In Washington these days, political posturing and chatter around budget cuts have reached a deafening roar. As we draw closer to August 2, the day by which the federal government must raise the debt ceiling or face default, policymakers on both sides of the aisle, the Administration, and party leadership will continue to jockey for the measures they'd like included in or excluded from a final deficit reduction package that will likely accompany a vote to raise the debt ceiling. On the chopping block for massive cuts are programs supporting low- to moderate-income families, like early education programs for at-risk children, nutrition assistance for pregnant moms and infants, and job training to name a few.

In a debate over abstract budget and deficit reduction proposals like federal spending caps, block grants, and balanced budget amendments, it can be easy to lose sight of what's really at stake here. A cap on federal spending as a percentage of GDP, like the one proposed by Senators Corker (R-TN) and McCaskill (D-MO), would force massive cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs that meet the essential needs of people with limited incomes and provide economic security for millions of Americans. Turning the Medicaid program, the country's largest health coverage program, into a block grant would put at risk the eligibility and coverage of the nearly 60 million low-income Americans enrolled in the program. Adding an amendment to the Constitution requiring the federal government to maintain a balanced budget would not only inhibit the ability of dynamic programs like food stamps/SNAP and unemployment insurance to meet increased need during hard times, but it would also prohibit the federal government from borrowing to finance important investments and save for the future.

Where are the voices of the vulnerable people who have the most to lose in all this noise? The student who relies on the Pell grant to attend college, the service provider who sees more demand for nutrition assistance services each day, the homeless veteran whose life changed with a housing voucher?

What's missing from the Washington debate are the voices of everyday Americans who are working hard to make ends meet, educate their children, and take care of elderly loved ones. As they consider their next moves in the debate, policymakers should hear about the difference education assistance makes from young people like Kayla from Newark, OH, who grew up on Head Start and was able to attend college because of the Pell grant. They should talk with Margaret from Chicago, IL, about the increased need for Women Infants and Children (WIC) services she has seen from formerly middle-class moms struggling with unemployment for the first time. They need to hear from Almon, a veteran from Buffalo, NY, whose housing voucher opened the door to the American Dream.

To help policymakers, advocates, and members of the press see the human cost of irresponsible budget cuts and deficit reduction proposals, Half in Ten and the Coalition on Human Needs have launched the Road to Shared Prosperity, an interactive map displaying personal stories about programs building the American Dream with key state-by-state datapoints. With nearly 100 stories from across the country about the transformative role federal education, health, housing, job training, and other programs have played in the lives of real people, communities, and economies, the Road to Shared Prosperity puts a human face on drastic cuts and serves as a reminder for what we stand to lose in these debates.

The Road to Shared Prosperity is designed to be a rich resource for the public, particularly advocates, looking to stand up for low-income and vulnerable groups as the budget debate rolls on. Just a few weeks ago, the Republican-led House Appropriations committee approved a large cut of $833 million to WIC, the program that has been essential to low-income moms with young children like Emily and Betsy. Advocates standing up against such cuts, for example, can find WIC stories from their state and include them in their emails, letters and calls to members of Congress. Advocates can also include stories in opinion editorials, letters to the editor, or get the word out by organizing community events and social media campaigns including personal stories. Advocates looking for more ways to incorporate stories into their work can visit the resources for advocates page.

This month, we will mark the 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cuts, a costly giveaway that benefited only the wealthiest Americans and added billions to the national debt.  Just one additional week's worth of tax cuts for millionaires would pay for the House-approved cuts to the WIC program. We don't have to abandon our neediest to finance tax breaks for millionaires. A recent report from the Center for American Progress reveals we can reduce the deficit responsibly,  without undermining the safety net, all while cutting the poverty rate in half.

As they move forward in the debates, policymakers should not forget that the budget is a moral document, a reflection of our greatest priorities and highest values. Spending caps, proposals to block grant Medicaid and food stamps, and balanced budget amendments would leave vulnerable families and children to fend for themselves. These types of proposals are inconsistent with Catholic social justice teaching. They do not reflect who we are or the kind of country we believe in.

The Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 25, verse 40 states: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' " This summer, reach out to your senators and member of congress and remind them that we're in this together.

