Posted on 11/04/2005 5:19:41 AM PST by .cnI redruM
WASHINGTON --The politicians who favor cutting taxes on the wealthy typically proclaim their desire to encourage hard work, personal responsibility and family values.
So why are House Republican leaders pushing a budget that, when it comes to our neediest fellow citizens, is a direct assault on ... hard work, personal responsibility and family values?
Here are some things those leaders don't want you to know. Their cuts in food stamps would eliminate from the program 225,000 people in working households with children. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, some 330,000 children in working families would lose child care assistance because of inadequate funding in the bill.
Fathers who don't live with their families ought to support their kids when they can afford to, right? Then why does the House propose cuts for child support enforcement?
Do you honor families who help foster kids? Then why cut $397 million in foster care payments to relatives who take in children removed from their parents' homes? Isn't it remarkable that congressional conservatives who think we can afford $70 billion worth of tax cuts in this budget -- meaning the budget actually increases the deficit -- can't come up with that $400 million for foster kids? It gives ``compassionate conservatism'' a whole new meaning.
And then there are the deep cuts in Medicaid. In their package of $50 billion in cuts over five years, the House Republicans are proposing $9.4 billion in Medicaid cuts, which would grow to $45 billion over the next 10 years. Millions of children -- especially those in low-income working families -- could be charged higher co-payments and premiums. Studies show such increases in out-of-pocket costs have their greatest impact on Americans toward the bottom of the income scale who go without the health care they need.
It's worth listening to 44 members of Congress who wrote a letter last April calling on their leaders to eliminate the Medicaid cuts and instead create a bipartisan commission to study the future of Medicaid:
``Medicaid is the largest health care program in the country, serving over 50 million people including more than one in four children. ... As lawmakers, we know that any changes made to this program will have consequences for these individuals. We also know that health care is expensive and that our federal health care programs should get value for the money we spend, improve the health of people who depend upon them, and be accountable for results. We therefore believe that policy should drive the budget and not the budget drive policy.''
These members of Congress are not knee-jerk liberals. Every one of the 44 is a House Republican. They were led by Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, and their ranks include such GOP stalwarts as Tom Davis and Frank Wolf of Virginia, Chris Smith of New Jersey, Phil English and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. They can't in conscience now vote for this budget, can they?
Ah, but don't we have to make ``hard choices'' to cut the deficit? These cuts may be hard on the poor, but they are not ``hard choices'' for most House Republicans who are carefully sparing their own constituencies and interest groups. A hard choice for them would be to cut tax pork, that dizzying list of ``tax incentives'' they have showered on oil companies and investors, and to halt the repeal of the inheritance tax on large fortunes. But, no, foster families and hungry kids have to face cuts so we can afford to eliminate taxes altogether on rich sons and daughters inheriting money from the old man or the old lady. There's a work incentive for you.
I'm sorry to wax so angry, but I'm aghast that some serious people are giving congressional conservatives credit for ``finally facing up to the deficit.'' If House leaders were serious about the deficit, they would admit that you can't finance a war with tax cuts. If the administration believes so deeply in our endeavor in Iraq, it should have the courage to ask Americans to pay for it through a temporary war tax. If we need a big increase in military and homeland security spending to fight terrorism, why not acknowledge that the tax cuts the administration has pushed into law no longer make sense? If we want to help hurricane victims, why ask poor Americans to take on most of the task of financing our collective generosity?
By all means, let's get serious about the deficit. But what's going on in the House is not serious. It's merely an outrage.
>>>>but I'm aghast that some serious people are giving congressional conservatives credit for ``finally facing up to the deficit.''
No, I don't give them credit. The Prescription Drug Panderation Act still exists and so does Senator Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere.
>>>If House leaders were serious about the deficit, they would admit that you can't finance a war with tax cuts.
Care to explain why tax revenues are higher after the tax cuts than they were before them then?
I'm sorry to wax so wroth this am, but EJ Dionne is a prime example of why liberalism is a cancer.
I would love someone to explain to me how welfare encourages hard work, personal responsibility and family values.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We're Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"Their cuts in food stamps would eliminate from the program 225,000 people in working households with children."
***
...many of whom are getting the stamps illegally, are able bodied and can go to work, or are collecting benefits from more than one source (i.e., WIC, school breakfast/lunch/dinner programs).
***
"And then there are the deep cuts in Medicaid. In their package of $50 billion in cuts over five years, the House Republicans are proposing $9.4 billion in Medicaid cuts, which would grow to $45 billion over the next 10 years. Millions of children -- especially those in low-income working families -- could be charged higher co-payments and premiums. Studies show such increases in out-of-pocket costs have their greatest impact on Americans toward the bottom of the income scale who go without the health care they need."
***
Much of the money goes to fund abortions. We don't need that. And the children -- well, it's really simple -- if you are poor, don't have a litter of children. These folks have a half dozen kids and they want government to pay for their food, clothing, housing, education and health care. Enough already!
"Then why does the House propose cuts for child support enforcement?"
***
Because this is something that should be dealt with by the states, individually or cooperatively (where the offending parent lives out of state). States generally do enforce child support, so this is probably a duplicative effort.
