Poor shouldn't pay for hurricane relief

Author: John Corlett

Published: November 9, 2005

The leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives is pushing to increase the total federal budget cuts to $50 billion over five years as part of a pending budget reconciliation proposal. A substantial portion of these additional reductions are likely to be achieved by cutting more deeply into programs that provide basic assistance to vulnerable, low and minimum-wage working families and individuals. The reconciliation proposal will also result in higher federal deficits because the funds saved from cutting programs are going to pay for new tax breaks for the wealthy rather than reducing the deficit. Budget reconciliation then is neither fair nor fiscally prudent.

So who loses and who wins under the proposal? One of the biggest losers in Ohio will be those families with children who depend on child support to pay for rent, clothing, food and other basic necessities. The Congressional Budget Office data suggests that these Ohio families would see nearly a half-billion-dollar reduction in child support collected because of reduced funding for child support enforcement. This could leave families and children without the support they need, pushing them onto the state's welfare rolls through no fault of their own.

The big winners would be the wealthiest people in America. The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year - the richest 0.2 percent of the U.S. population - are receiving tax breaks averaging $103,000 this year. And these millionaires are slated to receive another $20,000 a year in increased tax cuts in the upcoming year.

As Congress grapples with the task of funding the recovery effort for the Gulf Coast region in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there has been discussion about cutting domestic spending elsewhere to offset the $200 billion that lawmakers are appropriating. The victims of Katrina are in desperate need of this funding and, by all means, it needs to be distributed to them without delay. However, the idea of cutting spending on programs such as Medicaid and food stamps is misguided and would hurt the very people already devastated by the hurricanes.

It's no secret that when these hurricanes came ashore, America was unprepared to deal with the unforgiving winds, rain and storm surges. As the stories unfolded in the media, it quickly became clear that the majority of those harmed the most by the hurricanes were our nation's most vulnerable - children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and the poor - those who lacked the economic and physical means to flee.

These economic realities don't just exist in the Gulf Coast; they exist across the country and in Ohio. In fact, less than two months ago, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that poverty is growing in Ohio, and low-wage workers are struggling to make ends meet as the price of energy and food climbs ever higher by the day. Media coverage of the impact of these disasters, and of the government's inadequate response has forced us to confront the causes and tragic consequences of poverty.

It's instructive to contrast the day-to-day struggle of Ohio's most vulnerable with those who are much more fortunate, especially when some in Congress are pushing these new tax cuts which are funded with health care and nutrition cuts. The budget reconciliation proposals that Congress is slated to consider this month will cut billions of dollars from programs like Medicaid and food stamps. The savings will not be used to reduce the deficit, but to offset a portion of the $70 billion that the new tax breaks for the wealthy will cost.

Legislators are right to insist that the deficit not be unnecessarily increased. But putting the costs of hurricane recovery on the backs of children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and the poor will not solve deficit problems. Budget reconciliation cuts in Medicaid and food stamps will harm our most vulnerable and struggling citizens, and make fundamental life necessities such as medicine and food unattainable for thousands of people. In order to work towards a fair and financially prudent budget, we should start by rejecting new tax breaks and opposing the repeal of the estate tax.