After suffering the humiliation of losing a vote on their Labor, Health and Human Services spending bill yesterday afternoon, House Republicans regrouped and — just barely — managed to pass a sweeping budget cut plan early in the a.m.
To hear Republicans, and even several news accounts, tell it, the cuts passed after House GOP leaders agreed to lessen the effects of the budget cuts on low-income families. Was the final bill really a significant improvement? Not really. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted this morning, the modifications “are very minor and do not soften the bill’s effects on vulnerable low-income families very much.”
How bad is it? The CBPP has a full rundown, but here are some of the highlights (or low lights, depending on one’s perspective):
* The House budget bill would still deny food stamps to more than 220,000 low-income people each month by 2008, and would cut basic food aid by nearly $700 million over five years.
* The House bill still would allow states to impose substantial new co-payment and premium fees on millions of low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, and to scale back substantially the health care services that the Medicaid program provides.
* The House bill still would result in an estimated 330,000 children in low-income working families losing child care assistance in 2010 as a result of the low child care funding levels and unfunded new work requirements in the bill.
Now, before anyone says these cuts are necessary to help reduce Bush’s enormous deficit or to help offset the costs of hurricane relief, the CBPP also makes clear that these cuts are actually going to partially offset the cost of tax cuts. It’s like living in a Dickens novel.
And where are all those Republican “moderates” who are allegedly committed to preventing these kinds of cuts?