137 Comments
User's avatar
Claudia B's avatar

And to think that "they" want to move special education into HHS. Let's just guess what is going to happen.

George Deely's avatar

All for a big tax cut that no one needs. Poor people can’t make do with a lot less and rich people can’t get a lot more. It has become the story of America

Admiral Dupont's avatar

When the heck did The Bulwark get Jonanthan Cohn! That's a get!

Allison Turbitt's avatar

Hope people can protest these changes to the school education system.

Rodney's avatar

As a Head Start program director I can assure you we are making plans to respond to pauses in payments. Most don't understand that when our grant is approved we don't actually get the grant amount up front. We have to draw down money right before we make payments. They don't want us to hold money we drawn down more than 3 days. So if we go to draw down money and have issues, checks are already being processed. So the uncertainty and lack of a regional specialist point of contact is quite precarious.

jane's avatar

Man’s inhumanity to man.

Shelfie's avatar

When we get to thinking about how to distribute wealth and resources in ways that can benefit the greatest number of people, fairly and equitably, we also come up against things like the campaign in Trump 2.0 to eradicate "DEI" wherever it persists. IMO, these initials could also stand for Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka. By all means, let's have our careful discussion on who we need to help. But keeping in mind who always helps themselves first.

Meggie's avatar

Heartbreaking. Maddening. Shameful betrayal of our values as a country.

Marvin Brooklyn's avatar

Trump is right on this one. Why did all of those children (and their parents) choose to live in poverty? Why didn't they pick to be born into rich families where their fathers could give them millions to lose in unsuccessful businesses? And since Trump wants to do away with all safety net programs, we no longer need to think about the fact that early childhood education programs increase the odds that poor children will grow up to complete more schooling and be more gainfully employed and uninvolved with the criminal justice system than those who don't participate. Moreover, how can Jonathan Cohn recommend that the Trump administration should do research about the most effective ways of providing high quality programs yielding very positive outcomes for children and society in stead of just cutting the programs? Cohn knows that Trump has not appointed anyone with educational expertise to relevant departments. Nor does he and his inner cabal care about facts the future as long as Trump can make as much money as possible and preserve big tax cuts for the already rich. As the head of World Wrestling Entertainment, Linda McMahon has the skills to bring MAGA - Make America GROAN Again - to the nation's classrooms.

RJ's avatar

Trump has never seen a poverty-stricken child so they don't exist.

Elizabeth Fenlon's avatar

Thank you, Mr. Cohn, for this great explanation of what’s involved in all the cuts. It’s unspeakably cold.

Courtney Reid's avatar

As I read about all of the cuts at HHS - child poverty programs, STI/HIV programs, vaccine programs, etc. etc., one theme emerges for me - the Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest. Secretary Kennedy and Presidents Trump and Musk flirt around the edges of eugenics. Not healthy enough to survive the measles, too weak to overcome a sexually transmitted infection, too poor to pull yourself up by the bootstraps - then it’s just fine to consign you to an early death. Only the fittest deserve to live in their minds. We are in a dark moment in our history.

Shelfie's avatar

A Darwinian dystopia. It seems that to them, it actually strengthens society to winnow out the weak, old, vulnerable. Because that pruning will improve the stock. Those individuals that withstood the thinning out, will be the more gifted and resilient. More equipped to contribute more to society, increasing prosperity and living standards for us all. But as for those born into rough, non-privileged circumstances, only a very few will possess the inborn ability to rise out of their legacy of poverty. The great majority will be more or less lifelong burdens on society. So probably much better to do things that thin their childhood ranks, as preemptive remedy. Retire programs such as anti childhood poverty, universal pre-K, tax credits for families with kids, cut SNAP, WIC programs, defund public education to the bone. The list is very long.

I think they are connoisseurs of the Darwinian flavor to all of this. But more to the point, what they appreciate most is less of their money being taxed away for the purpose of helping other people.

Rose Weiss's avatar

Child care is so important, and has been mostly ignored as an issue for the U.S. This extra blow will have a big impact - all negative - on millions of lives. Thank you for writing about this aspect of the MAGA nightmare.

