It's Official: Bush Leaves Abused Children Behind

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

VERDICT: LEFT BEHIND

Children Don't Come First in Bush's Budget Proposal

Derek Alger is a freelance writer.

President Bush may pride himself on claiming that he's a compassionate conservative -- one who pledged during his campaign to leave no child behind -- but Alan Brenner doesn't see it that way, especially when it comes to providing adequate funding to investigate child abuse.

Brenner, 57, is a former detective with the Bronx District Attorney's office who specialized in child abuse cases. He was amazed to learn that Bush has proposed significant cuts to child aid programs as part of his upcoming budget, including an 18 percent reduction in programs dealing with child abuse.

"Society has always had its head in the sand when it comes to child abuse," said Brenner. "The attitude was always 'just take care of it, we don't want to hear about it. Lock the bad guys up and make it all go away.'" But, he points out, child abuse is not a problem that will go away by itself.

According to Robert Pear of the New York Times, spending for programs to investigate and prevent child abuse are slated to be reduced by $15.7 million under the Bush administration. On April 2, the Department of Health and Human Services reported that "child protective service agencies received approximately 2,974,000 referrals of possible maltreatment in 1999. Of the 60.4 percent of these reports that were investigated, states found that there were an estimated 826,000 children who were victims of abuse and/or neglect."

Brenner's front-line experience leads him to believe that more resources are necessary to combat child abuse. Although Brenner has left the Bronx for Pennsylvania, he still investigates child abuse. Today he works with the Lehigh County Children and Youth Services, where he does initial child abuse interviews for case workers. Each case worker for Lehigh County handles about 45 cases, but can only reasonably handle 30 at a time.

Brenner recently investigated a complaint and was responsible for removing a two-year-old child from a home with a 21 year-old single mother who was a drug addict. When he entered the apartment, it was in shambles, and the child was sleeping on a mattress on the floor. The child was burned severely in three places, as if struck with a hot poker, and only a band-aid was on the oozing wounds. It was obvious that no attempt had been made to provide the child with immediate care.

"I see this kind of thing all the time," Brenner said. "Whether it's in the big city or the rural countryside, child abuse is still widespread, and it's more hard core than the public can imagine."

President Bush made much of his concern for children during the campaign. His budget proposals, however, don't match his electioneering rhetoric. Last year Congress provided $2 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant to enable states to provide day care for 241,000 additional children. Evidence suggests that stable child care for low income families has proven successful in helping individuals move from welfare dependence to work.

Does Bush propose maintaining or increasing day care subsidies? Not at all. In fact, Bush plans to cut child care grants by $200 million. Furthermore, the budget proposal eliminates all the money -- $20 million -- that Congress provided for an "early learning fund" to improve the quality of child care and education for children under the age of five.

Brenner knows firsthand the importance of quality child care. He was a driving force in the investigations that rocked New York City in 1984 with the arrests of several workers at two day care centers in the Bronx. The joint investigation between the District Attorney's office and the FBI gained national media attention after it was determined that a total of 39 children may have been abused at the day care centers.

As a result of the high profile investigation, New York required all potential day care workers to be checked against a state register of child abusers, and permitted background checks for other criminal offenses. At the same time, legislation was enacted that allows children to testify about sex cases via video tape rather than in person before a grand jury.

Brenner says for anyone who "has ever been involved with interacting and questioning a young child who has been abused, the idea of cutting funds for preventive programs would never come up. You'd look at those kids and wonder how anyone could take advantage of someone so vulnerable and defenseless."

The Republican administration has defended the budget's cuts by pointing to an increase in education spending. When President Bush addressed Congress on February 27, he stated, "Education is my top priority and, by supporting this budget, you'll make it yours."

But his budget proposals slow growth in education spending. Although the budget requests more money for education, the increase is only 3 percent over the inflation rate. And, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bush's proposal is "one-third the average rate of increase in education spending over the past four years, after adjusting for inflation. Thus, the area the president has identified as his highest priority -- education -- would have its recent rate of growth reduced by two-thirds."

Budget cuts in these areas -- at a time when resources and staff are already strained -- seem inconceivable to Brenner. But, then again, Brenner doesn't claim to be a compassionate conservative.

-- Compassionate Creep (bastard@whitehouse.com), April 06, 2001

Answers

Cherri, get a life will ya? He's in for four years.

Judging from your current level of hysteria, I can guarantee you will experience extremely poor health long before his term is over.

Do yourself a favor and let it go!

-- Cherri (is a stroke@candidate.com), April 06, 2001.


I'm not Cherri. As for letting go, in your dreams bub. Expect four long years of derision and exposure of this immoral asshole who cheated democracy and is now waging war on the American people.

-- It's only just starting (will@continue.com), April 06, 2001.

Children don't really count. The only ones that count are adults and unborn fetuses.

-- (Children@Arent.People), April 06, 2001.

Bush is the best thing we've had for years. Your article didn't mention how much padding the Clintoon admin did because of asshole Hil's It takes a Village mentality. This country is supposed to be a REPUBLIC, not a democracy for DEMONRATS!

-- Hatealgore (Ivoted@bush.com), April 06, 2001.

Translation: Children are precious beings who need every protection in the world, until they're born. Then they're nothing but a drain on economic resources.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 06, 2001.


Throw the children overboard!!!!!!!! Quick Quick before anybody sees!!!!!!!! More and more will be revealed when the line item comes out. The New York Times printed an article last month about how conservative this budget really is. Our new war cry is:

Fuck the woman and Children-Last White Businessman in is a rotten egg...

-- Cyberjung (bush@kills.children), April 06, 2001.


Translation: Children are precious beings who need every protection in the world, until they're born. Then they're nothing but a drain on economic resources.

Until they're adults. Then they're voters.

-- (Children@Arent.People), April 06, 2001.


>>Does Bush propose maintaining or increasing day care subsidies? Not at all. In fact, Bush plans to cut child care grants by $200 million.

My wife quit work to raise our kids, at some financial sacrifice. Now I have to pay for the kids of someone else who has different priorities? Forget it.

Why is it the government's duty to babysit? The last thing I trust any government to do is form the minds of my kids. And who controls the pursestrings dictates policy.

However did the world survive before a citizen's money was taken to babysit someone else's kids?

-- GettingNoAnwser (Still@Asking.Again), April 06, 2001.


Na, you don't have to pay for other people's kids to be baby-sat, Now all you have to do is put out thousands a year for corporate welfare, and to make sure the children of the richest 1% don't have to pay any taxes on the money they inherit.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 06, 2001.

>>Now all you have to do is put out thousands a year for corporate welfare, and to make sure the children of the richest 1% don't have to pay any taxes on the money they inherit.

Cherri, I have no wish to pay for corporate welfare, but I don't have any envy for either the richest 1% or the richest 50%. In fact, I would like my own kids someday to join their ranks, and then to give everything THEY own to my grandkids. As long as my kids are paying their taxes while they're living, why should the state benefit yet again when they die? It's as though the state automatically is a beneficary of a life insurance policy for free!

-- GettingNoAnswers (Still@Asking.Again), April 07, 2001.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