Reply
Mon 21 Mar, 2005 10:40 am
Commentary: "Economic Scene: A Weekly Column"
from the March 21, 2005 edition
Why some budget cuts get less attention
By David R. Francis
It's hard being poor in America. It's not just the stagnant minimum wage, which Congress failed to raise this month, or the lack of unemployment insurance benefits for many, since legislators failed last year to extend them for the long-term jobless. Future cuts in federal aid for the poor look even worse. President Bush's budget for 2006 would reduce spending on early childhood education and child care, home energy assistance and rental assistance, and nutrition assistance to pregnant women, infants, and young children, Washington experts say.
Now, Congress is deliberating whether to punch another hole in the biggest safety net of all for those with little income - Medicaid and the related State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Next to Social Security and Medicare, which serve all income brackets, Medicaid and SCHIP stand as Uncle Sam's biggest social program.
They support 1 in 6 Americans and cover 1 in 4 children. Among low-income children and parents, they provide health insurance for more than 38 million Americans. Medicaid is a critical source of acute and long-term care coverage for 12 million elderly and disabled individuals, including 6 million low-income beneficiaries of Medicare with medical problems not paid for by that health program.
Medicaid costs have soared in recent years. It will cost the states and the federal government about $322 billion this year, with Washington picking up $182 billion of that amount.
One factor behind the soaring cost is the rapid rise in the price of medical services. Another factor is corporate America's many cuts in healthcare provisions for their employees and their retirees. So more people have sought Medicaid help.
As a result, Medicaid has become a significant target for cutting federal spending.
In his budget for fiscal 2006, starting next October, Mr. Bush proposed to cut Medicaid spending by an estimated $20.2 billion over five years. He also called for new tax breaks for Health Savings Accounts and small businesses providing employees with health coverage, which would cost Uncle Sam $7.4 billion. As a result, the net potential savings come to $12.8 billion over five years.
Of course, Congress has the final say on the budget. But the legislature generally has an easier time cutting programs for the poor, many of whom don't vote, than it does cutting those that help the middle class or senior citizens, who do turn out on election day in large numbers.
"They [lower-income people] don't advocate on their own behalf," says Victoria Wachino, health-policy director for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. Nor can they afford "K Street lobbyists," who often have considerable influence on legislation, and usually are generous campaign contributors.
So, even though the poor are becoming more numerous (up more than 1 million between 2002 and 2003 to 35.9 million) and the number of those without health insurance rose 1.2 million during the same period to 45 million, the cuts to Medicaid and SCHIP face less of an obstacle in Congress than changes in Social Security or Medicare.
Nevertheless, advocates retain a glimmer of hope that cuts will be minimized. Congress is besieged by the states - as well as dozens of advocacy groups for low-income people. The states see an effort to shift Medicaid costs onto their already strained budgets.
In the Senate, there was a rebellion last week against Bush's proposed Medicaid savings. Sens. Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon and Jeff Bingaman (D) of New Mexico pushed an amendment to restore $15 billion of Medicaid spending in the budget being debated and create a nonpartisan commission to study changes in the program. It won by a vote of 52 to 48 this past Thursday.
But perils remain. The Senate and House will have to reconcile their different spending plans. The House version includes cuts similar to those proposed by the president.
Under the Bush budget plan, Medicaid spending during the next five years would grow about 7.2 percent a year. Without the cut, it will grow by 7.4 percent a year.
Though that sounds modest enough, Heather Boushey, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, says the cut would make 1.2 million children unable to access the system - partly depending on whether states can afford to make up lost federal money.
What especially goads supporters of Medicaid as we know it is that the president still advocates cutting taxes by $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years, primarily helping the well-to-do.
For instance, Max Sawicky, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute, calculates that with the Bush tax cuts, federal revenues for 2005 will amount to 16.8 percent of gross domestic product. That's a level typical of the 1950s.
