More Promises Than Funding: The House Adopts An Irresponsible 2007 Budget

[Sapphire Blue]

Article from the May 19, 2006 edition of the CHN Human Needs Report:

More Promises Than Funding: The House Adopts An Irresponsible 2007 Budget

After months of failed attempts, the House of Representatives approved a FY 2007 budget resolution in the small hours of the morning on May 18. The vote was 218 to 210. The House leadership navigated between the demands of conservatives that funding for domestic programs not exceed the President’s $873 billion and the calls by moderates to add funds in order to prevent at least some cuts. The moderates did wrest a promise that programs run by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education may receive an addition of nearly $7.2 billion beyond the President’s figure.

(snip)

First, the budget does maintain the $873.8 billion total proposed by the President for domestic annually appropriated programs – a figure that is more than $10 billion below the amount needed to continue the current level of services next year.

Second, the budget establishes a reserve fund that would allow the addition of $3.1 billion to domestic programs – but only if those funds are paid for by cuts or savings in entitlement programs. The budget is mum about the nature of these cuts. Entitlement programs are those that operate without the need for annual appropriations – such as Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment insurance, child support enforcement, Food Stamps, cash aid for the poor, student loans, etc.

(snip)

The agreement leaves in doubt whether the offsetting cuts can be found, or whether they will result in similarly harmful cuts. The promise was nonetheless enough to sway some of the moderate Republicans who had been withholding their votes. Twelve Republicans voted ‘no’ despite intense pressure, either because they thought the budget spent too much or too little: Fitzpatrick (PA), Gerlach (PA), Goode (VA), Hostettler (IN), Johnson (IL), Jones (NC), McHugh (NY), Otter (ID), Ramstad (MN), Renzi (AZ), Sweeney (NY), and Wilson (NM). No Democrat voted ‘yes.’

Continued @ http://www.chn.org/humanneeds/060519b.html

The House & Senate still need to agree on a final version; the Senate's proposed spending allocations are higher. The fight against service cuts continues for advocates.