by Lorenzo Burgio
In the midst of World War II when Britain fought alongside the Allies in defeating the Nazi regime, Sir Winston Churchill expressed concern for the welfare of his citizens.
British troops were fighting the German forces in southern Tunisia and northern Africa in March of 1943, when Churchill broadcasted his concern for the health of Britain’s citizens.
“Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have,” stated Churchill during a BBC broadcast on March 21.
As the Treasury Minister of Defense during World War II, Churchill understood the importance of having healthy citizens.
Even after he lost his position in 1945, Churchill continued to work on improving citizens’ welfare by introducing reforms to benefit the public.
The Housing Repairs and Rent Act of 1954 that was introduced by Churchill helped an immense amount of people in Britain by enforcing inspections of housing units to see if they were livable.
Understanding that the welfare of citizens is as much of a concern as the battles being fought, Churchill worked and succeeded to improve both.
Comparing the actions of Churchill to the proposed budget for 2018 proves the welfare and health of U.S. citizens is not on the minds of the presidential administration.
An example of this is the 13 percent cut the Department of Housing and Urban Development will see, while the Department of Defense will receive a nine percent increase.
The HUD has historically worked to improve living conditions and fair housing across the country.
They worked relentlessly in enacting the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which improved living conditions and prohibited discrimination when buying or renting property.
The HUD works to ensure that equal opportunities and living conditions are met in our nation’s communities — similar to what Churchill worked towards with the Housing Repairs and Rent Act of 1954.
Currently the HUD helps about four million Americans in the United States and the 13 percent budget cut would result in a $6 billion loss, according to The Washington Post.
Another aspect of the proposed budget that clashes with Churchill’s beliefs and is not in the best interest of U.S. citizens is the 14 percent cut to the Department of Education, that would result in about a $9.2 billion loss, according to The Washington Post.
“The privilege of a university education is a great one; the more widely it is extended, the better for any country,” said Churchill in 1948 at the University of Oslo in Norway.
This cut only makes higher education increasingly unappealing for upcoming generations. The Department of Education issues student loans for individuals seeking higher education and manages programs that forgive student loan debt; aspects of the department that the country may be seeing less of.
The majority of actions taken by Churchill during his political career can be deemed as necessary, and with Britain’s well-being in mind. The same cannot be said about the 2018 budget proposed by the presidential administration.
It only seems counterproductive to spend $2.6 billion on a border wall and increase the defense spending by $54 billion, when future generations may not have someone fighting for proper living conditions or an accessible higher education.
There is an overwhelming amount of discretionary spending in the budget, when the country is in need of more mandatory spending. There is very little proof in the proposed budget that suggests the presidential administration is concerned with the best interest of its country and its citizens.