Congress Cutting Our Confidence and our Children's Future

The debate over balancing the federal budget has failed the test of clarity. The past few months of deliberation has simply meant overload to most Americans. We tend to get lost in a blurred discussion of appropriations, continuing resolutions, short-term bills, CBO projections, OMB estimates, seven year plans, deficit reductions and budget reconciliations. The complexity in both the substance and the process of adopting this year's budget has left many people disaffected and disgusted with Washington politics.

It hasn't been the first time. In 1991, the public frustration with the budget process was best characterized by a call to "just do it." In that year, voter anger turned on President Bush, who suffered a 21 point drop in approval ratings in a single month. Whether the protracted budget process this year will finally result in that kind of disapproval directed towards Congress or the President is anybody's guess. One thing is certain-once again, there is a significant public sentiment to get on with it -"just do it."

Many otherwise interested voters have simply given up trying to understand the details of the debate. It's certainly tempting to ignore the complexities of this year's budget battle and concentrate only on the overall plan to reduce spending and bring balance to the federal budget. In fact, most of us would agree in concept with the goal of balancing the budget, but that should never lead us to just accept any plan that achieves that goal.

Congress has made bad choices in its attempt to reduce the federal deficit. Our concern is with the long-term effects of the current proposals on children. In its zeal to cut spending, Congress has proposed spending cuts that would diminish Medicaid, Head Start, Title I, "Safe and Drug-Free Schools" programs, and college loans and grants.

The question is not whether there could be a reasonable reduction in federal spending on education programs-the real question is why education was targeted with proposed cuts that are three to four times larger than cuts in other domestic spending programs.

Perhaps the greatest ruse is the promise of shifting control of federal programs to the states. The attraction of a "block grant" approach ignores the reality that with reduced federal funding, states must assume greater financial responsibility. Medicaid is a good example of the dilemma states face. It is estimated that more than 39,000 children receive Medicaid benefits in Nebraska. Any budget plan that reduces federal funding for Medicaid presents three tough choices for our state: reduce health benefit levels for Nebraska children, take money from other state programs to make up the difference, or raise state taxes.

Making the wrong choices for children doesn't make economic sense. The investment that yields the greatest returns-social, civic and economic-is what we stake on the future of our children. A balanced budget should not only stabilize revenue and spending-it must wisely balance the most critical needs with our resources.

Fortunately, courageous men and women-Democrat and Republican-are now fighting to prevent wrong choices for children. Our support for their efforts is important. The federal budget can be balanced without hurting the future of public education or our students.

It would be easy to allow our disgust with senseless government shutdowns, conflicting numbers, and a confusing process to blind us to the dangers of a budget balanced on the backs of children. Our message to Congress and the President must be to produce a balanced budget that protects our most common values-our commitment to children and the promise of their future.

NSEA

Survey

Congress Cutting Our Confidence and our Children's Future