Trimming the fat from the federal budget shouldn’t hurt the most vulnerable this much

They’re having big problems in China.

According to the country’s health commission, roughly a third of China’s residents are overweight, with 16% considered obese. Another study found that if the trend isn’t reversed, by 2050 nearly 630 million people in China will either be overweight or obese. Alarmed by the recent findings, this week China’s National Health Commission announced plans to establish health clinics with the specific purpose of helping people better manage their weight. Officials also plan to use Olympic athletes as role models and dispense scales to hotels and other public spaces as not-so-subtle reminders of the potential harm to society.

While it’s easy for individuals to associate weight loss with vanity, the studies all make it clear that government needs to look at the impact of obesity on society through an economic lens. Not just in terms of healthcare costs — obesity can lead to diabetes, heart disease and cancer — but in productivity as well. One recent study found that obesity could drag down the global GDP by more than 3% by 2060. That’s a loss of $4 trillion because of obesity, led by China, India and the United States.

After genetics, Chinese officials listed diet, physical activity, mental health and sleep deprivation as contributing factors to the obesity epidemic. And so Beijing has set its sights on actively trying to improve people’s way of life — a noble ideal that is often overshadowed by human frailty and the ugliness of politics.

Every policy decision an elected official makes reflects how they view the purpose of government. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” It’s important to point out that he was an enslaver, so the question of whose life is worth caring for has always been a moving target. President George W. Bush turned to those same words from Jefferson, while declaring National Sanctity of Human Life Day back in January 2002.

“Let us recognize the day with appropriate ceremonies in our homes and places of worship,” he said. “Rededicate ourselves to compassionate service on behalf of the weak and defenseless, and reaffirm our commitment to respect the life and dignity of every human being.”

Of course, by the time he gave that speech, Bush had already started one war. Ultimately, the collective “war on terror” would claim some 900,000 lives. In 2004, he threw his support behind a ban on same-sex marriage in an effort to fire up his base during the presidential election. So much for respecting “the life and dignity of every human being.” So much for the care of human life being “the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

Like China, we too have a big problem. Jefferson’s words are a challenge to live up to — in foreign policy, in social policy, in public health, even in decisions about a topic as seemingly impersonal as the national debt.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, our government is more than $36 trillion in debt, the highest external debt in the world. That averages to more than $100,000 per person. A lot of extra weight to carry around.

Earlier this month, the House Budget Committee said: “If Congress does not act swiftly to confront the structural disconnect between reckless federal spending and incoming revenues, our nation will experience either slow and painful economic demise through sustained stagnation or a swift and catastrophic sovereign debt crisis whereby our creditors lose confidence in our ability to service and repay our debt.”

A sentiment I agree with.

Here’s where the disagreements tend to multiply: How do Congress and the Trump administration view the role of government? Which human lives do they believe are worth caring for? Whose happiness counts? Which lives should be protected from destruction?

We’re getting answers to all those questions, because the policy decisions that are being made now that Trump’s Republican Party controls the White House and Capitol Hill — the cuts to the federal budget, the firings of federal employees — are all tied to why lawmakers and the president believe government exists.

In five years, every single baby boomer will officially be a senior citizen. That’s more than 70 million Americans eligible for Medicare and Social Security. Sounds like an expensive tab to pick up, right? But a nation where millions of seniors are poor and unable to access healthcare is much worse. Look at our own history: After the stock market crashed in 1929, half of seniors ended up in the poorhouse, depended on charity or died from starvation. Prior to Social Security, only 15% of companies offered pensions. So yeah, we know what America looks like without a safety net — and it’s not pretty.

Fortunately, fiscal prudence does not require dismantling the federal government and eliminating protections for the poor and elderly. Yes, cutting our national debt is important. And it can be done with care for human life and happiness.

However, while China is getting its bloat under control by improving its citizens’ way of life, we seem to be taking the opposite approach.

@LZGranderson