Cutting taxes is not the solution to the problems we, as a society, face. There is a gross inequality of wealth in our society, and myriad other problems -- real problems --that our government is not addressing. In fact, the choices made by our elected officials over the last twenty years have exacerbated the real problems in our society. The choices made created winners and losers. How does the government "secure the Blessings of Liberty" and provide for "domestic Tranquillity"? It does so by enacting policies which help build communities i.e., good jobs, good schools, good health care, good housing, and a clean environment. Our communities have been the loser in the last twenty years, while the wealthy few have been the winners. ? In the last 18 years, federal money supporting communities has almost vanished. Aid to states and communities was cut by an incredible 1.4 trillion dollars in that time period. States lost $672 billion in community development, job training, revenue sharing, environmental programs and mass transit alone. Jobs: ? Millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1980. Manufacturing jobs have declined from 27.6% of all jobs in 1970 to 15.4% in 1996. ? Nine out of twenty occupations that provide the most new job openings from 1994-2005 will pay below poverty wages. ? There is a shortage of jobs for the unskilled; it is projected that 1.2 million workfare recipients will need a job or job training, but the private economy is projected to provide only 836,000 jobs or job training opportunities. How has our federal government responded to this critical need? ? Cut job training and job creation by $246 billion (56%) between 1979 and 1997; ? Cut mass transit funds by $57 billion (46%) nationwide, between 1980 and 1997; ? Provides less than one-fifth of what other industrialized countries spend on job training and job creation. ? Provided enormous subsidies to multinational corporations, including a total of $87 million to IBM and AT&T alone over the last two years. IBM and AT&T have cut 30 to 35% of their workforce, costing a total of 245,ooo jobs. Child Poverty: Despite the so-called economic good-times, since 1980 child poverty has increased and remained dangerously high in every type of community, increasing ? from 17.9% to 21.1% nationwide; ? from 26.2% to 31.9% in cities; ? from 11.2% to 18.8% in suburbs; ? from 19.4% to 22.5% in rural communities. We rank worst in child poverty, with rates 3 to 5 times higher than other western European countries. (BTW, half of all hungry households have at least one adult employed full time). How has our federal government responded to this critical need? ? Eliminated the federal guarantee for public assistance for poor families with children. ? Provides enough funding for only 75% of those eligible for WIC. ? Provides only enough funding for less than one-third of children eligible for Head Start programs. Schools: ? One-third of our school buildings, serving 14 million children, need extensive repair or replacement. ? Schools in poor communities receive 27% fewer dollars than schools in wealthy communities. How has our federal government responded? ? Spends less than 3% of our income tax dollars on elementary, secondary and higher education ? Voted down 1997 legislation that would have provided $5 billion to begin rebuilding our education infrastructure ? Cut back its share of total US education spending by one third (from 9.8% to 6.8%) since 1980. ? Funds only 64% of those eligible for Title One education for the disadvantaged, leaving 3.5 million needy students in the lurch. Health Care: ? 41.5 million Americans have no health insurance. ? Another 29 million are estimated to be underinsured. ? The US' infant mortality and low birth weight rates are the worst of 15 major industrialized nations. ? Every other industrialized country (except South Africa) provides its citizens with universal health care. In response, our federal government has decided to abandon any meaningful effort to provide affordable, accessible and quality health care for every American, regardless of age or income. Affordable Housing: ? In order to afford a two-bedroom apartment, a family earning minimum wage would have to work, on average, 83 hours each week. ? One third of all renters are unable to afford one-bedroom housing units, and must forego other necessities such as food, clothing and health care to afford rent. ? There is a need for 5 million affordable housing units. How has our federal government responded to this critical need? ? Cut the federal Housing and Urban Development budget from $70 billion a year in 1980, to $23 billion a year in 1997. ? Cut community development block grants, including funds for community development corporations to build low income housing. ? Virtually eliminated housing rehabilitation funds. ? Eliminated, for the first time in three decades, new vouchers or certificates for assisted housing. ? Provides federal housing assistance to only one third of those eligible, leaving 13 million