Katrina's Cost to the Poor

[Guest guest]

Katrina's Cost to the Poor

Thursday, October 20, 2005; Page A26

<NITF>CONGRESS VOTED earlier this year to trim $35 billion in entitlement

spending over the next five years. House Republican leaders want to bump up that

number to $50 billion -- supposedly to deal with the costs of Hurricane

Katrina. But don't be bamboozled by the self-satisfied claims of fiscal

discipline you'll hear from those pressing these cuts: Their post-Katrina

budget plan

would add to the deficit, not redu

<NITF>That's because the required spending cuts don't come close to paying

for the at least $70 billion in new tax cuts provided for in the budget -- cuts

that mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans and that apparently remain

sacrosanct, no matter what expenses pile up. Meantime, the spending cuts, if

approved, would probably come primarily from programs for the poor -- such as

Medicaid, food stamps, child-care support, the earned-income tax credit and

Supplemental Security I

(http://blogs.positiveuniverse.com/)

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902014\

_Technorati.html) (http://www.technorati.com/)

<NITF>So a hurricane that exposed the disturbing problems of poverty in

America could end up providing the justification to make even deeper cuts in the

programs that provide an essential safety net for the poor. It's a welcome

sign that the leadership, facing resistance from some in their ranks, yesterday

called off a planned vote to require the extra cuts, but that's not the end

of the story: Committee chairmen will still be pressed to make the

<NITF>Getting control over growth in the mandatory spending programs that

make up an increasing share of the federal budget isn't just a good idea; it is,

in the end, a necessity. But it has to be done in a balanced way that puts

the totality of the federal budget on the table -- not just programs that lack

high-priced lobbyists or entrenched constituencies. If entitlement spending

is on the table, why only programs for the poor and not more broad-based

entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security? Even better, why not

start with the subsidies for wealthy farmers instead of food stamp spending

that provides recipients with less than $1 per meal? The House Republican plan

calls for shared sacrifice -- but most of the sacrificing will be done by the