 |
|
| FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more » |
John (bird whisperer)
pantslessprogressive: “The House budget for fiscal year 2013 tasks several congressional committees to ‘reduce lower‐priority spending’ to avert military cuts that will otherwise take place in January 2013 due to the debt deal agreed to last summer. Based on these committees’ decisions, it’s safe to assume that children are considered a ‘lower... - http://dendroica.tumblr.com/post...
![pantslessprogressive:
“The House budget for fiscal year 2013 tasks several congressional committees to ‘reduce lower‐priority spending’ to avert military cuts that will otherwise take place in January 2013 due to the debt deal agreed to last summer. Based on these committees’ decisions, it’s safe to assume that children are considered a ‘lower priority’ than the many other places House leadership could have found necessary savings.
The House Agriculture Committee, for example, could have found savings by reforming subsidies to wealthy farmers. The House Ways and Means Committee could have found its savings from closing tax loopholes for oil companies and hedge fund managers. But both committees decided that services for our most vulnerable children should be first and foremost on the chopping block. […]
These cuts are not only immoral—they are also bad economic policy. Child poverty alone costs our economy upwards of $500 billion a year in lost productivity, increased health care costs, and expenditures in the criminal justice system. Poor childhood nutrition leads to a host of negative consequences including increased instance of chronic diseases, lower educational achievement, and a less-skilled workforce of the future—all of which will ultimately undermine our economic competitiveness.
In contrast, higher taxes on the wealthy would not harm economic growth.” - Melissa Boteach](http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m35xhhrNpl1qzr73ro1_75sq.png "pantslessprogressive:
“The House budget for fiscal year 2013 tasks several congressional committees to ‘reduce lower‐priority spending’ to avert military cuts that will otherwise take place in January 2013 due to the debt deal agreed to last summer. Based on these committees’ decisions, it’s safe to assume that children are considered a ‘lower priority’ than the many other places House leadership could have found necessary savings.
The House Agriculture Committee, for example, could have found savings by reforming subsidies to wealthy farmers. The House Ways and Means Committee could have found its savings from closing tax loopholes for oil companies and hedge fund managers. But both committees decided that services for our most vulnerable children should be first and foremost on the chopping block. […]
These cuts are not only immoral—they are also bad economic policy. Child poverty alone costs our economy upwards of $500 billion a year in lost productivity, increased health care costs, and expenditures in the criminal justice system. Poor childhood nutrition leads to a host of negative consequences including increased instance of chronic diseases, lower educational achievement, and a less-skilled workforce of the future—all of which will ultimately undermine our economic competitiveness.
In contrast, higher taxes on the wealthy would not harm economic growth.” - Melissa Boteach") |
April 30, 2012
from Tumblr
- Comment
- Like
- Share
Steven Perez liked this