Unbalanced Priorities: **Cuts to Low-Income Programs**

[G_j]

Cuts to Low-Income Programs May Far Exceed the Contribution of These Programs to Deficit's Return

http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05bud.htm

February 4, 2005

CUTS TO LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS MAY FAR EXCEED THE
CONTRIBUTION OF THESE PROGRAMS TO DEFICIT’S RETURN
By Isaac Shapiro and Robert Greenstein <1>

Summary


There is a distinct possibility that efforts to reduce the deficit this year will take a large and disproportionate bite out of programs that provide key supports and services to low-income Americans. This analysis explains that because substantial parts of the budget, including revenues, are expected to be largely or entirely “off the table” when deficit reduction plans are drawn up — and also because low-income programs tend to lack the political support of other programs with more powerful constituencies — a very large share of the budget reductions enacted this year may consist of cuts in programs for low-income families and individuals. Indeed, when Congress completes work on the budget this year, it is possible that a majority of the cuts will have been made in low-income programs.

Such an approach would represent unbalanced priorities.

A heavy reliance on cuts to low-income programs would be out of line with the very small role that such programs have played in the reemergence of deficits (just six percent by one key measure), and with the modest contribution these programs are expected to make to deficits in the years ahead. A heavy reliance on cuts in these programs also would be out of line with the modest share of the federal budget that such programs comprise.

Large cuts in programs for low-income Americans also would be ill-advised, given the rise in poverty, the widening of the gap between rich and poor, and the increase in the number of people lacking health insurance in recent years. Sizeable reductions in programs for low-income families would exacerbate these adverse trends.

Deficit reduction can be accomplished — and has been in the past — without injuring the most vulnerable Americans. The bipartisan deficit-reduction package in 1990, negotiated and signed by a Republican President, and the deficit-reduction package enacted in 1993 stand out in this regard. Both of those measures included a combination of reductions in programs and tax increases (the tax increases primarily affected high-income households), and did much to help move the nation’s fiscal position from one of large, structural deficits to the surpluses that emerged in the late 1990s. Neither measure contained sizable reductions in programs for low-income families. To the contrary, both achieved extensive deficit reduction while strengthening programs that assist the working poor, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Why Low-Income Programs May Be Sliced Deeply This Year
..more..
(some good graphs and charts included)

[G_j]

1. Bush to Boost Military Budget by 4.8%

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-budget5feb05,1,5542179.story

Bush to Boost Military Budget by 4.8%
The request expected Monday is less than earlier projections, but does not include money for Afghanistan and Iraq or future increases.



By Esther Schrader, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Seeking to bolster and reshape the Army and Marine Corps but hold the line on spending for new weapons systems, the Bush administration will ask Congress on Monday to boost Pentagon spending to $419.3 billion in 2006, an increase of 4.8%.

The budget request, which will not include money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, reflects a mandate by the White House to cut spending on military programs not directly related to the war in Iraq or the fight against terrorism.

..more..

[Negatron]

2. They are short-sighted as hell.

We will pay through the nose for every cut they make. The cost of jails and hospitals is going to far exceed any "savings" from cutting the low-income safety net. When you take away the things underpriveleged people need in order to live a decent life, you are consigning them to an indecent life. In real-world terms, that translates to prisons for those who lose housing and education, and emergency rooms for those who lose health care. Every dime they are saving now is going to cost a dollar later, but they don't give a shit because they will either be dead by then, or sitting on a pile of money. Guess who is going to be stuck footing the bill?

[G_j]

3. it's the Republican way

and it hurts people
=======

Happy Birthday Bob

[G_j]

4. Low-Income Programs and the Deficit

(thanks go to Kerrygoddess)

This page is so worth reading...

Low-Income Programs and the Deficit

For the purposes of this analysis, low-income programs fall into three categories.

The first category consists of “means-tested entitlement programs.” Under these programs, which include such programs as food stamps and Medicaid, all households that meet the relevant eligibility criteria for a program can receive aid. Eligibility is limited to households below certain income levels and often below certain asset limits as well. Eligibility often is restricted to households that also meet certain other criteria, such as being elderly, having a disability, or being employed.

The second category of means-tested programs consists of low-income “discretionary” programs. These programs are funded through the appropriations process on an annual basis, with the number of beneficiaries served, or the level of services provided, being limited by the amount of funds made available. “Low-income” discretionary programs generally restrict eligibility to households that fall below certain income levels and meet various other eligibility criteria.

The final category consists of two “refundable income tax credits,” the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit. These refundable tax credits are limited to low-income working families. If a family’s income is sufficiently low that the size of the tax credit for which it qualifies exceeds the amount of income tax that the family otherwise owes, the family receives the remainder of its tax credit in the form of a “refund” from the Internal Revenue Service.

Low-income programs make up a relatively small portion of the budget — about one-fifth in 2005.<10> The majority of expenditures for low-income programs occurs through means-tested entitlement programs; a significant minority occurs through discretionary programs; and roughly one-tenth results from refundable tax credits.

http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05bud.htm

[G_j]

5. Farmers and the Poor Hit Hard by Bush Budget

Farmers and the Poor Hit Hard by Bush Budget
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020605Y.shtml

Bush to Propose Billions in Cuts
By Joel Havemann and Mary Curtius
The Los Angeles Times

Sunday 06 February 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush will propose a 2006 budget Monday that, despite record spending of about $2.5 trillion, will call for billions of dollars in cuts that will touch people on food stamps and farmers on price supports, children under Medicaid and adults in public housing.

Even before the budget is officially sent to Congress on Monday, resistance to Bush's proposals was welling up Saturday from interest groups that benefit from federal aid and from the members of Congress who represent them.

Powerful agricultural interests were among the first to label Bush's proposed budget cuts as unfair and shortsighted. Farmers receive about $15 billion annually in federal farm program payments to help produce major commodities, including corn, cotton, rice and wheat.

California farmers could end up bearing a disproportionate share of the burden if the cuts in crop subsidies were enacted, said economist Daniel Sumner. "Rice and cotton are very important to this state," said Sumner, who is director of the Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis.

..more..

[Vinca]

6. Deficit aside, it's immoral to not assist those less fortunate.

What kind of Christian turns off Grandma's heat? The Republicans are surely the "Me" party while Democrats are the "We" party.

[G_j]

7. But Bush is GREATER than Jesus

that is why he can ignore Jesus's basic message of helping the poor.

<sarcasm, of course>

[n2mark]

8. Shrub's cuts disturb me

We will see the crime rate increase. There be an increase of children going hungry and families living on the street. Society is going to pay the price. Maybe we all should have a sign on our door saying "don't blame me I didn't vote for shrub", go to ------ they voted for him. Yet shrub sends Laura who has not a clue how to communicate with gangs and people in need. He is making matters worse. Karma, where are you?