Ex-Aide Questions Bush Vow To Back Faith-Based Efforts

By Alan Cooperman and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 15, 2005

A former White House official said yesterday that President Bush has failed to deliver on his promise to help religious groups serve the poor, the homeless and drug addicts because the administration lacks a genuine commitment to its "compassionate conservative" agenda.

David Kuo, who was deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for much of Bush's first term, said in published remarks that the White House reaped political benefits from the president's promise to help religious organizations win taxpayer funding to care for "the least, the last and the lost" in the United States. But he wrote: "There was minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda."

Analyzing Bush's failure to secure $8 billion in promised funding for the faith-based initiative during his first term, Kuo said there was "snoring indifference" among Republicans and "knee-jerk opposition" among Democrats in Congress.

"Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort," Kuo wrote on Beliefnet.com, a Web site on religion. "No administration since [Lyndon B. Johnson's] has had a more successful legislative record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.' "

Kuo's remarks were a rare breach of discipline for an administration that places a high premium on unity among current and former officials, and they mark the second time a former high-ranking official has criticized Bush's approach to the faith-based issue.

In August 2001, John J. DiIulio Jr., then-director of the faith-based office, became the first top Bush adviser to quit, after seven months on the job. In an interview with Esquire magazine a year later, DiIulio said the Bush White House was obsessed with the politics of the faith-based initiative but dismissive of the policy itself, and he slammed White House advisers as "Mayberry Machiavellis."

In his Beliefnet column, Kuo said it was "a dream come true for me" when Bush promised in 2000 that in his first year in office he would provide $6 billion in tax incentives for private charitable giving, $1.7 billion for groups that care for the poor and $200 million for a Compassion Capital Fund to assist local faith-based organizations.

"Sadly, four years later these promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact," he wrote.

In June 2001, the promised tax incentives were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation "to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy," Kuo said. The Compassion Capital Fund has received a cumulative total of $100 million in the past four years, and new programs for children of prisoners, at-risk youth and prisoners reentering society have received a little more than $500 million over four years, he said.

"Unfortunately, sometimes even the grandly-announced 'new' programs aren't what they appear," Kuo wrote, citing as an example the three-year $150 million "gang prevention" effort Bush announced in this year's State of the Union address. In reality, Kuo said, that money is being taken out of the "already meager" $100 million request for the Compassion Capital Fund.

Kuo, 36, served as a special assistant to the president for 2 1/2 years and was deputy head of the faith-based office from February 2002 to December 2003. Before joining the White House, he worked for several prominent conservatives, including John D. Ashcroft and William J. Bennett.

Asked whether that meant he believes that Bush was sincere about the faith-based initiative but other White House officials were not, Kuo said he would "let the column speak for itself."

------------------------------------
Let the discussion begin.

I say, "Liberate America - Impeach George Bush"

So, at first the left was complaining that the religiously fanatical Bush was using faith-based initiatives as a way of forcing religion down our throats. But now, he's not doing enough to support the faith-based initiatives?

And this guy, David Kuo, who worked for John Ashcroft and Bill Bennett is now a voice of reason? In any other circumstance he would be labeled a right-wing religious zealot, not to be taken seriously.

Good grief.

RLTW

... and could probably be implemented without stamping on people's civil liberties.  I suspect the problem is that helping the poor is not sexy like the religious wedge issues.  Neither party gives much of a shit about the poor.

Was that specific enough?

that long ago the lefties were screaming about separation of church and state and how bad faith based initiatives were for the country, now, when they have a tidbit of news showing that it hasn't happened, the're screaming again.  Personally, I'm about to give up this board because some of these inconsistent whining A-holes are giving me a headache.

1. No politician ever delivers on all promises, whether intentionally or not.

2. Bush-haters are more off-the-wall-foaming-at-the-mouth crazy than the Clinton-haters ever were (and that's quite an accomplishment).

RLTW

filled with hate, they cannot even debate their side of an issue with resorting to name calling, whining etc..  There are a few lefties in here whom I may have a little respect for, but not many.

The Clinton haters were just more systematic (with the exception of the Limbaugh crowd and his ilk).  Additionally, the Bush haters have more reason to be frustrated, as congress rubber stamps as much of Bush's agenda as it can, and Clinton mostly had to fight the Gingrich crowd.

but the secret plan/puppetmaster/conspiracy theories that the Bush-haters dream up are far more entertaining than any of those from the Clinton-haters.

RLTW

Clinton never had the unilateral power to make those scenarios worth debating.  Compare that to so many of Shrub's people being part of the R power base for his daddy and The Gipper.

The founders clearly separated Church and State. The only place they even mention "church" is to keep it separate from Gov't. They basically say that Gov't will stay OUT of the church business and vise versa.

Funding churches to do social work clearly vilolates this separation and puts government in the "Church business". Why not just fund social programs that do the same work? I don't get why we have to vilolate the constitution in order to fund social work. Either fund it or don't fund it. But leave the religion out. It is not right to mix the two.