The Trump administration's recently released "skinny budget" delivers on its name, save for one key area. Described as a "hard power budget," it cuts many social programs while allocating an additional $54 billion for defense spending. The central idea behind this budget seems to be that we can create a safer country by heavily investing in defense, while ignoring spending on all else. But can we?

The Trump administration’s plan to cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has drawn criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. In the days since the administration released its proposed budget, which would also cut funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), 24 senators from both parties signed a letter asking the president to reconsider eliminating these agencies. The letter cites the power of the arts to forge cultural bonds, stimulate the economy, and enrich our education system. The senators might have included another reason for keeping these programs alive: By influencing the cultural context in which we live, the arts also help to promote health.

The healthcare debate unfolded rapidly last week, with the story changing at a dizzying pace, until it ended with the defeat of the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Ultimately, Congress chose not to vote on “Trumpcare,” due to Republican division over the substance of the widely unpopular bill. As we watched these events play out, traditional forms of commentary often felt a step or two behind the moment. We are, after all, used to seeing situations unfold linearly, with one event leading to another, following the standard pattern of cause and effect. Yet, in the blur of last week, developments emerged almost simultaneously. We saw President Trump lobby for the AHCA, even as Republicans worked to amend the bill to make it more palatable for their caucus prior to a scheduled vote on the legislation. Republicans then delayed the vote, before, ultimately, rescheduling it for Friday, then calling it off. For those of us who are invested in navigating the complex subject of healthcare, these events begged the question: how do we make sense of such wild times?

Today is Saint Patricks’ Day, a celebration of Irish heritage. Saint Patrick’s Day began, of course, as a religious holiday. But time and customs have transformed it over the years into a pageant of culture; a chance to acknowledge the contributions that Irish-Americans have made to the US. Yet Irish heritage was not always so widely embraced. During the Potato Famine of the 19th century, nearly 1 million Irish immigrated to America — the first large wave of refugees the country had ever encountered. Many faced virulent prejudice, and were denied employment and basic dignity upon arrival to this country. Despite these obstacles, doors were opened for the Irish, and generations hence, the Irish have made an indelible mark on the country.

In 2010, Adidas joined with Grameen Bank, a microfinance organization founded by Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, to sell low-cost shoes to impoverished populations in India. The idea was to expand Adidas’ market, while at the same time providing quality products to people who might not otherwise be able to get them. “The shoes will be cheap and affordable for the poor, besides it will protect people from diseases,” Yunus said.

Donald Trump’s candidacy for president was driven, in part, by his willingness to repudiate the world beyond our borders. By targeting immigrant groups — notably Hispanics and Muslims — and questioning longstanding international alliances like NATO, Trump signaled his preference for an America that withdraws from global engagement, a preference he made even more explicit in his inaugural address, when he repeatedly spoke about putting “America first,” a phrase with chilling historical overtones.

This week, a Senate panel voted to confirm the nomination of Dr. Ben Carson to be the next Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. With this confirmation, the political uncertainty of recent months now extends to the area of US housing policy. Dr. Carson has criticized HUD policies meant to address housing inequities, calling these moves “social engineering,” an attitude at odds with the department’s stated mission to “build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination.” Given Carson’s view of HUD, it is an open question whether he will enforce policies that are in line with the agency’s goals, or chart a different path.