The Conscience of Statesmen

by Ben Palumbo, former Staff Director of the U.S. House Democratic Caucus

"I believe that when statesmen abandon their own private consciences for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos." Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons"

Can we agree that killing is evil? Yet, as recognition of the necessity to protect the innocent, our Church elaborated the doctrine of the "just war", which allows killing.  Some would argue that this doctrine freed us to follow the dictates of our consciences after the murder of 2,927 innocent Americans by Al-Qaeda fanatics on September 11, 2001, and invade Afghanistan to prevent Al-Qaeda from carrying out more atrocities in the future.  Of course, the decision to shift from the pursuit of these murderers in Afghanistan to the invasion of Iraq was another matter, but that won't be dealt with here.  Instead, I wish to deal with the contrast between the costs in blood and treasure of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the virtually non-existent response to the enormous slaughter taking place every year here in the United States of America.

Through May of 2011, the Afghanistan/Iraq fighting has claimed the lives of about 5,000 Americans.  When combined with the tragedy of 9/11, the total is almost 9,000 Americans lost in conflict with foreign terrorists.  We rightly mourn each and every one of them, our fellow Americans.

However, here is another set of bloody statistics. Within four months of 9/11 more Americans had been shot dead, here in America, during homicidal acts, than had died on that tragic day. Within one year of 9/11, as many Americans had been shot dead, here in America, during homicidal acts, than the total deaths from 9/11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined. Within one year!

The Center for Disease Control puts the total number of Americans shot dead in homicidal acts between 2001 through 2007 at 86,496, an annual average of about 12,000. If that average is applied from 9/11 through today, it would mean that over 100,000 Americans have been shot dead during homicidal acts over that period. That is more Americans than were killed in the Korean and Viet Nam wars combined. Twice as many as were killed in World War I.

Can we agree that the massacre of over 100,000 Americans in 10 years is evil?  Our consciences led us to respond to 9/11 by sending 5,000 Americans to their deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, and spending over a trillion dollars to prosecute those wars.  What should our consciences be demanding of us as a result of one hundred thousand Americans murdered, not by foreign terrorists, but by fellow Americans?  The guns used to kill 100,000 of our countrymen and women were purchased from fellow Americans. They were manufactured or imported by fellow Americans. They were distributed by fellow Americans. Can we agree, given these circumstances, that the evil of terrorism exists in a domestic form in the U.S.A.?  That it is active every day?

What has been done to deal with America's domestic terrorism?  Sadly, almost nothing has been done, despite the admirable efforts by organizations such as The Brady Campaign. The agency charged with attempting to reign in this domestic terrorism is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.  Its budget of $1.1 billion has risen over ten years from $777 million during a period in which over 100,000 Americans were shot dead.  Compare that effort to try to contain this domestic terrorism with the more than $1 trillion that has been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is all out of proportion.  At one point, in a bi-partisan effort, a law was enacted that limited the sale of semi-automatic weapons.  That was 1994!  It had a 10 year life span!  In 2004, it was allowed to lapse! Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot and six others killed, with a weapon sporting a high-capacity magazine of the type previously banned by the 1994 law.

Many steps can be taken to reduce the slaughter of Americans: Funding for BATFE can be increased so it can more effectively do its job; the process of screening risky purchasers can be made more effective; guns can be made safer and their owners more easily identifiable; the restriction on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines can be re-enacted; the loophole that allows anyone to purchase weapons at a gun show without any background check whatsoever can be closed.  To become law, all these measures require enactment of bills by Congress, and the approval of the President.  We are led to believe these changes cannot happen because the National Rifle Association is too powerful.  Legislators stand in fear of its lobbyists and political action committee, despite polls showing an overwhelming number of Americans agree that we need stronger gun laws, as do a majority of the NRA's own members.  To be fair, a bill to restrict magazine size for weapons of the type that was used in the Giffords' tragedy has been introduced in the U.S. House.  It has over 100 co-sponsors, all Democrats.  The prospects in the face of the NRA's hostility are slim to none; unless the consciences of those Thomas More called "statesmen" can overcome the fear of the NRA's political threats.

The NRA! For years, waving anti- constitutional accusations, it has fought any attempt to strengthen the protection of the American people against being shot.  But in the recent Heller decision upholding an individual's right to "bear arms", the Supreme Court has refuted the argument that restrictions are unconstitutional.  In its decision, written by Justice Scalia, the court stated:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited". (N)othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

To give you an idea of the NRA's indifference to human life, consider just one of its arguments against enhancing the protection of Americans.  They are fighting tooth and nail to arm college students who, presumably, will be required to check their guns at the door before entering a fraternity party or at the gate before attending tail gate parties, both activities notorious for being something other than dull and alcohol-free.  Other efforts on their part are equally inane, but just as lethal.

The "chaos" that Thomas More described as the consequence of "statesmen abandoning their own private consciences for the sake of their public duties" is all around us: Americans murdered by the thousands. Will conscience or political convenience prevail?  Many lives depend on the answer to that question.