House GOP Budget Axe May Fall Heavily On Low-Income Women

The Republican Study Committee is out with a plan to cut spending today, to the tune of $2.5 trillion. As Brian Beutler and Megan Carpentier point out, it's mostly the whisper of a promise to cross fingers and hope for the best as the can skitters down the road:

Like most major spending cut proposals, this one's not entirely rigorous. It relies principally on an aspirational spending cap -- specifically, limiting non-defense appropriations totals to their 2006 levels without adjusting for inflation. In other words, it punts the question of what to cut to future Congresses, which could just as easily bust the cap.

That said, one item that's ripe for the knife is especially troubling, in that it will really make life difficult for low-income women:

Also on the RSC's chopping block: the Legal Services Corporation, which is the federal organization that provides civil legal assistance to people who make up to 125 percent of the federal poverty line. The RSC says that eliminating the LSC would save $420 million -- and the predominately low-income women currently served by the program would have to look elsewhere for assistance filing for help in domestic abuse cases and resolving custody issues (about 35 percent of its cases), in foreclosure or eviction disputes (25 percent of their cases) or even filing for bankruptcy.

The LSC is the "single largest provider of civil legal aid for the poor in the nation," and the need for such an organization is great. In 2005, under the direction of then-President Helaine Barnett, the LSC undertook a study of the economic "justice gap" in America. Their principal findings:

--For every client served by an LSC-funded program, at least one person who sought help was turned down because of insufficient resources.

--Only a very small percentage of the legal problems experienced by low-income people (one in five or less) are addressed with the assistance of either a private attorney (pro bono or paid) or a legal aid lawyer.

--Despite the changes in legal aid delivery over the last decade, a majority of legal aid lawyers still work in LSC-funded programs. The per capita ratio of legal aid attorneys funded by all sources to the low-income population is a tiny fraction of the ratio of private attorneys providing personal civil legal services to the general population.

These needs were set to be addressed, at least in part, through a $50 million increase to its operating budget. But in July of 2009, the LSC ran afoul of Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who -- citing "multiple GAO and Inspector General reports" -- found several examples of waste that he wanted investigated. At the time, Grassley said, "There should be not one dollar wasted upon some fancy stone project if it could be responding to the legal needs of low-income people." So now, the problem will be solved by not spending any money responding to the legal needs of low-income people at all!

According to the LSC, "Nearly three out of four clients are women -- many of whom are struggling to keep their children safe and their families together." So, it's going to get pretty hard out there for you Mama Grizzlies, I guess!

RELATED:
Conservative Republican Study Committee Outlines $2.5 Trillion In Spending Cuts [TPMDC]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[Kara Kramer]

07:32 PM on 01/21/2011

But of course it will, how else are they going to find desperate women to be their mistresses, prostitutes and abused wives?

[SmileAndActNice]

12:21 PM on 01/21/2011

Here's a spending cut for people who are actually serious about reducing spending.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases
-------------
In the midst of an economic crisis that’s getting scarier by the day, it’s time to ask whether the nation can really afford some 1,000 military bases overseas.
--------------

We maintain 268 bases in Germany and 124 in Japan. That right there is 392 military bases that we staff, stock, and equip spending piles of money to do so. And they don't do anything for us. The Japanese and Germans are friends and trading partners.

So why in the world would we cut services at home to pay for this? Even worse, they represent net outflows of wealth as soldiers spend their pocket money overseas. So they bleed taxpayer money out of the country. Death by a thousand cuts.

And guess what happens to "military bases" when they are sitting around in places where a military presence has no business being?

http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases
-------------------
Among the installations considered critical to our national security are a ski center in the Bavarian Alps, resorts in Seoul and Tokyo, and 234 golf courses the Pentagon runs worldwide.
-------------------

Gee let me think ... 234 golf courses or keeping the ideal of the American Justice System intact by seeing it is adequately funded.

Oh boy, that is a hard one ... for people with neither heart nor brain. If you've got either its easy.

[Candide33]

10:20 AM on 01/21/2011

Republican war on the poor!

[JoannainPA]

11:32 AM on 01/21/2011

Its the same war as before and they are winning. congratulations GOP, 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty. Meanwhile corporate profits are soaring as they have been, in spite of the recession that has only apparently affected the middle and lower classes. The market is up over 17 %, I mean what more do they want? US workers to accept a job for 18 cents an hour with no safety regulations or worker right?

[nootrope]

09:19 AM on 01/21/2011

It's the republican War Against the Poor in full disgusting view.

[scodwyer]

09:00 AM on 01/21/2011

What else is new....screw the poor....hasn't that always beeN the republican way?!

[IttIegrI]

06:44 AM on 01/21/2011

I am still waiting for a line by line explanation of the budget.

[SmileAndActNice]

12:06 PM on 01/21/2011

I am still waiting for a line by line explanatio­n of the [ Department of Defense] budget

I wonder how many multi-billion dollar pallets of cash they lost that didn't get reported on the news.

[H1FLO]

03:20 AM on 01/21/2011

I have yet in my adult life been able to read or hear of any kind of goverment budget cuts without the idea being presented as "women and children hardest hit".

