roughly one-third of all Federal spending, includes money for things like the Army, FBI, the Coast Guard, and highway projects. Congress explicitly determines how much to spend (or not spend) on these programs on an annual basis. Mandatory spending accounts for two-thirds of all government spending. This kind of spending is authorized by permanent laws. [Mandatory spending]includes Insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and federal retirement and disability programs that provide benefits to federal civilian employees, members of the military, and veterans. — programs through which individuals receive benefits based on their age, income, or other criteria. Spending levels in these areas are dictated by the number of people who sign up for these benefits, rather than by Congress - Wikipedia
-- Edited by winchester on Friday 3rd of February 2012 09:48:19 AM
__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain
Not too much. The Bible is silent on whether capital gains should be taxed at 15% or a higher rate. Ditto for other types of investment income. Payroll tax holidays are not mentioned.
"If you did a search on taxes in the Bible, you are not going to find a lot that's helpful for this discussion," said O. Wesley Allen, a Bible scholar at Lexington Theological Seminary.
Complicating matters, Allen said that one of the most commonly cited Bible passages about taxes is frequently misinterpreted.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is asked whether it is lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar, a Roman dictator.
Jesus tells his questioners to give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.
"That passage is often quoted as saying Jesus said to pay taxes. That's not what it is," Allen said. "It's important to remember that the people asking this question are trying to trick him. He gets out of the trap more than he answers the question."
Perhaps a better parallel is gleaning -- an Old Testament practice in which farmers are encouraged to leave the crops on the edges of their fields for orphans and widows
As a commandment, that functions as a tax on the rich for the sake of the poor," Allen said.
Allen said there are many passages throughout the Bible that mandate the poor and widowed should be cared for. "But it doesn't dictate the policies that should be pursued to accomplish that," he said.
The speech comes at a tricky time for a White House fully engaged in efforts to reelect the president.
The administration was still doing damage control over a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy that forces religious schools and institutions that offer employee health insurance to cover FDA-approved contraceptives.
The move has angered many Catholics in particular, who oppose the use of contraceptives on religious grounds, and view the policy as an intrusion on their religious liberty.
Since he has been in Washington, Obama has not formally joined a church. For nearly 20 years he was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
The president and his staff have noted the logistical difficulties of a sitting president attending services, but he has visited several churches in Washington and worshiped privately with his family at Camp David.
-- Edited by hope on Friday 3rd of February 2012 07:27:13 AM
huh... apparently the R's don't have a monopoly on this one.
--------
"And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society. To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.'"