If the president's proposals are enacted and remain in force, Mr. Sawicky holds, federal receipts will remain so low for 50 years that even Medicare and Social Security will be endangered, let alone Medicaid.
The crime of being poor in America.
Interesting.
A few days ago they had an article about cuts to the school lunch programs and WIC.
Today they had a big article about how inmates are filling out surveys on ways to improve the food in prison. They printed all the menus and I can tell you these people seemed to be eating pretty well.
And I was wondering if SCHIPS helps with childhood immunizations. Kids can't go to school without immunizations, you know.
And they're learning that a lot of what they think is ADD is really just plain old hunger.
I don't think people are blameless in a lot of this hunger thing though. I flipped on the news and saw a bit of the "Terri" wars - for what those protestors spent on poster board they could have fed hungry people for a week.
Ironic, huh?
Found this. I like their take on the situation, and am glad to see them speaking up for the little guys. Sounds like they have a better understanding of "Compassionate Conservative" than Bush does, too.
Quote:FAITH AND THE FEDERAL BUDGET: Too little for Lazarus
By FRANK T. GRISWOLD, MARK HANSON, CLIFTON KIRKPATRICK, JOHN H. THOMAS AND JAMES WINKLER
03/22/2005
Editor's Note: Last week, the U.S. House and Senate passed different versions of a federal budget for 2006 before adjourning for an Easter recess. The House version closely tracks President George W. Bush's proposed budget, which is the subject of the following position paper. After the recess, the two bodies will attempt to reach a compromise politically acceptable to their members and to the White House.
We are preachers, and so, in explaining our opposition to the 2006 federal budget that President Bush has sent to Congress, it seems only fitting that we should begin with Scripture.
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames."
The passage comes from 16th chapter of the Gospel according to Luke, and it contains a warning that should deeply trouble those of us who live in a wealthy nation. As the story continues, the rich man implores Abraham to raise Lazarus from the dead and send him to the house of his brothers so that they may be spared his torment. "They have Moses and the prophets," Abraham replies. "They should listen to them." The rich man says, "No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent." And Abraham answers, "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
In telling this story, Jesus makes clear that perpetrating economic injustice is among the gravest of sins. Yet self-interest is so deeply ingrained in each one of us, he says, that we will not renounce it, even should someone rise from the dead.
Jesus was right about that. It was he who rose from the dead to save us from greed and myriad other sins. Yet those who have much continue feasting, even as those who have little remain at their gates.
Like many Americans, we read our daily newspaper through the lens of faith, and when we see injustice, it is our duty to say so. The 2006 federal budget that President Bush has sent to Capitol Hill is unjust. It has much for the rich man and little for Lazarus. According to the White House's own numbers, this budget would move 300,000 people off food stamps in the next five years. It would cut the funds that allow 300,000 children to receive day care. It would reduce funding for Medicaid by $45 billion over the next 10 years, and this at a time when 45 million Americans - the highest level on record - already are without health insurance.
These cuts would be alarming in any circumstances, but in the context of the 2006 budget, they are especially troubling. For even as it reduces aid to those in poverty, this budget showers presents on the rich. If passed in its current form, it would make permanent tax cuts that have bestowed nearly three-quarters of the "relief" on one-fifth of the country. If passed in its current form, it would include whopping new cuts that would benefit, almost exclusively, those with household incomes of more than $200,000 per year. If passed in its current form, it would take Jesus' teaching on economic justice and stand it on its head.
Some contend that these cuts will stimulate the economy and improve life for all Americans, but we believe that stocking the rich man's larder is a peculiar strategy for getting Lazarus more food. Not only does this policy rest on dubious economic assumptions, but it asks the poor to pay the cost for a prosperity in which they may never share.
Some contend that works of mercy are not the business of the government but of private citizens. But in what other area of our national life do we formulate policies uninformed by our deepest values?