[SmileAndActNice]

11:57 AM on 01/21/2011

That is because they refuse to cut the fat out of the budget and instead start carving up the muscle.

You would not see that headline for any of the following cuts:

1- War in Iraq Ended.
2- War in Afghanistan Ended.
3- US abandoning WWII era bases that it currently spends nearly 200 BILLION annually to run.
4- US dropping proposed new weapons contracts.

Any one of the above would save more than all the GOP proposed cuts put together. All 4 would create an age of prosperity.

And what would we as a nation lose for doing this?

There were no WMD's in Iraq. There is no purpose for us to be there. We are pouring money down a bottomless hole for no reason. Same with Afghanistan. We can't even get the politicians to define what constitutes a victory in Afghanistan. And while bases in the Pacific, Europe, and Japan made perfect sense during WWII, they are a useless frills now. All they do is allow American soldiers a chance to learn a new language and date foreign hotties.

As for our big bad weapon's systems .. you may have noticed that nobody goes toe-to-toe with us anymore. The military hardware we ALREADY HAVE so completely beats not just anyone else, but EVERYONE ELSE PUT TOGETHER that nobody will face it.

Shiny military toys don't do us any good against insurgents hiding in crowds of civilians and those are the only people threatening us.

[H1FLO]

02:13 AM on 01/24/2011

Hey dont get me wrong I am for cuts in defense and bringing our troops home... the difference is I hold my reps to accountability. I would hope you will do the same but as evidenced of the complete disapearing act of any and all war protests the left was just crazy about a few short years ago I would be forced to conclude one of us has lost the courage of our convictions.... or maybe just principles.

[stagebandman]

01:31 AM on 01/21/2011

Here's my humble plan, that I thought up 33 years ago, while in high school Government class (amount has changed to compensate for inflation): Give every congressman a $1,000,000 a year. BUT, he must pay his entire staff, both in Washington and at home, himself. That's it. Would probably save trillions.

[amd02148]

01:17 AM on 01/21/2011

Why on earth would you post a picture will African American woman? there are more low income white women, so we don't need any racist pictures please.

[Joann Vallo]

11:39 PM on 01/20/2011

Gee, it's a picture of a Black woman. My, my. I really thought maybe we had gone beyond that old BS. Just another example of racism from the republicans. They think the only women who are abused and poor are Black, so this is their way to put them in their place. And please, don't start spouting statistics at me. There's a reason more Black women are poor. It's called racism in our work field. But if you think for a minute they are only ones being abused and left alone to raise their kids, think again. That's one place color makes no difference.

[atti]

11:39 PM on 01/20/2011

" The RSC says that eliminating the LSC would save $420 million ..."

Disgusting. This amount is a mere pittance when compared to the trillions 43 'borrowed' from China to finance the invasion ( note I do not say 'war') of Iraq.

[jerzeyjim2]

11:00 PM on 01/20/2011

These Republicans are Tricky Richard Nixon all over again ! They are selling the country out to the wealthy aristocrats will huge tax cuts. In addition to the huge income tax cuts, next the GOP crooks will repeal the Death Tax. The GOP crooks will get GRAFT from the wealthy aristocrats and live off the fat of the land, like Tricky Nixon and his accomplice BeBe Rabozo. Now the
GOP is stepping on the low income women. Next the GOP will stomp on the low income
Senior Citizens by stealing their Social Security accounts that they paid their OWN money into. Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, Palin, Cantor, et. al., are stealing from the poor and middle class and giving the money to the multi-millionaires !

[duxguts]

10:51 PM on 01/20/2011

It's all meaningless without substantial cuts at the Pentagon.

[oilfield]

10:45 PM on 01/20/2011

do you know how to make unicorn milk? it can run cars, heat homes, fly planes, make doctors work for free, buy groceries.­...me neither, but we will need after we are broke. we have to cut spending somewhere.

[Candide33]

10:25 AM on 01/21/2011

That somewhere is the military, Farm subsidies and tax cuts for the rich...you don't spend trillions on foolish things, just so you can cut pennies from vital things.

[SmileAndActNice]

12:05 PM on 01/21/2011

Everything they've proposed put together is a tic tac in the mouth of the military spending whale. It's like deciding your house is to cold and responding by starting a fire and feeding it with your furniture .... when you could just turn the air conditioning down.

If you were really serious about cutting wasteful spending you'd take a hatchet to the military budget.

[Randall Longenberger]

10:28 PM on 01/20/2011

No one in government on the left or the right are willing to cut the wasteful programs they support. Farm subsidies go to more multi-billion dollar farms than family one,more and more lazy people who do nothing but learn to work the system are added to social programs that were intended to be a safety net, not a way of life. I work in a pawn shop and see daily how the poor that need help can't get it, and the lazy that are able to work just game the system and have everything handed to them.We need politicians that are willing to piss everyone off and do the job right,even if that means just one term, than these double talking hipocrites we have in office now.

[netwonc]

06:18 AM on 01/21/2011

Let us not forget the corporate welfare also,, they need their benefits and are also working the same benefit system. We must be equal in our national sharing of our resources.