The burden you bear as you face the responsibility of composing a budget for the government of our nation must be immense. I appreciate every hour that you spend weighing this great decision. The budget for the next few years has enormous power to impact the well-being of our country, and I beg you to consider it thoroughly and carefully.
I appreciate the newfound desire to reduce the deficit that so many lawmakers are suddenly professing; it shows responsibility and concern for the future. Attention to wastefulness is absolutely necessary, but I am concerned about the areas that many are proposing to cut. Our priorities must be very clear as we focus on what the nation needs to ensure a great future.
Currently, the most pressing issue on the minds of almost all citizens is the high unemployment rate. Taxes can't be paid, and more revenue earned by the government, if its people are unemployed. For this reason, among many others, we must be sure that any cuts proposed will not contribute to more job cuts and fewer workers.
Many of the proposed budget cuts, such as eliminating AmeriCorps, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, reducing energy conservation and efficiency programs, a $298 million program for hiring local police officers, and $75 million from legal-aid programs among many others would serve exactly the opposite purpose. These programs are essential to restoring the job market and keeping Americans employed, in addition to being valuable investments in the future we can't afford to risk.
Not only should we value the types of programs that make our country stronger, such as the few listed above, but we must keep in mind the serious danger posed to the poorest among us. The moral test of any society is its willingness to take care of its most helpless. We cannot afford to cut in half, to nearly $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2012, a federal program that subsidizes energy costs for low-income households. If we as a nation cut funding to our police forces and, at the same time, eliminate vital aid to the poorest families we are essentially condemning our society to a spike in crime. Families which cannot afford to provide their basic necessities have been shown repeatedly through history to produce law-breakers as a result. Great Britain recognizes the need to continue our support of those unable to provide their own basic needs. Prime Minister Cameron chose to delay a nuclear submarine program and increase funding for international aid. He made the right decision and I urge you to do the same.
House Republicans seem to be focusing on only 12 percent of federal spending, targeting vitally important programs like education, environment, food safety, law enforcement, infrastructure, and transportation. These programs benefit or protect most Americans and we can ill afford to reduce them. One area that should receive consideration for reduction is
I appreciate the newfound desire to reduce the deficit that so many lawmakers are suddenly professing; it shows responsibility and concern for the future. Attention to wastefulness is absolutely necessary, but I am concerned about the areas that many are proposing to cut. Our priorities must be very clear as we focus on what the nation needs to ensure a great future.
Currently, the most pressing issue on the minds of almost all citizens is the high unemployment rate. Taxes can't be paid, and more revenue earned by the government, if its people are unemployed. For this reason, among many others, we must be sure that any cuts proposed will not contribute to more job cuts and fewer workers.
Many of the proposed budget cuts, such as eliminating AmeriCorps, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, reducing energy conservation and efficiency programs, a $298 million program for hiring local police officers, and $75 million from legal-aid programs among many others would serve exactly the opposite purpose. These programs are essential to restoring the job market and keeping Americans employed, in addition to being valuable investments in the future we can't afford to risk.
Not only should we value the types of programs that make our country stronger, such as the few listed above, but we must keep in mind the serious danger posed to the poorest among us. The moral test of any society is its willingness to take care of its most helpless. We cannot afford to cut in half, to nearly $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2012, a federal program that subsidizes energy costs for low-income households. If we as a nation cut funding to our police forces and, at the same time, eliminate vital aid to the poorest families we are essentially condemning our society to a spike in crime. Families which cannot afford to provide their basic necessities have been shown repeatedly through history to produce law-breakers as a result. Great Britain recognizes the need to continue our support of those unable to provide their own basic needs. Prime Minister Cameron chose to delay a nuclear submarine program and increase funding for international aid. He made the right decision and I urge you to do the same.
House Republicans seem to be focusing on only 12 percent of federal spending, targeting vitally important programs like education, environment, food safety, law enforcement, infrastructure, and transportation. These programs benefit or protect most Americans and we can ill afford to reduce them. One area that should receive consideration for reduction is