Andrew's avatar

Is there an organization I could donate to that would help mitigate the funding shortfall?

hrlngrv's avatar

'Everyone knows' the poor should remain poor, else what's the use of being born rich?

Linda Weide's avatar

Somehow the countries with less poverty have a better standard of living for most of their citizens. The US has wealth but never makes it into the top 10 for happiness, or most livable. That the wealth just is wealth but not really quality of life.

hrlngrv's avatar

Thanks, but a shame you're sarcasm resistant/irony deprived.

Linda Weide's avatar

I got that you were being sarcastic, but had something other to say than just a laugh. There is an irony that the US is so wealthy but that does not make it a happy country because the wealth is so unequally distributed.

hrlngrv's avatar

OK, seriously, whose ancestors came to the US because they were HAPPY to do so?

My point: we many be genetically and environmentally driven to be unhappy.

Denmark and Sweden are in the top 5 for happiness. Are you willing to bet that also reflects their recent immigrants?

Leigh Horne's avatar

Seems to me that this 'administration' (fascist regime) is engaging in slash and burn against programs which they imagine will have fewer voices raised in protest than others, Social Security possibly excepted, and even then programs for the disabled appear to be first on the chopping block. Months ago when I read that Curtis Yates, a tech-billionaire-bro guru suggested (joking??) that the way to solve the problem of the poor is to turn them into bio-fuel. He had the further bright idea that we could use the Federal prison system for rendering facilities. It's so chilling that one is tempted to dismiss this out of hand. Then again, who could have imagined the Nazi death camps could happen in a country once known as a pinnacle of modern Western science, philosophy, art and music?

Shelfie's avatar

"Turn them into bio-fuel" Is it time to rewatch Soylent Green? However, I thought the drill-baby-drill crowd had no use for any fuel that isn't oil. Please pardon the cheekiness here, but sometimes we need a laugh, if a little bitter.

Linda Weide's avatar

NAZIS all of them. I have called MAGA the New American Nazi Party, just like the AfD in Germany is the New German Nazi Party. Whatever they call themselves, they are clearly wanting to exterminate people who are not White, and perhaps some White people too, who do not follow their rules.

Leigh Horne's avatar

Sorry. I think they want us to die if we are no longer needed by them once AI and robots are capable of doing a lot of the work we traditionally did. This kind of thing happened during the great famine in Ireland when the potato crop failed and people dropped dead on their way to the docks trying to leave for America. They had been forced, btw, to grow potatoes exclusively by the landowners, who saw potatoes as more profitable than mixed grain and vegetable and fruit cultivation. Makes you think.

Linda Weide's avatar

Is one of the reasons why I am pointing out to Americans that if you feel you cannot afford to leave the US, you probably cannot afford to stay. Picking any of a number of countries with a lower cost of living would be a start.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

There are only 12 countries more expensive. Of course, there is looking for work, and it would be a good idea to pick a country with a shortage of workers, unless you are retired. Your money will go farther in other countries.

If you only want English speaking countries there are Australia, Ireland, UK, Canada, and New Zealand. All have a lower cost of living. In fact, New Zealand looks like a deal on that measure. All of those countries are considered democracies. Britain more so now that they got rid of those Tories who were in power, but they could be back. Canada is looking really good right now.

Leigh Horne's avatar

Yeah. We have a plan to emigrate if and when one or more of our 'trip wires' is activated. English speaking is more or less a necessity as neither of us speaks anything else. Wish I spoke Danish or Finnish, as those countries have the highest levels of happiness on every index I'm aware of! Thanks for sharing.

Linda Weide's avatar

Leigh, here is a piece I wrote right after the election called A "Plan B" for Catastrophe.

https://lindaweide.substack.com/p/a-plan-b-for-catastrophe?r=f0qfn

Lots of people have been coming to the USA to get away from bad governments or economic distress. Now that we have a bad government Americans may leave as things become more repressive. Teaching English is something that a lot of Americans do around the world for money.