“I would love someone to explain to me how welfare encourages hard work, personal responsibility and family values.”
Oh that is easy. Welfare encourages hard work, personal responsibility and family values because, ah, I mean, um, well, it’s sorta like this, you see, hmmm, can I get back to on this later?
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We're Know We're Dead Wrong.")
When I see any number of ABC agencies on the chopping block, I'll take republicrats a little more serious, until then, it's just so much smoke. Blackbird.
Reliance on federal handouts breeds dependence on them.
How is $9.4 billion, in a program that will spend over $1 trillion, a 'deep cut'? If EJ Dionne used the real numbers, like "a 1% deep cut" it would make his arguments laughable.
I question why we might have to cut these specific programs and not the farm subsidies or middle-class entitlements like medicare (or why not to cap spending in them all), but to call these 'deep' is absurd.
Here is the outrage!
When, in my household, excome exceeds income, we have to make budget cuts. Now, we cutback on vacations and entertainment. We turn the T-state down about 2 degrees in the winter. We forego some fringe fun things and if it gets really bad, we might look for alternative sources of income.
Here is what we do not do; We do not give away one of our children or sell the house to live on the streets!
If anyone were to hold these mamby pamby talking heads accountable, then someone might ask them why they need to cut the art and music programs (fire teachers) in a school system but keep the plans to spend $20Million on the new highschoold football stadium when budget cuts come around.
You see the same thing in all government. "Budget cuts" means firing police officers, fireman and teachers. But look harder, nothing said about the brand new $300,000 snorkel truck that was purchased in a town thats tallest building is 4 stories. Forget the fact that the last firehouse built is looks like a country club with all of the nicest amenitities available.
If the federal government really wanted to cut spending they would delegate the management and responsibility of education and wellfare to the states and det out of that business completely. Cut the collection and funding at the federal level and let the states manage themselves. Poverty would radically change in this country.
>>>>Reliance on federal handouts breeds dependence on them.
Which is precisely what EJ Dionne likes to see.
>>>>Cut the collection and funding at the federal level and let the states manage themselves. Poverty would radically change in this country.
Which is ultimately what EJ Dionne is truly afraid of.
I saw a liberal clergyman on O'Reilly last night. He was trashing this proposed cut by the House, claiming that it was not something a Christian would vote for. My recollection is that Jesus told us to give of our own wealth, not to steal money from other people, and give that to the poor.
What a tool, I haven't even seen the details of these supposed "cuts" but I would guess it's a reduction in the rate of growth of these programs. Their outrage is based on a twisted definition of cut, maybe we should do a true across-the-board cut to show these socialists what it's really like.
Perhaps the government should just tax 100%....
"Let me tell you how it should be...
there's 1 for you 19 for me."
So true. These cuts are designed to inflict the maximum punishment on the audacity of Taxpayers who reject bond or millage proposals. The real fat goes untouched.
In fact, many of these luxuries are tied in with Federal funding. The luxury gym in the firehouse is funded 80% by Homeland Security grants while actual firefighters are funded locally and laid off. A real mess.
Exactamundo!! All an across-the-board cut shows is a lack of intellectual firepower on the Republican side. We had a chance to cut pork and we blew it.
I agree, poor kiddies. There are a few that after their free lunch have no cell phones to chat on. We should address that before we start cutting.
How is $9.4 billion, in a program that will spend over $1 trillion, a 'deep cut'? If EJ Dionne used the real numbers, like "a 1% deep cut" it would make his arguments laughable.
***
Typical liberal melodrama from the MSM.
I happen to be opposed to all forms of welfare. It's long past time governments get out of the charity business and force everyone to be responsible for him/herself. True, there are people who will at least temporarily (and some permanently) need a helping hand. But that's what charities are for. I maintain that if we make truly deep cuts (or eliminate certain programs altogether) and the money is passed back to the taxpayers, the taxpayers will be able to spend more to help charities do their job.
Do you honor families who help foster kids? Then why cut $397 million in foster care payments to relatives who take in children removed from their parents' homes?
basically, if you can't afford to take care of them, don't take them. that's the same way i feel about divorcing parents. having worked with foster care agencies, and single mothers i see too many that work extremely hard to not have to work. WIC, medicaid, foodstamps, adoption subsidies, foster care payments, state paid daycare.. many of these people are literally in it for the money. they look at foster care as a business.
then there's the single moms who have live-in boyfriends that pay for everything for them, work under-the-table, and are getting child support because they hired a lawyer who did whatever it took to make sure that the dad was deemed unfit, and that the woman couldn't possibly live without him paying her way.
The only thing outrageous about these "cuts" is that they are not actually "cuts", but merely reductions in future spending increasing (if that).
I can think of something that pisses me off. They aren't ENOUGH!
more than one in four children.
any program that affects 1/4 of the kids is WAY to BIG and WAY to far reaching.
The real problem, EJ, is that if you don't look like us, we don't care. Therefore, eff off.
This is the typical tack of the tax-and-spenders, they hold children and the poor hostage to their pork barrel projects. We had a drama queen on the floor of Congress when spending tax money on a bridge to a nearly uninhabited island was questioned, but when the cuts come around, it's the social programs that take it on the chin instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.