By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Representative April McClain Delaney expressed concerns about the impact of President Trump’s budget cuts on rural America in an interview with Newsweek. Delaney highlighted that cuts to programs like Medicaid, PBS, and NPR, alongside the potential loss of federal jobs, could disproportionately affect rural communities. She stressed that these cuts threaten access to vital services like local news and emergency alerts, as well as educational programming for children. Delaney also criticized cuts to foreign aid, stating they have the potential to negatively impact the U.S. both globally and domestically.
Read the original article here
Trump Cuts to Hit Rural America Like ‘a Tsunami,’ Democrat Warns
The situation unfolding in rural America, according to some, is akin to a looming disaster. The potential for significant cuts to government programs under a certain political agenda is raising serious concerns, with one prominent voice describing the impact as a “tsunami.” The implications of these cuts, as the argument goes, could be particularly devastating in areas that rely heavily on government support for essential services, notably healthcare and access to information.
Specifically, the argument points to the precarious state of healthcare infrastructure in many rural communities. Often, the only medical facilities available are community clinics and hospitals, which depend on Medicaid reimbursements to survive. Any significant reduction in funding for these programs could force these vital institutions to close their doors. The consequences of such closures are dire, potentially forcing residents to travel for hours to receive medical care, a situation that could be fatal in emergency situations.
Adding to the concerns is the potential loss of public broadcasting services. In many rural areas, public TV and radio stations are the only sources of terrestrial broadcasts due to the financial infeasibility of commercial operations. Cuts to public broadcasting funding could eliminate access to news, information, and emergency alerts, further isolating these communities. The concern is that these communities will not be able to keep themselves informed, or be kept aware of emergencies.
Some voices express a strong sentiment of disappointment, even anger, at those who might have supported the political agenda leading to these potential cuts. The warning is clear: the very people who voted for this scenario could bear the brunt of its consequences. The expectation is that the “tsunami” of cuts will begin to hit those rural communities hardest, potentially creating a cycle of hardship. The irony, according to some, is that the affected residents might then turn around and place blame on the very individuals who are trying to warn them.
There are strong feelings about the fact that those who are being affected will likely turn around and point fingers at the left, or “coastal elites.” They may even attempt to blame President Obama and Biden, instead of the people and policies that were voted for. Some believe that those who voted for the agenda that is creating this scenario have been blinded by propaganda. It is also mentioned that these voters seem to live in a different reality.
The impact of these cuts is also said to be compounded by potential economic downturns. The argument is that these communities will become poorer and more desperate, exacerbating existing problems. There is also mention of the expectation that these cuts will be made in the name of a “great correction.” The people who voted for these changes are now expected to suffer.
Some point to the fact that the cuts, far from reducing the national debt, may actually add to it. The narrative underscores a potential disconnect between the promises made and the reality that might unfold. It’s feared that many won’t realize the gravity of the situation and the ultimate responsibility for the unfolding scenario. There’s a feeling of those voters’ deserved suffering, as the argument suggests, stemming from their own choices.
There are those who suggest that once the “tsunami” hits, there won’t be any help, or any rebuilding. There’s an expectation that the affected communities may be blamed. It is worth noting that the focus is on policies affecting land ownership, potentially benefiting wealthy individuals and corporations, creating concerns about the future of family farms.
Those making the warnings see their voices as being essentially ignored, as they are viewed as, “those liberals,” and it is stated that they are warning people for no reason. There’s a sense of frustration and a feeling of resignation that the consequences of the policies will only be realized when it’s too late.