THE BUSH AGENDA
Politics vs. the Poor
Democrats supported charitable choice in 1996. Why do they oppose it now?
The House has approved President Bush's proposal to expand federal funding to faith-based social services. I am glad the House passed the bill, and I hope the Senate will do the same.
The crisis of the poor is as much moral as it is material. Faith-based organizations are among the most effective in supplying the spiritual resources that are so critical for the resolution of our social problems. They should not be locked out of applying for government funding.
This is not a political issue, but a social one that involves caring for those who cannot care for themselves--a concern and responsibility for Republicans and Democrats alike. And in dealing with the needy, no force in our society has served more effectively than our nation's many and varied traditions of faith. Throughout history, organizations formed by religious institutions have cared for the poor, the sick, and those afflicted in other ways.
I believe that much of what is most needed--by those who are homeless, hungry, or addicted--is not material, but spiritual. As Robert William Fogel, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, points out in his book "The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism," all human beings must have certain spiritual or "immaterial" resources in addition to the physical resources that satisfy basic needs. All of us must see purpose in our lives and opportunities for our future. We must experience a sense of community, embrace a work ethic, and enjoy self-esteem. Without these, we cannot permanently improve our circumstances.
Although the religious faithful voluntarily serve the needy, government too has an obligation to assist those who are less fortunate. I think Americans generally agree that a portion of our taxes should be used to help the helpless, as well as to fund construction projects, military spending and other national necessities. So why should the organizations that are best at serving the needy be excluded from even applying for government funding assistance for that purpose?
Under the president's initiative, the federal government will not assume the role of religious organizations. It will simply make more public money--our tax dollars--available to social-service programs affiliated with houses of worship. Similarly, faith-based organizations are not being forced to take over the government's job. They will become eligible to apply for funding for their own programs--and only if they choose to do so.
I believe that Democrats can support in good conscience the provisions proposed. We all know that Al Gore endorsed charitable choice, as did George W. Bush, during the presidential campaign. In addition, the House has voted eight times on charitable choice provisions that would allow faith-based organizations to apply for various government grants. Fifty-two Democratic members voted for at least six of the eight provisions, and 20 voted for all eight. In fact, charitable choice was passed in 1996 under a Democratic administration with bipartisan support.
Then, there were none of the alarmist reactions from various quarters that have accompanied the introduction of this year's legislation, which extends federal funding beyond support for faith-based antipoverty programs into such areas as juvenile justice and drug treatment. Are such reactions based on the fact that this year's bill was introduced by a Republican, rather than a Democratic, administration?
A recent Congressional Research Service report indicates that the major provisions of the bill that passed the House last week mirror the language of the 1996 charitable-choice legislation. With respect to key provisions--federal anti-discrimination laws governing beneficiaries and employees, the rights of beneficiaries, and the limitation on use of funds for sectarian activities--they are virtually identical to those in 1996.
If anything, the latest proposal provides new protections against discrimination. For example, program beneficiaries must be notified of their right to not participate in any components of a program that involves expressly religious activities, whether or not directly related to the program.
I believe it is significant that the U.S. Conference of Mayors, with a mainly Democratic membership, has endorsed expanded federal funding for faith-based organizations. I am concerned that the Democrats in Congress, especially those who opposed the initiative even though they supported previous versions of it, now risk the perception that they are practicing partisan politics at the expense of the needy. I hope the Senate will support the initiative, and that my Democratic colleagues will join in reaffirming the vital role of faith-based organizations in serving the neediest members of our society.
Mr. Young, a Democrat, has served as a congressman, mayor of Atlanta and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is chairman of GoodWorks International and co-founder of Faith and the City, a nonprofit organization based in Atlanta.
