From The Christian Science Monitor, 10/31/05:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1031/p15s02-cogn.html
Don't balance the budget on the backs of the poor
By David R. Francis
How come, when Congress figures it must trim the federal budget
deficit, it first turns to cutting programs that benefit primarily the
poor?
The poor are numerous - 37 million in 2004, or 12.7 percent of the
total United States population.
That number was up from the year before.
Yet Congress (the House especially) has focused on chopping programs
that serve low-income families with children, or low-income people who
are elderly or have disabilities.
"It's outrageous," says David Beckmann, president of Bread for the
World.
Mr. Beckmann and others point out that many poor people don't vote.
They vote proportionately less than do middle-income or rich people.
The poor, sometimes with two jobs or maybe doing manual work, often
have difficulty getting themselves to polling stations.
Many are undereducated and find it hard to follow the complexities and
consequences of congressional budget procedures.
Even if more poor people did go to the polls, many members of Congress
could act as if those votes don't matter.
Over the years, House districts have been redrawn to ensure the
reelection prospects of members.
The poor sometimes are piled into one "safe" district, often
Democratic.
Few low-income people are left in prosperous suburban districts, many
of which are Republican.
"They don't have to give a hoot for what happens to the poor," says
Beckmann.
Moreover, the poor certainly can't afford to make the big campaign
contributions that are important to politicians in an era when
election costs have become astronomical.
Nonetheless, there are political limits on how much money Congress can
chop from the safety net for the poor - such programs as Medicaid, the
Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families, Child Care, Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance, and so on.
House Republican leaders, hoping to demonstrate their conservative
prowess, had planned to cut $50 billion, substantially from such
low-income programs, over five years.
That's up from the $35 billion called for in April's budget
resolution.
___________________________________________________________
Shameful.
Harry
.
|