people out in the cold. Since there are obvious losers as a result of choices made by our elected officials, who are the winners? The federal government historically promoted economic growth for everyone. Between 1950 and 1975, each segment of our society saw income gains of over 100%, with the biggest leap of 138% going to the bottom one -fifth of the population. Over the last two decades, the federal government has switched gears dramatically, becoming an engine of inequality in wealth distribution. ? Over the last twenty years, income for the wealthiest one-fifth of families increased on average 30%, nearly $27,000. Yet, incomes of the poorest fifth of families declined an average of 21% or $2,500. ? In 1976, the wealthiest 1% of Americans owned 19% of all the private material wealth in the US. today, they own over 40%, more than the bottom 92% of the population combined. Our federal government has contributed to this vast wealth gap by choosing to: ? Cut federal taxes for the wealthy by half since 1981. (this averaged out to $46,000 per in 1996) ? Pass tax cuts for the richest 1% between 1977 and 1996 that cost $1.1 trillion, equal to the entire growth of the federal deficit during that period. ? Enact tax and budget legislation in 1997 that will only widen the wealth gap. It gives the richest 1% over 30% of the total tax cut. It gives taxpayers in the lowest 40% of the income scale nothing at all. In fact, by 2007, the recently passed estate tax cuts (which benefit the heirs of the wealthiest 2%) will cost us more than all the legislation's social initiatives combined. Several key areas are deliniated above, along with the budget decisions of our government in relation to those areas, that need to be addressed in order to build good communities. I don't begrudge the rich their money; I do begrudge the government budget/tax decisions that benefit the rich at the expense of those who need help. Our communities and the lives of many poor need help, and the way our government spends money, and taxes it citizens, helps the wealthy instead of regular people. The whole point of the above rambling "manifesto" was to point out the poor budget/tax decisions our elected officials make. And that "manifesto" was inspired by the opening words of our Constitution.Responsibility for eliminating child poverty, for equal access to health care, a clean environment, quality education, decent jobs and reasonable housing should not be left to the whim of individual states and communities alone. The whole point of our federal government is to accomplish together what we cannot achieve alone. The rising poverty rates for children, the worsening standard of living for the working poor, the crumbling of our infrastructure which serves to give an opportunity for those less fortunate to build a decent life for themselves shows plainly we need to make different sorts of decisions if the government is to fulfill its purpose of "providing for the General Welfare" and "securing the Blessings of Liberty". Our federal budget priorities and tax policies right now only ensure the rich achieve these goals. I want everybody to enjoy the fruits of our great nation, not just a few. Some old fashioned "conservatives" may object by saying that the big flaw in my argument is the underlying assumption that it is government's responsibility to provide housing, food, education, jobs, job training, medicine, happiness, etc, etc, etc. But I don't assume that. I do assume, however, that there are undeniable social effects wrought by how and where our government spends and collects money. I also assume that the government does have a responsibility to fulfill the mandate expressed in the opening of the Constitution. It is my belief that the "Blessings of Liberty" are not being secured for all citizens as things stand now. It is my belief that the "General Welfare" is not being "promoted" the way things stand now. And the veneer of "Domestic Tranquility" and "Justice" is awfully thin. Our federal government's budget priorities create winners and losers. Right now the Pentagon, the wealthy, and corporations are winning -- the policies and laws are favoring them while too many others are suffering needlessly. If we shift our priorities and put some of the money other places besides the Pentagon and into already rich pockets, we could improve society, help build better lives, build better communities, and end lots of needless suffering. The old philosophical/religious question is: "Are we our brother's keeper"? Christians are taught by their scriptures that the answer is yes. We, as a collective society, are not doing well by our brothers right now. We all suffer because of this. The federal government is the mechanism, the tool of the collective will. Like I said before, the whole point of the federal government is to accomplish together what we cannot achieve alone. We could be doing a lot better by our brothers (our fellow citizens) than we are doing now. Different budget priorities are a good first step.