I know most of us are so comfortable on our respective sides of the fence that we really don’t want to hear what the other side has to say, but we need to start.
And in that vein, I would really like to have an intelligent, respectful debate with anyone who can explain the Bush Administration’s actions on why it’s cutting food aid. Here’s the link from the New York Times, with a quote from the story:
“With the budget deficit growing and President Bush promising to reduce spending, the administration has told representatives of several charities that it was unable to honor some earlier promises and would have money to pay for food only in emergency crises like that in Darfur, in western Sudan. The cutbacks, estimated by some charities at up to $100 million, come at a time when the number of hungry in the world is rising for the first time in years and all food programs are being stretched.”
My questions: Isn’t alleviating poverty and starvation more important than some of the priorities the Bush Administration has funded?
What good will it do for the United States to be impervious to attack (which isn’t possible, anyway, and especially not by implementing the missile-defense system that doesn’t work)? How can the priorities of tax cuts continue to be defended in light of this news and the growing deficit?
I just can’t see it, but I’m willing to listen to a reasonable explanation. Anyone? Anyone?