Will Congress Actually Make Those Budget Cuts?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On the face of it, there isn’t much of surprise in the Bush administration’s FY2007 budget proposal, which was released today. Lots of painful cuts to programs for the poor that don’t really affect the fiscal picture all that much but will leave a lot of people diseased and dying. Lots of unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthy and extravagant increases in defense spending that will affect the fiscal picture quite a bit. And an increase in the deficit as a result. It’s cruel and innumerate—that always-adorable combination. What’s surprising, though, is that the administration is proposing bigger cuts to domestic programs this year than it has in years previous.

Normally we see a bit of a kabuki dance during budget season. The White House comes out in February and makes a big fanfare about limiting the growth of domestic spending and then, after much praise, Congress quietly refuses to go along, seeing as most senators and representatives actually want to get re-elected, and most of the programs up for hacking are actually popular. And the press mysteriously refuses to point out that this is all a stupid charade meant to allow the president to appear “fiscally responsible” and appease the slobbering fan base without actually doing anything. Still, life goes on, more or less.

But this year, the proposed cuts are much deeper than anything contemplated in the past—the president has suggested cutting 141 programs, including food aid to the poor, at a paltry “savings” of some $182 billion over five years—which makes one wonder whether Republicans in Congress will start to feel some pressure to start hacking away, especially with a deficit that’s still out-of-control, the costs of Iraq and Katrina rising, and “earmarks” and corruption getting so much media play. Cuts of that sort would be a terrible thing—from a liberal-left perspective, it’s much better to have the GOP act like a bunch of free-spending hypocrites than to actually go and terminate programs like these (from CBPP):

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides nutritional food packages for less than $20 a month to more than 400,000 low-income elderly people, one-third of whom are over age 75;

The Preventative Care Block Grant, which is operated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and provides grants to states for preventative health services for underserved populations;

The TRIO Talent Search program, under which colleges and universities — and in many cases, Historically Black Colleges and Universities — assist disadvantaged secondary school students (two-thirds of whom are minority) by providing them with academic, career, and financial counseling so that they will be better be able to finish high school and attend college;

The Community Services Block Grant, which provides funding for a range of social services and other types of assistance to low-income families and elderly and disabled individuals.

Or stick the knife in programs like these:

Section 202 housing for the low-income elderly — cut 26 percent in 2007 below the 2006 level, even without adjustment for inflation.

Section 811 housing for low-income people with disabilities — cut 50 percent in 2007.

The Community Development Block Grant formula grant program — cut 30 percent in 2007.

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) — which promotes community policing, primarily by putting police on the streets, would be cut 79 percent.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant — The President’s budget calls for cuts in discretionary child care funding totaling $1.03 billion over the next five years as compared to FY 2006 funding levels adjusted for inflation (funding levels also would fall without adjusting for inflation). Data from the President’s budget show that the funding levels proposed would mean that the number of children receiving child care assistance in 2011 would drop by more than 400,000 as compared to the number receiving assistance in 2005 and by more than 650,000 as compared to 2000 levels.

Now it’s also an election year, so the chances that Republicans in Congress will actually work up the nerve to force the elderly to live in cardboard boxes and eat dog food seem slim, but it’s certainly something to be nervous about.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate