http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0212-04.htmPublished on Saturday, February 12, 2005 by the Boston Globe
Bush Cuts Hit Democratic States, Analysis Finds
by Susan Milligan
WASHINGTON -- Massachusetts and other traditionally Democratic states would see their share of federal grant money shrink under President Bush's 2006 budget, compared to Republican states in the South and West, according to a Globe analysis of funding projections compiled by the White House budget office.
Critics and defenders of the president's $2.6 trillion budget say they do not believe the budget proposal represents a deliberate attack on states that voted for Democrat John F. Kerry, but rather that Bush's budget priorities tend to hurt those states that rely more on the health, community development, and housing programs that are targeted for reductions.
The result is that the highest percentage increases in state and local grant money would go to Arkansas, North Carolina, Arizona, and Missouri, while New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Vermont would be among the states with the smallest increases. Massachusetts -- with a projected 1.9 percent increase -- is tied for 35th, while liberal-leaning California and Washington state (along with conservative-leaning North Dakota) would see a reduction in federal grants next year.
With the proposal to eliminate or reduce funding for home-heating assistance, the Northeast would be especially hard hit by the president's budget-cutting, said Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey.
..more..
----------------------
HERE IS THE COMPLETE LIST OF PROGRAMS BUSH WANTS TO ELIMINATE OR CUT:
The 154 programs that President Bush wants to eliminate or cut in his 2006 budget proposal. Bush would terminate 99 programs and make major spending reductions in 55. Separately, the administration listed eight major reforms Bush proposed that also would produce spending cuts.
Of the terminations, Bush has recommended 59 of them before. Twenty-seven of the 55 programs targeted for spending reductions have been previously submitted to Congress.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050211-2256-programcuts-list.html------------
Cuts to Low-Income Programs May Far Exceed the Contribution of These Programs to Deficit's Return
http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05bud.htm Summary
There is a distinct possibility that efforts to reduce the deficit this year will take a large and disproportionate bite out of programs that provide key supports and services to low-income Americans. This analysis explains that because substantial parts of the budget, including revenues, are expected to be largely or entirely “off the table” when deficit reduction plans are drawn up — and also because low-income programs tend to lack the political support of other programs with more powerful constituencies — a very large share of the budget reductions enacted this year may consist of cuts in programs for low-income families and individuals. Indeed, when Congress completes work on the budget this year, it is possible that a majority of the cuts will have been made in low-income programs.
Such an approach would represent unbalanced priorities.
-A heavy reliance on cuts to low-income programs would be out of line with the very small role that such programs have played in the reemergence of deficits (just six percent by one key measure), and with the modest contribution these programs are expected to make to deficits in the years ahead. A heavy reliance on cuts in these programs also would be out of line with the modest share of the federal budget that such programs comprise.
-Large cuts in programs for low-income Americans also would be ill-advised, given the rise in poverty, the widening of the gap between rich and poor, and the increase in the number of people lacking health insurance in recent years. Sizeable reductions in programs for low-income families would exacerbate these adverse trends.
Deficit reduction can be accomplished — and has been in the past — without injuring the most vulnerable Americans. The bipartisan deficit-reduction package in 1990, negotiated and signed by a Republican President, and the deficit-reduction package enacted in 1993 stand out in this regard. Both of those measures included a combination of reductions in programs and tax increases (the tax increases primarily affected high-income households), and did much to help move the nation’s fiscal position from one of large, structural deficits to the surpluses that emerged in the late 1990s. Neither measure contained sizable reductions in programs for low-income families. To the contrary, both achieved extensive deficit reduction while strengthening programs that assist the working poor, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.
..much more..
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