Some contend that with the proper support, faith-based charities will step forward to fill the gap created by the government's retreat. But this flies in the face of the lessons that we, as religious leaders, have learned firsthand. Our churches operate thousands of charities, from the parochial to the international. Believe us when we tell you that neither we, nor our Evangelical brothers and sisters, nor our friends of other faiths have anywhere near the resources to turn back the rising tide of poverty in this country.
We know that programs, whether governmental or nonprofit, can change people's lives for the better. New situations challenge us to respond to new conditions and to support those who are in transition out of poverty. Sadly, the 2006 budget will send more people searching for food in cupboards that, quite frequently, are bare.
Our churches will continue their ameliorative ministries. But it is not enough for us as a church or a society to be merciful. We must remember the admonition of the prophet Micah: "And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah's choice of verbs is instructive. We are not to love justice or preach justice, we are to do justice - to act, and, when necessary, to struggle.
We urge the members of our churches, of other churches and other faiths, and all whose conscience compels them to do justice to join us in opposing this budget. Write to your representatives. Write to your local newspaper. Join the organizations working to obtain justice for the 36 million Americans living below the poverty line, the 45 million without health insurance and the unknown millions struggling to keep their families from slipping into these ever-increasing ranks. Together, let us pledge ourselves to creating a nation in which economic policies are infused with the spirit of the man who began his public ministry almost 2,000 years ago by proclaiming that God had anointed him "to bring good news to the poor."
The Most Reverend Frank T. Griswold is presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church, USA. The Right Reverend Mark Hanson is presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The Reverend Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick is stated clerk of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church, (U.S.A.). The Reverend John H. Thomas is general minister and president, United Church of Christ. James Winkler is general secretary, General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church.
STL Today
That was truely an excellent read, squinney. Thank you for posting it.
Those crazy Christians and their stories.
Last weeks episode of 7th Heaven dealt with the negative attitude many have about the poor, the shame many have that keeps them from seeking help, and how that shame is brought on by the negative attitudes of the "haves."
http://www.thewb.com/Shows/Episode/0,8201,||2329,00.html
At the end of the episode, contact information was provided for those in need of help feeding themselves and their families.
I thought it was great that they devoted time to this issue. I thought maybe, since it appeared to be sponsored by the government food stamp program, that a corner was being turned.
I was wrong.
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/05/new-medicare-guide-justifies-cutting_06.html
The religious fundamentalist that holds the highest office in the land seems to have missed the chapter related to charity. He goin strait to hell.
Why is it that in America someone who is living in (relative) poverty is called a "loser" and in Australia (at least until we were afflicted by the same disease) was a person who was living in, again relative poverty, called a "battler"?
The former is perceived as condemned the latter perceived as struggling against the odds but still struggling and to be admired and helped.
I have to add that I think we have caught the American disease and we have forgotten the "battlers" and condemned them to "loser" status except for when a politician discovers them and seeks to use them.
But back to my question, why "loser"?
Goodfielder - I think it's because Americans, in general, have a really competitive streak. It's interesting, it was not until I came to live in England that I even noticed it. Rather, it became apparent to me when I noticed the lack of it here. There seems to be a much more community-minded, cooperative spirit in the schools and villages here than in most American towns. Even right down to how people do or don't talk about their kids. I literally never hear people comparing their childrens' grades or sport prowess here in England, where as as the mother of two in the US - that's all I would ever hear parents talk about.
Having a more socialistic government has had an effect on the attitudes of people - it informs their attitudes about their place in the world and in their own society and communities. People here work together to make things work for all the people - and though certainly not perfect - the people (if not the government) present a more cohesive and compassionate front here than they do in America.
I am an American - and I love what I got from growing up and living there most of my life - but that macho, every man for himself attitude seems pretty heartless when you realize it's a choice and it doesn't have to be that way, and that other places have found a way to take better care of their poor, elderly and infirm. Just my opinion...
