JONATHAN COHN MAY 10, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Republican proposal to alter last summer’s budget deal will come up for a vote on Thursday. It will almost surely pass and then, almost as surely, go nowhere in the Senate. But it’s yet another revealing window into Republican priorities.
As you may recall, the agreement to raise the debt ceiling in 2011 came with a promise to cut future spending. And just to make sure Congress or the President didn’t go back on that promise, both sides agreed to a “sequester”: If Democrats and Republicans couldn’t subsequently agree upon a set of spending cuts and revenue enhancements, then automatic spending cuts would take place. Negotiations eventually broke down because, as usual, Republicans refused to contemplate new revenue. And now the sequester, with its spending cuts, is set to take effect in January, 2013.
Nobody is very excited about this. Republicans are particularly worried about the sequester’s 10 percent cut to defense spending and so, after some deep introspection, they’ve decided to rethink their opposition to new taxes and agree to a more sensible deficit reduction package that includes new revenue.
Ha! Just kidding! The Republicans haven’t budged on taxes. Instead, they’re proposing to replace the defense cuts with—you guessed it—more cuts to domestic spending. Naturally, these reductions would hit low-income Americans the hardest. To get a sense of what these cuts would entail, here’s a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of just one of the proposals – a reduction for food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:
The SNAP cuts would reduce or eliminate benefits for all SNAP households, including the poorest, the very old, and the disabled. Two million people, disproportionately people in low-income working families and the elderly, would lose SNAP benefits entirely. The other 44 million individuals receiving SNAP assistance would see their benefits cut. Every family of four receiving SNAP assistance would face a benefit cut of $57 a month this September.
The legislation also would cut federal funding by 72 percent for the SNAP employment and training program — which helps jobless SNAP recipients find work — thereby making it harder for these people to obtain jobs. In addition, the SNAP cuts in the House package would cause 200,000 low-income children to lose free school meals, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, because of interactions between SNAP and the school lunch program.
Keep in mind that the sequester already slashes domestic discretionary spending. The new Republican proposal restores a tiny bit of that, for one year. But it's far less than the Republican proposal would take away from programs that benefit low- and middle-income Americans. For those of you who want the wonky details, here's Richard Kogan, from the Center on Budget, via e-mail:
The priorities embodied by this bill are clear. Relative to existing law – which includes the scheduled ‘sequestration’ or automatic cuts in non-entitlement funding for the coming year – we see two things. First, defense funding comes out $66 billion ahead in the coming year. Second, domestic programs come out far behind: the permanent cuts in Medicaid and other health insurance benefits, food stamps, child credits, state-run social service programs for the poor and disabled, and other programs – amounting to more than $300 billion over ten years, of which $128 billion comes just from programs assisting low-income families – far surpass the temporary restoration of $10 billion or one-quarter of the scheduled sequestration from non-defense discretionary appropriations for just one year.
Curiously, the Republican proposal would allow the sequester’s planned reduction in Medicare reimbursements take effect. I say “curiously” because the Republicans have spent an awful lot of time over the last three years attacking Democrats for Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act. Of course, Republicans have simultaneously been proposing larger, and cruder cuts to Medicare as part of the the Paul Ryan budget proposals.
In that sense, their willingness to keep the sequester’s Medicare cuts is entirely consistent with their past behavior. For Republicans, protecting senior citizens is a campaign priority but not a governing one.
follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
12 comments
Speaking of Republican Priorities. Romney was asked in Colorado if he supported Wind Tax Credits, since "Oil and Gas" get tax subsidies. Romney said "no" because Wind has lost 10,000 jobs while Oil and Gas has created 75,000. That's great. We only give tax help to industries that are successful? Government investing is not like businessman investing; Government doesn't invest in businesses because they are successful! Interview here: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/not-ask-romney-about-gay-marriage-or-marijuan.html
- Nusholtz
May 10, 2012 at 3:48pm
Oh really? They "negotiated" to get draconian cuts, necessary to "force" them to come to a compromise, and when they refuse any tax increases at all, then negotiate to turn the draconian cuts on a domestic program. So instead of getting a 10% (TEN PERCENT) cut on the military, who I assume can afford that, they'll ELIMINATE the SNAP program for the poor. How brave of them. How big of them. How completely irresponsible of them.
- AllanL5
May 10, 2012 at 4:35pm
then Obama should come out with far more defense cuts and higher taxes for the wealthy. I know that won't happen either, but make Republicans eat shit for a while. At this point if Obama is re-elected I hope he lets all of the Bush tax cuts expire and tell Republicans to eff off, then Obama should blame all of the tax hikes on Republicans for not agreeing with his proposals. He should call it the Mourdock rule.
- blackton
May 10, 2012 at 4:59pm
This is complete consistency. I don't really understand some of the reaction elsewhere that this is shocking news. This House Republican caucus is hideously evil, and so many examples abound on how they really want poor people to have it worse, and they will do anything to protect the richest, especially if they have their hands in industries that need regulation, like oil and gas (because of the risk of spills, contamination, pollution, etc.), coal (black lungs and REMOVING MOUNTAINTOPS!) and banking (did you see what they did during the Bush years?). Yet, Obama hasn't really made us believe he will stand up to their vision of endless suffering for less wages. There are tens of millions of working Americans who are on those Food Stamps. Full-time work, I might add. And there are no prospects of advancing, especially in low wage infested retail and restaurant labor markets. Those are the jobs that are being "created" for the VAST majority of Americans. Obama does speak up, but then he also freezes the wages of federal employees for 5 years without getting anything in return. He proceeds to enact the individual mandate without any certainty that it will stand (just call it a freaking tax already). It had been even more painful watching Obama phase his landmark laws in, even though it is the most responsible thing to do, because we really cannot believe they can last, or that Republicans will severely undermine it. The most telling story of this godforsaken House caucus is the student loan debacle as well as the the disaster insurance hostage-taking. I don't even know what came of the disaster insurance, but the mere idea of not funding emergency response because Democrats wont screw over Medicaid recipients is beyond me. Gutting the healthcare act to avoid student loan increases is also plain cruel, because it doesn't need to go down like that. All you have to do is keep the rates down. Fuck offsets. Why don't you offset the wars by getting rid of oil tax breaks. You know, the most successful industry in the history of humanity? Too much ranting. I don't want to give up, but I think the fact that Obama saved us from the worst is going to haunt him. People still think Republicans are looking out for them. They are only looking out for a mere thousand of superrich individuals.
- RedState
May 10, 2012 at 5:12pm
These "windows" have been wide open for quite a long time. Do we really need another one? Same view as all the others.
- cspencef
May 10, 2012 at 9:21pm
There are only three Republican priorities: 1. lying, 2. making the rich richer at the expense of everyone else and society as a whole, and 3. lying about their unrelenting pursuit of more wealth for the wealthiest. Analytically, you don't need anything else to understand what Republicans have done, are attempting to do at any given moment, and will continue to do. _________________ Be careful RedState in referring to Republicans as "hideously evil." A certain buffoon who posts here from time to time may catch wind and soon be on your case. You will be treated to unsolicited helpings of clownish nonsense and juvenile attacks. A word to the wise, brought to you by, Karl Roid
- roidubouloi
May 11, 2012 at 8:15am
"Another window"? Well, see, we NEED as many windows as we can get, because Fox-News and the Republicans keep lying about what their priorities are, what their policies will accomplish, and what they're really trying to do. Along with delaying as long as possible actually DOING anything, while criticizing anything that actually gets done despite their blockage. So, when the reality clearly reveals the difference between their rhetoric and their actions, it's good to point that out. Because clearly around 50% of America is believing the rhetoric, and ignoring the actions. We need to get more people to wake up.
- AllanL5
May 11, 2012 at 8:29am
"Republicans have spent an awful lot of time over the last three years attacking Democrats for Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act. Of course, Republicans have simultaneously been proposing larger, and cruder cuts to Medicare as part of the the Paul Ryan budget proposals." Republicans have created for themselves a great opportunity to slash Medicare without political repercussions for themselves. By making Obamacare's cuts to Medicare extremely high profile, further cuts to the program will likely be understood by most people to have occurred due to Obamacare -- no doubt helped along in this misunderstanding by GOP misrepresentations of where the cuts came from.
- Fishpeddler
May 11, 2012 at 9:00am
Never thought I could manage to type "for themselves" twice in one sentence. There is something to be said for not taking phone calls while in the middle of a post.
- Fishpeddler
May 11, 2012 at 9:03am
It's the opportunity economy we're talking about folks! If the GOP budget proves one thing, they'll take any opportunity they can to shaft the disadvantaged while simultaneously claiming that these cuts in service are good for them. Why, with no help at all and no chance of a secure job, these folks will bootstrap themselves to economic freedom and job creator status. Give or take a million "dollar-aires". According to the back of envelope economic calculations that Seattle did for us, he proved that these "poor folks",what with their ill health, TVs, hot meals, cell phones and $30K/ yr job, can with just a little self-discipline, stop sucking with envy at the teats of the wealthy and simultaneously save themselves into becoming millionaires. As long as they're willing to give up food, shelter, health care and taking care of the family along the way.
- singlspeed
May 11, 2012 at 12:15pm
Those m************. What more needs to be said?
- Sophia
May 12, 2012 at 3:43am
That's a really creepy picture of Ryan. It makes me feel like he just slipped a mickey in my drink and is thinking about all the nasty things he can do to me once it kicks in. Sadly, this metaphore may not be terribly far from the truth when one considers the budgets he keeps passing in the House.
- GSpinks
May 14, 2012 at 6:03pm