Former Deputy Director of Faith-Based Initiatives: Bush Disappoints

The former deputy director of President Bush's faith-based initiative program says that an old combination of Republican indifference to the poor and Democratic fear of religion has made Bush's faith-based program little more than a piece of propaganda. Check out the article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16092_1.html.

I never knew exactly what to think of the faith-based initiative plans, although some people seemed to fear it would violate the 1st amendment church/state restrictions. Nonethless, I remember a time -- long, long ago -- when I was moderately hopeful that "compassionate conservative" really implied genuine concern for the poor.

David Kuo, Bush's former Deputy Director for faith based initiatives, writes that it has meant nothing of the sort. To cite a few numeric examples:

• Six billion dollars of promised tax incentives for charitable giving were cut to pay for the repeal of the estate tax. As Kuo says, that tax cut overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthy.
• Bush promised $6.8 billion for programs "including those for children of prisoners, at-risk youth, and prisoners reentering society." Thos programs received $500 million in the last four years -- only 7 percent of what was originally promised.
• Bush created the "Compassion Capital Fund" to "assist, expand, and replicate" successful local programs. It was supposed to receive $200 million just to get started. To date, it's received $100 million in four years.
• Even "new" programs are deceptive, Kuo says. When Bush announced that he was providing $50 million to fund a new "gang prevention initiative," it sounded like a new priority. In fact, he just took the money from the aforementioned Compassion Capital Fund, which actually will receive $5 million less than it did last year.

Quo also asks why the faith based program fell flat. He points out that it wasn't 9/11 -- Bush failed to fund social programs before the attacks, and his budgets since have been anything but frugal. Instead, he notes two factors -- Democrats' seeming hostility to all things religious and Republicans' general lack of concern for the poor.

"Congressional Republicans," he writes, "met Democratic hostility with snoring inndifference."

But he also faults the White House, saying "it never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.'" For one thing, no one would hold it accountable for its promises. "Drug addicts, alcoholics, poor moms, struggling urban social service organizations, and pastors aren't quite the NRA," Quo says. Additionally, conservative Christian leaders like James Dobson, most of them not anti-poverty activists, took the initiative as proof of Bush's faith, regardless of how little money was actually spent.

Finally -- and ironically -- Quo says that liberal attacks on the plan made it appear more effective than it was. "Had these liberal groups or an alliance of charities held the White House accountable for how little was being done -- especially compared to what was promised -- there is no telling what might have happened ... or what might still happen."

Maybe he's right. David Quo is the sort of conservative Christian who represents hope -- so serious about Christ's call to help the poor that he is willing to break with a president who other conservatives seem ready to canonize. Quo still likes Bush, but he hoped for so much more. Fair enough.

I wonder if there's not more moderate conservatives out there who think like him, as well as pragmatic Christian liberals willing to come to the table to fight for a truly compassionate society.