America the land of opportunity. where the streets are paved witrh gold. That is what was sold to new immigrants for about 150 years. Consequently when people came here they were after their share of the pie. It was and in many ways and still is a dog eat dog society. Get what you want at all costs. Based on that are our attitudes towards those in need so strange. Compassion in the US is just a word in the dictionary.
Hmmm.
I started a thread reminding people that the Letter Carriers food drive is scheduled for next Saturday, May 14.
I think I received two responses.
<sigh>
Re: The crime of being poor in America.
au1929, quoting the New York Times wrote:If the president's proposals are enacted and remain in force, Mr. Sawicky holds, federal receipts will remain so low for 50 years that even Medicare and Social Security will be endangered, let alone Medicaid.
He forgot to mention that if au1929 and the Democrats had their way, America would slap substantial tarriffs on cheap foreign imports of food, textiles, and softwood lumber. Or in other words, they would tax poor people for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves. Somehow this never gets mentioned when Op-Ed columnist cry the Democrats' crocodile tears about the American poor.
The softwood tarrif to which you refer has already been imposed by the Republicans. Canada is crying foul about it. That portion of your list, at least, is a red herring.
Thanks aidan. That's interesting and insightful. I suppose that "survival of the fittest" approach was useful way back when but in a supposedly mature society surely it's a bit dated? But to answer my own question - apparently not.
Unfortunately in my country we seem to be going the same way. Having begun in adversity and nurturing a culture of mutual assistance we seem to have matured into an "up yours I've got mine" society" courtesy of the current federal government - but of course they wouldn't be there unless their policies were attractive so far be it from me to complain. Yes we've ditched our founding values and swapped them for the dog eat dog values of American culture.
Thomas
Strange statement coming from one who resides in a nation that has all of the social programs in place. I wonder how the people residing there would respond if the social programs were cut back to the level in that of the US.
I agree that the competitiveness of the US is a factor. I also feel like the whole "American Dream" theme has helped to build these attitudes. Yes, there are huge opportunities. There is a market for most anything, which means most any business can be started and have relative success. It isn't difficult to have an idea and start a business here. That part is true as far as my own experience.
However, I think it also then leads those that "have" to think everyone should be able to feed themselves by doing what they have done. What they don't realize is that not everyone is suited to being an entrepreneur. Not everyone has the same skill level. Not everyone has the same educational opportunities that would allow them to obtain the skills needed to hold a job that pays well enough for them to be above poverty.
What the "haves" likely also fear but do not admit to themselves is that if everyone was completely, one hundred percent above poverty, self sufficient, their own status would be diminished. So, labeling them as "losers" builds the ego and status of the "haves." They don't really want them to go away.
Cutting aid by way of foodstamps, medical care, etc. assures the poor will always be with us. No hand outs OR hand ups seems to be their motto.
Setanta wrote:The softwood tarrif to which you refer has already been imposed by the Republicans. Canada is crying foul about it. That portion of your list, at least, is a red herring.
It would be a red herring if the Democrats had opposed the tariff when the Republicans passed it. But if I remember correctly, their criticism at the time was that the tariff ought to be higher, as ought to be the steel tariffs Bush imposed. Hence, I thought it fair game to include softwood lumber on my list.
au1929 wrote:Strange statement coming from one who resides in a nation that has all of the social programs in place. I wonder how the people residing there would respond if the social programs were cut back to the level in that of the US.
Of course, nobody knows what would happen. My own, uneducated guess is that those who currently pay for our social programs would applaud a lot, and those who currently receive benefit payments would protest a lot, maybe even riot. A year or two later, assuming the government didn't cave in, the job market would equilibrate at a joblessness rate about half as large as today, and employment rate way up. (Unemployment in Germany is currently twice as high, employment about half as high as in the United States.) So yes, it would be awfully tough politically, but it isn't clear to me at all that this would on net be a bad deal for Germans -- even for poor Germans.
All of this is aside from my original point, which was about the left side of this debate being hypocritical, not about the right side of it being correct.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace