Much has been said in favor and in disgust of President Bush’s recent budget presentation.  We’re not all dim enough to miss the fact that a huge portion of the money appropriated goes to defense and “homeland security” and that such trivial programs as education and services for the poor are getting either extremely downsized or eliminated.  I understand fully the requirement for national defense, but I also understand that education and reasonable funding for programs heavy on social justice must be a priority as well (unless the goal is to privatize or “Christianize” them in the near future, meaning that churches {read: fundamentalist} will pick up the social slack…).  What we have here, as described by Jim Wallis, is an immoral document.  This budget smells more of militocracy and oligarchy than of democracy.  To have thought that a mere three months or so ago that President Bush portrayed himself as a man of the people, a stalwart defender of America’s educational system, and a proponent of the lean farmer.  I hope you all have thought twice concerning your vote for Bush now that it has reared its ugly, horrendously irresponsible head and is facing all of you down.

An excerpt from Jim Wallis’ article:

Budgets are moral documents that reflect the values and priorities of a family, church, organization, city, state, or nation. They tell us what is most important and valued to those making the budget. President Bush says that his 2006 budget “is a budget that sets priorities.” Examining those priorities – who will benefit and who will suffer in President Bush’s budget – is a moral and religious concern. Just as we have “environmental impact studies” for public policies, it is time for a “poverty impact statement,” which would ask the fundamental question of how policy proposals affect low-income people. We could start with this budget and do a “values audit” to determine how its values square with those of the American people. I believe this would reveal unacceptable priorities.

—–