For a moment, let’s picture “Jessica,” a 12-year-old girl living in San Diego, Calif., just outside the military base where her parents are stationed. Recently, an unsure feeling has been mixed in with her everyday kid activities of riding bikes, playing with friends and watching TV, since her mother and/or father may soon be thousands of miles away, fighting a war.
Now let’s take a moment to think of “Zalmai,” a 12-year-old boy living on the outskirts of Kabul, Afghanistan. His life has been changed profoundly during the past two years, as American-led forces toppled the oppressive Taliban regime and began efforts to rejuvenate Afghanistan. Despite his homeland’s hopeful potential, Zalmai still is hungry and without proper medical treatment, living in a largely volatile situation, with constant violence and upheaval forming the daily backdrop of his life.
Now let’s play “Guess what Jessica and Zalmai have in common.” If you said, “Under the Bush administration’s recently proposed budget and tax plan, neither would get a red cent,” you win! (Due to budget cuts you will receive no prize, but good job).
Our government’s recent actions have offended simple decency and basic moral obligation. We’ll start with a brief timeline of the events that could leave Jessica without a book, or maybe a bus ride to school, in the near future.
Flash back to August 29, 2000, when a hot-on-the-campaign-trail Dick Cheney took time to blast the Clinton-Gore administration’s handling of the military, which he described as “eight years of neglect and misplaced priorities.” Focusing on his running mate’s pledge to increase military spending, Cheney’s now-ridiculous rallying cry that day was, “To all of our men and women in uniform, and to their parents and families: Help is on the way!”
Cheney must have been speaking to those “families” whose children did not attend a school district receiving federal impact aid, a program intended to supplement local educational funding for schools on or near military bases. The current budget calls for $125 million to be cut from this program. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported last week that the hardest-hit district, San Diego Unified, will have to cut almost $4 million from next year’s budget as a result of this brilliant plan.
Now let’s try a flashback to understand Zalmai and Afghanistan. On April 17, 2002, President Bush addressed the Virginia Military Institute. Someone must be sleeping on the clock at the State Department, because the official government summation of the speech can still be accessed on the Internet. Let’s take a peek:
“President Bush said the United States will remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as needed in order to assist the Afghan people in developing a stable government and an effective economy … Bush recalled the legacy of General George C. Marshall, a former secretary of state and the creator of the Marshall Plan to rebuild war-torn Europe …”As George Marshall so clearly understood, it will not be enough to make the world safer. We must make the world better,” said Bush … The president pledged an equally determined effort to provide the Afghan people resources and expertise “to achieve their aspirations.”
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Before any rational American starts to actually believe that, it’s important to note the amount of aid Bush’s budget initially devoted to Afghanistan: nothing.
Comparisons to the Marshall Plan? You’ve got to be kidding me. Marshall Plan for Europe: More than $13 BILLION over four years. Bush plan for 2003 Afghanistan:
Luckily, there was a bipartisan outcry over this glaring oversight, and Representative Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) led an effort to find $300 million for Afghani humanitarian and reconstruction costs. According to BBC news, Kolbe commented that he received no satisfactory explanation from the administration for the error but did receive a pledge that it would never happen again. How reassuring.
All this begs the question: did our President’s brain get cut from the 2003 budget? Or just his heart?