Comfort for the Comfortable

   A major goal of journalism is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
   The federal budget proposed for the coming fiscal year does the opposite, and breaks promises made to Americans during the presidential campaign. As outlined, it will comfort the comfortable with sweeping reductions in taxes, and afflict the already afflicted by massive cuts in funding for education, health care and other social welfare programs.
   Details are readily available in widespread news reports as well as in the budget itself, reachable on government web sites.
   As noted here several days ago, the Administration's economic policies, reflected in the proposed budget, amount to an attempt to revive the concept of trickle-down economics, which preaches that tax cuts for the wealthy will eventually trickle down through the rest of society, bringing renewed prosperity for all.
   The new budget assumes an economic growth rate of 3 percent, spurred by lower taxes, which would loosen more cash available for purchases and investment in production, which would provide more jobs, which would improve wages, which would attract more workers, who would then have more ability to buy more stuff, which would boost the economy even more.
   A heroic assumption, at best.
   Providing more money for those who already have plenty assumes they will actually spend it, and not simply stuff it in their already stuffed bank accounts.
   Another assumption is that bankers will actually make this additional money available for lending to expand production facilities, and not shore up their own corporate bottom line and share prices.
   It also assumes that producers will actually expand production, to meet yet another assumption -- increased demand from consumers.
   But if the additional cash has not yet trickled down to consumers, they won't be able to increase their demand for more products and services, growth potential stalls.
   The only ones who benefit from the initial infusion of cash from tax breaks will be those at the top.
   Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is already growing at the reasonable rate of almost 2 percent yearly. To expect that rate to jump to 3 percent -- or more, according to campaign promises -- is not only unreasonable, it is also unrealistic to the point of being a dream. And the consequences of sharp reductions in federal spending on aid to education, health care, Medicaid, poverty assistance and other social welfare programs are nightmarish to millions of Americans.
   Supporting the argument for massive budget cuts in these programs is the Republican claim that it restores freedom of choice to American citizens.
   As if people become sick by choice, just to annoy wealthy conservatives.
   But they have a right to choose a health insurance plan that they feel is right for them, not one that's dictated by government, goes the argument. Perhaps, but if people are out of work or are already sick, they cannot purchase a health insurance policy. Or if they try, the premiums are so high they can't afford one. So they go without medical care.
   Then it's their own fault when they get sick, retort the conservatives. They can always go to a hospital emergency room to get well, they say.
   Wrong. Hospital emergency rooms are only required to stabilize the patient. To a large extent, after that they're on their own, and if admitted they are later pestered to pay the bill.
   And if they can't, the hospital spreads the loss to other patients and insurance companies in the form of higher prices.
   Better to expand social welfare programs to everyone in society, so everyone benefits from better education, better training, better employment opportunities and better health care.
   That way everyone benefits, not just the 1 percent who don't need help.