There is a new buzz-term in the politicosphere-- "The New Normal." Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey is one leader who uses this term. Gov. Christie calls for dramatic cuts in government spending and services. He touts zero-based budgeting as a solution. Apparently in New Jersey, every year they ask all over again- do we keep the schools open? Do we have roads, sewers, parks, and water running in the pipes? Should we fund police, fire, and of course public health? This is the New Normal.
Should we accept drastically reduced resources for vital government programs as "normal"? What about the role of programs like public health in maintaining our communities as a healthy place, with healthy people? Have the responsibilities and workload of public health decreased in proportion to the cuts? Has the burden of disease and health disparities been reduced sufficiently to warrant the reductions? The statistics and common sense both tell us they have not.
Sorry, I have to label this as bizarre, not normal. I view this as accepting that many people will continue to have reduced life spans and lower quality of life due to inadequate provision of services and features that provide safe, healthful, and decent living conditions.
The role of government has evolved and mostly grown in part because of the success in improving people's lives and longevity. I am completely supportive of examining where we are going as a Nation and conducting our government in a sustainable way, without an undue burden on the next generations. But we have our current health status because of the health-promoting features in our communities, and many are government responsibilities- roads, water supplies, sewerage, oversight of the food supply, environmental monitoring, and public safety are a few, not to mention national defense and homeland security. Should the level of environmental and occupational health and safety be left to employers' discretion and not government regulation? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reviewed the achievements of the 20th Century that led to a greatly improved health status compared to 1900, and CDC named ten that had the greatest improvement to public health. (read at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm). Nearly all of the achievements, like improving water systems to provide a safe drinking water, were organized or run by government at either the national, state, or local level.
Should we cut government to the point where our health status may actually slide back to the levels before the 20th century? I believe that poor health for more people is the likely outcome of the "new normal" as it is being implemented. If people consider the consequences, they will reject this approach.
