The Federal Budget: Too many unkind cuts

Published: May 1, 2005

The federal budget approved by Congress late Thursday night is non-binding, which is about the only good thing to be said for it. When lawmakers get down to the real work later this year of spending actual federal dollars on various programs, they should disregard the unfair budget guidelines they have crafted.

It's unconscionable to cut spending on health care for the poor while also cutting billions in taxes for the investor class. But that's what this Congress has endorsed. Medicaid would be trimmed by $10 billion over five years, part of an overall $35 billion cut in federal entitlement programs. Meanwhile, lawmakers found enough room in the budget for up to $106 billion in tax cuts, including an extension of lower tax rates for capital gains and dividends, savings to be enjoyed almost entirely by people earning more than $200,000 per year. The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center figures that 53 percent of the savings would go to households with income higher than $1 million a year.

Budget figures have real people behind them. This kind of budget trade-off - health care and Food Stamps for our most vulnerable citizens versus tax breaks for wealthy investors - is immoral.

It's the kind of decision that is no longer shocking when it comes from conservative Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.). But it is harder to understand the vote in favor of this budget by Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.). Specter contended on Friday that his vote was part of an effort by moderate Republicans to prevent much deeper cuts in Medicaid and cuts in community development grants. He said that for him to become a permanent "naysayer" in the GOP-run Senate would cost him all leverage to soften cuts later and secure funds for Pennsylvania.

Well, when appropriations season rolls around, Specter needs to use all that leverage he has bought to stop the cruelest cuts by his GOP brethren.

Congress and President Bush do need to reduce the deficit, which has mushroomed after four consecutive years of huge tax cuts benefiting mostly wealthy people. They claim that this budget will trim the deficit, which reached a record $412 billion last year, to $211 billion in five years.

But where is the proportionate sacrifice by those with high incomes?

"It is disgraceful that Congress would shower tax cuts for the rich at the same time it proposes health-care and nutrition cutbacks for children, seniors and others who desperately need them," said Ronald Pollack, head of Families USA, a national health-care group for consumers. Families USA estimates that New Jersey could lose $240 million in health care for the poor over five years, starting in 2007. Pennsylvania could lose $504 million.

Affluent taxpayers should remind themselves that cuts in Medicaid could affect their families, too, especially those with seniors, who, without Medicaid, would not be able to afford nursing-home care.

Besides Medicaid cuts, federal funds for education, veterans health, housing and food stamp programs could be hit. The latter could lose up to $3 billion because congressional GOP leaders are more concerned about protecting farm subsidies than the subsistence diets of poor families and children.

Berry Friesen of Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center estimates these budget cuts could mean 8,000 more households a month will not be able to buy enough groceries.

What kind of budget is this from a president who styles himself the compassionate conservative? There's no compassion in urging Congress to cut up the safety net for the poorest Americans so the wealthiest can continue to enjoy tax cuts.