A matter of national security

By Sandra Feldman

One of the greatest strengths of our extraordinarily vast, diverse and wealthy nation is the ability of our government to meet its responsibilities to support, protect and provide for its citizens. Throughout our history, presidents and other elected representatives from all political parties have found ways to respond to domestic needs, even as we met our international responsibilities--during times of war and times of peace.

President Abraham Lincoln created the Homestead Act--as he fought to keep the country unified; President Lyndon Johnson created Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the federal Title I program that provides billions of dollars in education funding for the most disadvantaged citizens--as he dealt with the growing miasma in Vietnam; and Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman built a full employment economy at home and educated the "greatest generation" through the GI Bill--as they directed our victory in World War II and the subsequent reconstruction of Western Europe through the Marshall Plan.

We are in the midst of another time when our resources are being pulled in different directions. In a world threatened by terrorism with our soldiers engaged in combat, citizens at home face devastating cuts in education, health, safety and other public services as a result of horrific and unprecedented state budget shortfalls. Recent news stories spell out the situation all too clearly:

Our responses to these problems will affect the quality of life for millions of citizens now and for years to come. They also go to the heart of who we are as a nation. They reflect not simply a short-term answer to the current budget crisis, but a long-term understanding of our national identity--an understanding that the wealthiest nation on earth should and must have the ability and the leadership to meet the needs of its citizens.

The problem and its solution transcend geography, economics and party lines, as a united National Governors Association made clear in a recent plea to President Bush. The governors pointed out that they were being given the responsibilities but not the resources to provide services under Medicaid, homeland security and several education laws, including No Child Left Behind and special education. They noted that states were buckling under the weight of what they said were "unfunded mandates." As the Republican governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, said, "We're beyond the point of inconveniencing people. We're close to hurting them."

It's time to help, not hurt. And there is a right way and wrong way to do that. The right way is for Congress to take the lead in developing--and for President Bush to get firmly behind--a plan that will provide significant funding to the states to help them close their budget gaps without gutting crucial public services for their citizens.

At this writing, several such proposals are making their way through the Senate. We believe the Daschle plan--which would provide about $60 billion, much of it specifically targeted, including $6 billion for schools, as well as a great deal of flexibility for states--is the best alternative, and we urge its quick passage.

But there is also a wrong way to deal with these problems at the federal level. And we've recently seen too much of that. For instance, the budget currently under consideration by Congress has cuts of nearly $100 million in Medicaid, $14 billion in veterans' benefits, and billions upon billions more cuts in critical programs such as school lunch, foster care and child nutrition programs, which make a daily difference in the lives of the most vulnerable citizens. Cuts like these are beneath us as a nation and a step toward reversing a proud national tradition of caring for and protecting our citizens.

Of course, the biggest mistake of all is the series of tax cuts proposed and passed by the Republican majority in Congress--they are windfalls that go primarily to the wealthiest citizens while adding to the burden of all others. That's not the way our nation should work at any time, let alone during times of crisis.

There's also a right way and a wrong way to deal with this crisis on the state level. States, too, have a duty to be responsible and not extravagant in setting and meeting their budgets.

The right way to achieve this is an approach that takes into account the needs of all citizens and workers and involves them and their organizations in a discussion of the appropriate course of action. In Michigan, Gov. Jennifer Granholm has embarked on just this kind of sensible path, making tough choices to address the $1.7 billion deficit she inherited, but doing so through consultation with groups of working men and women and other affected parties and making sure that the people most at risk do not see their lifelines cut.

In contrast, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts offers a prime example of how not to approach a budget shortfall. Gov. Romney not only seems to have little understanding of who the most vulnerable of his state's citizens are, he also has failed to consult with them or with any other workers to determine their needs and priorities. He chose instead to move ahead with more than $343 million in cuts, including $41 million slashed from education spending that largely benefits poor, urban and at-risk children. The governor's cuts of nearly $22 million from early literacy and early childhood education programs, for example, will have a serious negative impact on more than 24,000 mostly low-income families. That kind of thinking is short-term at best--and just plain cruel at worst.

These are not easy times for our nation. We face challenges at home and abroad. But to meet these challenges, leaders--at both the state and federal levels--must have the wisdom to develop and consider a number of options, the guts to make tough decisions and the flexibility to adapt as change is required. How our leaders respond--indeed how our citizens respond--is a window on our future and a portent of our nation's security.

Copyright by the American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO. All rights reserved. Photographs
and illustrations, as well as text, cannot be used without permission from the AFT.