From all reports, the United States and much of the world is in deep recession.

Government economic intervention seems, even if it amounts to trillions of dollars on a global scale, likely not to solve our economic crises quickly. In the United States the joblessness rate continues to grow, and major industries continue to falter. Some, like the automobile industry, may see radical structural changes and massive layoffs.

We in Kansas, though arguably better off than folks in some states, are not going to escape the financial cutbacks that increasingly seem inevitable. Gov. Sebelius has now ordered state agencies other than those that provide social services and K-12 education to take a 3 percent cut. She’s also made it clear that further cuts may well be necessary. The media are full of expressions of pain and fear at the potential impact of these cuts.

The fact of the matter is that when a financial crisis occurs, our leaders must establish priorities and must make hard decisions, even if these decisions are unpopular.

I agree fully with the governor that those whose needs are greatest in our society should not be the first to feel the impact of financial stringency. They should be the last. Every religion commands us to care for the sick and needy and help the poor. What kind of a society would we be to choose otherwise? Similarly, our children are our future. We simply must realize that damaging their education now will have a lasting legacy throughout their lives.

Higher education is a harder issue. If cuts must come – and it seems that they must – then I would urge the regents and the Legislature to ponder whether such cuts should be imposed at the university level or at the system level. Are we better off weakening all the regents universities, or are we better served by looking to eliminate systemwide duplication and inefficiency? Does our state need as many duplicate programs as currently exist?

Personally, I would rather see the regents eliminate programs that are weaker than others in the same field but at different regents schools and, thereby, allow stronger programs to continue to grow and get stronger.

Finally, I think that in making cuts and establishing priorities at both the state and national levels we must be sure not to harm our veterans.

We are currently involved in major military actions in two nations, as well as around the world. I recently read that one difference between our current conflicts and past conflicts is that far more military personnel will now survive, albeit wounded, than die, as they would have in past wars. We as a nation have an imperative obligation to do everything possible for our veterans. Our record in regard to veterans of earlier wars, especially of Vietnam and of the 1991 Gulf War, is abysmal.

We must not let those who have sacrificed for us by giving their time, their incomes and their well-being to suffer more. I would urge our state and national leaders to ensure veterans’ benefits, even during severe economic crisis, be a first priority along with protecting the poor, the weak, the young and the infirm.

Crises demand the best of leaders. Let us hope that at every level our leaders shun political considerations in determining budget cuts and let their consciences guide them instead.