Newsflash: Bush couldn’t care less about poor people

David Broder got an advance look at the latest report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and, for reasons that are unclear, seemed shocked to discover that the Bush White House seems anxious to turn its back on the nation’s poorest families.

By studying the spending caps Bush proposed for the 57 broad functions included in the domestic discretionary budget, the center’s experts calculated how much would have to come out of individual programs — assuming Congress accepts Bush’s priorities.

The results are startling. Elementary and secondary education programs, including the president’s No Child Left Behind initiative, would be cut by $11.5 billion over the next five years, with a 12 percent reduction from inflation-adjusted 2005 levels in fiscal 2010 alone.

The WIC program, which subsidizes the diets of low-income pregnant women and nursing mothers — a major preventative against low-weight babies — would be cut by $658 million, enough to reduce coverage in 2010 by 660,000 women. Head Start funds would be reduced $3.3 billion over five years, with 118,000 fewer youngsters enrolled in 2010.

Clean water and clean air funding would decline by $6.4 billion over five years, a 20 percent cut in 2010. Community development programs used by cities to build up impoverished neighborhoods would lose $9.2 billion in five years, a 36 percent cut in 2010.

Most of these cuts would come out of state and local budgets, adding to the burdens their taxpayers would have to take up if services are to be maintained.

Also realize that the White House wants to hide these proposed cuts as much as possible. It’s no accident that Bush’s budget wants Congress to vote on enforceable five-year budget caps now, so Republicans will face less heat over their callous cuts. All the while, the same Bush gang will be fighting to protect — and expand — tax breaks for millionaires. Compassionate conservatism, indeed.

While I’m certainly glad to see Broder bring this to public attention, one gets the impression that he’s surprised and disappointed to see Bush pursue such a cruel agenda. It makes me wonder, where’s Broder been? The “dean” of the press corps grudgingly notes the president’s budget priorities and concludes, “It is a sorry record for a conservative administration, and we are just beginning to recognize its price.” That’s true, of course, but it’s been pretty apparent to many of us for quite a while.