President Obama will unveil his budget for 2012 on February 14. The administration has so far been guarded about detailing how deeply the budget ax will slice. What is certain, however, is that the cuts will be painful and that the neediest Americans will feel the worst of that pain. More than 44 million Americans are living in poverty--a fact that Obama barely referenced in his State of the Union speech. Yet a huge chunk of federal spending goes directly and indirectly for programs and services that provide for the needs of the poor.
Last September, Obama dropped a major hint about which programs were likely to be hardest hit. He quietly issued a directive to federal agencies to come up with ways to slash up to $75 billion from discretionary spending for 2012. This figure was not much different from the $100 billion in cuts demanded by the new Tea Party-influenced House Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan. Obama's directive ticked off several politically safe ways to achieve those cuts, including streamlining government contracting, selling off federal properties, consolidating some agencies, and revamping data collection. When he listed some of these predictable ideas in his State of the Union speech, the response was, predictably, applause.
But Obama made no mention though of the likely cuts that pose the greatest peril to the needy, including a 50 percent drop in funding for community service block grants that has already been floated. The savings from these grants--which fund an array of community education, health and social service programs in poor, underserved, largely inner-city neighborhoods--would amount to a relatively modest $350 million. Yet the programs that could be defunded or completely eliminated include many of the type that were near and dear to Obama's heart during his days as a community organizer in Chicago's South Side.
The bigger 2012 cuts are likely to be concentrated among the dozens of programs and agencies already identified by the Office of Management Budget as ripe for the chopping block. These include: more than 110 programs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education across 14 departments and agencies; more than 100 youth-mentoring programs, and 40-plus programs that provide employment and training assistance. Sizeable cuts also loom in departments that disproportionately impact low-income communities of color: Health and Human Services ($4.1 billion), Transportation ($4.0 billion), Education ($2.5 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($2.1 billion) and Justice ($1.4 billion).
Obama has little room to maneuver when it comes to these massive cuts. He has been relentlessly pounded by the GOP as a Big Government, tax-and-spend Democrat since the moment he announced his candidacy for president in 2007--a drumbeat that has become deafening. Nervous foreign investors as well as a slew of financial experts and economists, worry that the budget deficit--projected to soar to nearly $1.6 trillion in the current fiscal year, a post-World War II record--will continue to widen. This would saddle the nation, they claim, with higher taxes; deeper cuts in education, health and social services; staggering permanent debt; and possibly even bankruptcy.
This doomsday scenario is part political hyperbole, part financial panic. The projected deficit is about 10 percent of gross domestic product. That's big enough, theoretically, to threaten economic growth if it were sustained for decades--but proportionally far smaller than the deficits that the U.S. ran during and immediately after World War II. The dooms-dayers also fail to acknowledge why and how the deficit ballooned to current levels.
It was unchecked defense spending and reckless tax cuts by GOP presidents Reagan and Bush that first swelled the deficit to post-World War II records. Then George W. Bush and Congress piled on more debt with the $1 trillion (and probably much bigger) bailout to Wall Street houses and banks in 2008.
The GOP boxed in Obama and forced him to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. This, along with Congress's refusal to make more than cosmetic trims to the bloated military budget, continues the decades-long (and largely Republican) pattern of piling debt on more debt. The GOP recalcitrance virtually insures that the deficit "crisis" will continue to be a political attack issue and that programs to boost education, health, and jobs will continue to be the prime target of budget cuts this year and for years to come. The needy have good cause for concern.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts national Capitol Hill broadcast radio talk show on KTYM Radio Los Angeles and WFAX Radio Washington D.C. streamed on ktym.com and wfax.com and internet TV broadcast on thehutchinsonreportnews.com
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earlhutchinson
no matter who you vote for.
So the ONLY plan in play by either party is to WIDEN the wealth gap that caused so many of our problems in the first place.
"Keep digging boys and we'll be out of this hole in no time!"
If you really want change then find and support a third party.
First I was disappointed - then disgusted - now angry. Yes, I will vote in the 2012 elections, but my votes will more than likely not go to ANY members of the Democratic or Republican parties. Why should the members of the administration and congress be concerned about helping the poor in our own country? After all, the majority of those politicians (that is becoming a swear-word in my vocabulary) are millionaires.
Whether you are capable of any compassion or not, we all will eventually pay for ignoring the plight of those who struggle to exist in our society, in ways unimaginable.
The argument against voting for a member of either major party is that as long as you do evil will be the BEST you can expect.
"Free enterprise" means free businesses.
While the Supreme Court may not be able to distinguish between the two most of the rest of us can.