Hard hearts in Congress
IT IS A POLITICAL season of unyielding Scrooges: Republicans in Congress have passed a budget reconciliation bill that gives program cuts to the poor. The bill would make $40 billion in cuts over five years, many of them slicing aid away from poor families.
The bill was released just after 1 a.m. on Monday. Members of the House started voting less than five hours later. With no time for comprehensive reading, it's as if the House leadership simply said: Here are sacks of coal; start stuffing America's stockings.
The Senate approved the bill by the narrowest of margins yesterday. Acting as president of the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney cast the vote that broke a 50-50 tie.
Cuts to Medicaid mean that parents and children who are just above the poverty line could face higher copayments and premiums. States would be able to scale back coverage. Medical services that now cost $3 would be priced at 10 percent of their cost, or $100 or more, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So some families might defer or forgo care. Manageable problems would become expensive crises. And, in the name of pinching pennies, Congress would have created bigger medical bills.
The bill would change welfare for the worse. The country could make historic progress with a smart, aggressive plan to employ poor people with limited skills in a high-tech economy.
Instead, Congress is proposing get-tough rules, setting up states and families for failure. One provision would increase the work requirements of two-parent families. It's a worthy goal. But it is unrealistic given the illness, poor skills, and other barriers that many families face.
The bill would cut $12.7 billion from student loans just when this nation is increasingly challenged by global competitors for high-paying jobs.
Meanwhile, those who needed it least got the most protection; Congress did not ask drug or managed-care companies to cut costs.
Yesterday, President Bush echoed Congressional Republicans who hailed the bill as a step toward reducing the federal budget deficit. But it is shameful to pursue budget sanity on the backs of the poor. It mocks Bush's professed intention to help the disadvantaged, many of whom seized the public's attention after Hurricane Katrina.
Even worse, Bush and most congressional Republicans do not really seem to want to apply these cuts toward balancing the budget; they intend to pass more tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, in amounts greater than the program cuts.
Because of changes made by Senate Democrats, House members have to reconsider the bill. It's a small chance to ask more of the wealthy and to do more for the poor.
