2-11-08, 9:28 am

Last week, George W. Bush delivered his final budget proposal to Congress. As expected it contained severe cuts to domestic programs, especially for working families, and massive new spending for the military along with huge tax breaks for the very rich. It puts into sharp relief the ideologically driven economic policies of the Republican Party versus the needs of the people.

Despite Bush's claim to be cutting the deficit, his budget adds hundreds of billions to the debt, creates new roadblocks for seniors and working families to access health care and other programs, shifts enormous costs of programs funded by federal block grants to states that are currently facing harsh budget crises and shrinking revenues, according to analysis provided by the Center for Budget Policy Priorities (CBPP).

Among the programs Bush proposes cutting or eliminating are Medicaid, the Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program (LI-HEAP), community block grants, child care assistance, Head Start, the food stamp program, and section eight housing vouchers. Additionally, said Martha Coven of the CBPP, Bush's proposal underfunds S-CHIP at $2 billion below what states need to avoid cutting coverage.

According to Coven, 'If the feds are pulling money out of Medicaid and other programs, states will have tough decisions to make.'

Coven also asserts that Bush is implementing new regulations in federal health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare as well as in the food stamps program that will effectively block working families and seniors from gaining access to them. On the other hand, Bush's proposals actually subsidize for-profit managed care programs that have failed to reduce medical care or prescription drug costs.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fl.) sharply criticized Bush's failure to prioritize real health care solutions for working families and for putting the Medicare and Medicaid programs into jeopardy. 'The Bush administration’s continued overpayments to private, for profit Medicare Advantage HMOs destabilizes the future of Medicare and the Medicare trust fund,” Castor stated.


Describing Bush's budget 'misguided' and 'backward,' Castor added, “the President should join with the Congress to make affordable health care for all our number one priority.”

Deborah Weinstein of the Coalition on Human Needs (CHN) stated that when comparing Bush's program cuts to the tax cuts he wants to be made permanent, it is clear that his priorities favor the wealthy. The cost of tax cuts for the richest 1 percent of households totals more than the federal government's entire spending on K-12 education or for veterans' care or for the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, the Bush tax cuts for millionaires alone could fund K-12 education programs by itself, said Weinstein.

CHN has followed the Bush administration's program cuts since 2005. Of 100 federally funded programs that aid working families that organization selected for its study only 11 have been funded higher than the rate of inflation, and only an additional three have kept pace with inflation. In total, 86 have either been eliminated or cut since 2005.

Weinstein called on Congress to use its statutory powers to block new Bush-mandated federal regulations that prevent working families from gaining access to needed programs. She further argued for Congress to fully fund S-CHIP and child care programs. 'All of these things are more important than tax cuts for millionaires,' she said.

'Are we going to fund families with children or are we going to shift that money to people who already have plenty,' she wondered.

In the midst of growing unemployment and economic recession, Bush's budget would also cut or eliminate job training programs for unemployed or displaced workers. The contradiction prompted Michigan Sen. Carl Levin (D) to charge, “This budget pursues the same failed priorities and policies of the administration that have proven so woefully wrong for Michigan and for our nation.'

Bush appears not to understand how recession is impacting working families, Levin suggested. 'This budget offers more of the same: cuts to critical health care funding, including Medicare and Medicaid, that Michigan citizens depend on; cuts to investments in education that are critical for our state’s economic future; and mountains of debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay off.'

States like Ohio and New Jersey would face billion dollar Medicaid budget shortfalls with the Bush budget. According to media accounts, the Medicaid cuts would 'drastically limit the ability of already cash-strapped states to maintain current levels of health insurance coverage, potentially forcing them to increase cost sharing, cut provider payments and/or reduce benefits,' Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said in a statement.

One critical Bush cut would be to the family planning program in Medicaid. According to Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Bush's is proposing that program be cut by $570 million.

Such a cut, if passed, would have a devastating effect on the millions of low-income women who rely on Medicaid for contraception and other preventive family planning services. The president's proposal would do nothing more than increase the number of unintended pregnancies and the rate of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, PPFA charged.

“The best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and promote healthy families is to invest in Title X and Medicaid family planning programs, and ensure more women and families have access to affordable, quality reproductive health care and comprehensive sex education programs,” said PPFA President Cecile Richards.

A state-by-state breakdown of how Bush's proposed cuts impact states offered by the National Priorities Project reveals critical dangers for state budgets and working families.

While Michigan, for example, just passed a state budget last year with $125 per-pupil cuts in its public education spending, deep program cuts, and the elimination of hundreds of jobs, the Bush budget would impose an even tighter squeeze next year by cutting an additional $5.5 million from from federal grants to that state for teacher improvement programs.

Additionally, thousands of low-income families and seniors facing harsh Michigan winters next year will also have to do so without needed aid for rapidly growing home heating costs through LI-HEAP, the NPP reported.

By contrast, Bush's proposal provides record spending for the Pentagon, not including for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), military spending has increased by as much as 100 percent since Bush took office. FCNL projected that military spending could pass the $1 trillion mark in 2009. The military side of Bush's budget also provides spending for new nuclear programs and military aid for countries who have spurned human rights, said an FCNL policy analysis.

United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) National Coordinator Leslie Cagan criticized the proposed massive new military spending. In a statement, she said, 'We are appalled that the Pentagon budget is at its highest level since WW II, and that does not even include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or nuclear weapons.'

'The truly outrageous thing about this budget, is that it gives an incomplete picture when it comes to military spending,' added UFPJ's Legislative Coordinator Sue Udry. 'Spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to be done through supplemental funding, which is not reflected in the budget.'

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates that 'in addition to its annual budget request, the Pentagon is also requesting $70 billion in supplemental funding for combat operations for Fiscal Year 2009. According to the Pentagon, this is only a partial figure, and additional funds will be requested later in the year.'

Activists look forward to the end of the militaristic, excessively inhumane, and anti-working families policies of the Bush administration. But, they argue, the fight to block or reverse these budget proposals in this final year of Bush's presidency is as important as ever.

--Reach Joel Wendland at