Efficiency and progress are ours once more?
On the campaign trail back in 2000, George W. Bush criticized congressional Republicans for trying to “balance the budget on the backs of the poor” for proposing cuts in the Earned Income Tax Credit. The credulous media took this as an indication that Bush was “a different kind of Republican” who would govern the country in a kinder, gentler, more compassionate manner. Now it’s clear that he meant something rather different: The congress just shouldn’t balance the budget — screwing over poor people is fine.
How else to understand the budget the House/Senate Conference Committee came up with at the end of last week? It doesn’t balance the budget and, thanks to adding even more tax cuts on to what we’ve already had, doesn’t even shrink the deficit. Nor does it even cut spending very much. But it does cut spending on Medicaid and, fulfilling Ed Kilgore’s February prediction, managed to turn the excellent idea of cutting farm subsidies into the terrible idea of cutting food stamps. All disagreement aside about how much overall spending is desirable, I don’t think you can find anyone who thinks on the merits that giving food and medicine to poor people rank number one — or even close to number one — on the list of dubious government projects that ought to be on the chopping block. So how is it that these particular programs wound up being the ones to get the ax? Well, it’s not too difficult to understand. These are programs that benefit poor people who can’t hire lobbyists and who, therefore, lack clout in a Washington, DC run by a Republican Party that’s decided to outsource policymaking to K Street.
There are a few lessons to be learned here. One is that Republicans are bastards. Another is that this is what will happen to Social Security if it’s transformed into a welfare program instead of the universal social insurance program it is today. The third is that every conservative who promises that no such thing will ever happen but who isn’t exactly speaking out forthrightly against these “soak the poor” cuts (i.e., pretty much all of them) is not to be trusted.
