NO WONDERÃ‚Â Nuns on the Bus was dogging Paul Ryan.
“It’s immoral!” an 81 year-old nun cried out.
The Ryan budget carves away subsidies for the poor, as Ezra Klein laid out today, while he debunks what people think they know about the Ryan budget and the focus on Medicare. Ã‚Â Ryan’s budget, which Mitt Romney has lauded, targets people who have no bootstraps to use to pull themselves up.
Republicans are loud in talking about family values and religion, but when money meets policy they spend capital on guns and war, while letting children and the poor go hungry.
If elected, they’ll double down, with the result harrowing for the least among us.
From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
Cuts in low-income programs appear likely to account for at least $2.9 trillion ““ or nearly two-thirds ““ of this total amount. The $2.9 trillion includes the following three categories of cuts:
- $2.17 trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care. The plan shows Medicaid cuts of $771 billion, plus savings of $1.4 trillion from repealing the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion and its subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people purchase health insurance.
- $350 billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans (other than Medicaid). Chairman Ryan’s budget documents show that he is proposing $719 billion in cuts in mandatory programs other than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but do not specify how much will be cut from various programs (although they imply that cuts in the Food Stamp Program will be large). In this analysis, we make the conservative assumption that savings from low-income mandatory programs (other than Medicaid) would be proportionate to their share of spending in this category. Thus, we derive the $350 billion figure from the fact that about half of mandatory spending other than for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security goes for programs for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. This likely substantially understates the cuts that the plan would make in low-income programs. The Ryan documents show that $380 billion in cuts would come from mandatory programs in the income security portion of the budget (function 600), and the overwhelming bulk of the mandatory spending in that category goes for low-income programs. The documents also show $126 billion in mandatory cuts in the education, training, employment, and social services portion of the budget (function 500), which, based on the discussion in those documents, would likely come mainly from cuts in the mandatory portion of the Pell Grant program for low-income students.
- $400 billion in cuts in low-income discretionary programs. The Ryan budget documents released on April 5 showed the plan containing $1.6 trillion in cuts in non-security discretionary programs, but again did not provide details about the size of cuts to specific programs. (The documents did identify some major low-income program areas, including Pell Grants and low-income housing, as prime targets for cuts.) Here, too, we make the conservative assumption that low-income programs in this category would bear a proportionate share of the cuts. Thus, we derive the $400 billion figure from the fact that about a quarter of non-security discretionary spending goes for programs for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. (Rep. Ryan added $193 billion in cuts in non-security discretionary programs before the budget resolution went to the House floor, but Ryan said these additional cuts would come from freezing federal employees’ pay and reducing the federal workforce, so we do not include them when estimating reductions in programs for low- and moderate-income households.)
Our numerical assumptions are conservative in another way, as well. When faced with the choice of which specific programs to cut, policymakers are unlikely to cut much from a number of non-low-income programs in these budget categories that are popular, such as veterans’ disability compensation and the FBI. That means that other programs ““ including low-income programs ““ would have to be cut by more than their proportionate share.
Many people will blame the welfare reform law of 1996 that passed with bipartisan support. That is appropriate. …
[…] However, there is the other side of the story, the overall state of the economy, which is the more important cause of the increase in the poverty rate. The vast majority of the people in this country rely on work for the bulk of their income and that would also be true for the tens of millions of people in poverty, if work was available. These people cannot find jobs in today’s economy, or at least not full-time jobs that pay anything close to a living wage.
The reason why so many of these people cannot find jobs is the incredible economic mismanagement by people with names like Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, and Ben Bernanke.
We’ve got real problems in this country. As we’re hearing at the Republican convention, none of those have anything to do with our overspending on military misadventures.
If you heard Sen. John McCain’s speech tonight, he’s asking for more war. Ã‚Â Why not Syria? Ã‚Â Iraq and Afghanistan went so well.