Spending $40 Million A Matter of Priorities

After reading a recent article in the Los Angeles Daily News I began to think of what our country could do for its citizens with $40 million per year. A day later an article in the Jan. 25 edition of the Los Angeles Times stated that California has lost 19% of its pediatric sickbeds (800 beds) since 1998. At an average cost for a pediatric hospital stay of $1,575 per day, $40 million could replace approximately 70 of those beds. Other possible uses for $40 million per year could be the cost of any one of the following: approximately 600 border patrol officers; 1,100 airport security screener personnel; 500 police officers; provision of hot lunches for 60,000 school children; school supplies for 160,000 K-12 students; feeding of 14,000 homeless people; health insurance for 13,000 people; Social Security benefits for 1,700 retirees; a 10% investment tax credit to stimulate the purchase of $400 million in equipment by U.S. businesses; a 25% tax credit on film production labor to keep $160 million of film production in the U.S. (resulting in up to $1 billion of positive impact to the U.S. economy generated by spending and revenues associated with the production). We could even pay for the entire annual cost of 100 California legislators including their salaries, staffs, offices, autos, travel, etc. What was this article that stimulated my thinking about what could be done for our country’s citizens with $40 million annually? It was an article titled “Obama nixes funds policy on abortion” that appeared in the Jan. 24 edition of the Los Angeles Daily News. The article that I refer to stated that on Friday (three days after his inauguration to the Presidency of the United States) President Obama struck down a Bush administration ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information. In connection with signing the executive order to lift the ban, Obama is expected to restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund. Congress appropriated $40 million to the Fund in the last budget year, but the administration withheld the money as it had done every year since 2002. Like most Americans, I am optimistic about the Obama presidency and I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I also believe that it is a good idea to provide family planning assistance to the poor and would agree with the President’s action if we had plenty of funds for the needs of our own country and its citizens. My problem with the executive order and plans to restore the funding is one of priorities. It seems to me that the needs of the United States should be our first priority. The old adage “charity begins at home” should apply. The last time I looked, our economy was suffering severely with thousands of jobs being lost resulting in a national unemployment rate of 7.2% with California at 9.3%, an enormous number of residential foreclosures, a crumbling financial sector and a crippled auto industry, all requiring massive borrowing from other countries to bail out the severely troubled industries, keep credit flowing (to keep businesses alive) and help to keep people in their homes. Let’s not forget that the substantial borrowing comes with the risk of mortgaging our futures and those of other generations and making us subject to potential control by creditor countries. With all of this in mind, does it make sense to provide $40 million to pay for family planning assistance in other countries? Also, what was the urgency to act on this matter that caused an executive order to be signed just three days after the Inauguration? Am I missing something? Gregory N. Lippe, CPA, is Managing Partner of the Woodland Hills-based CPA Firm of Lippe, Hellie, Hoffer & Allison, LLP, Chairman of the ValleyIndustry and Commerce Association (VICA) and a Director of First Commerce Bank