Homestead mailing list

[tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>]

*washingtonpost.com* <http://www.washingtonpost.com/>
*Cutting Out the Poor*

By William Raspberry

Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A21

I've lived long enough to understand that the differences among 
Americans are often greatly exaggerated -- that deep down we are a lot 
more alike than we are different.

This truth extends to politics no less than to matters of race and class 
and geography. If you think of American politics as a dial, even during 
our fiercest debates, the needle swings in relatively small arcs -- from 
a bit right of the midpoint to a bit left of it, and back again. No 
matter how alarmed we may get over some particular setback, it's usually 
true that the sky really isn't falling.

Well /something/ is coming down.

I've been talking to Peter Edelman, a Georgetown University law 
professor who is thoughtful, liberal, incredibly decent -- and alarmed 
over the national budget President Bush will shortly propose.

"For virtually all of my adulthood," he said, "America has had a 
bipartisan agreement that we ought to provide some basic framework of 
programs and policies that provide a safety net, not just for the poor 
but for a large portion of the American people who need help to manage.

"There've been exceptions -- the first Reagan term with David Stockman, 
the brief ascendancy of Newt Gingrich -- but while we've argued about 
the specifics, the basic framework has been there.

"With this budget, the basic framework is being dismantled."

Before you dismiss it as partisan hyperbole, hear Edelman's specifics: 
The basic structure of Social Security is under attack (on the grounds 
that the program is in crisis, though most respected economists say it 
isn't). Pell Grants for college tuition are on the cutting block. So are 
Section 8 housing vouchers (which started under Richard Nixon) and food 
stamps. Programs that have offered some protection for people in the 
lower third of the economy are under threat of evisceration.

And the rationale for the attack is a budgetary crisis created by the 
gift of $1.8 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

Edelman thinks the needle has jumped off the dial altogether, that the 
people in philosophical power are determined to abrogate the contract 
many of us still take for granted. Nor does he believe that it is a 
matter of fiscal necessity. An unnecessary tax break (abetted by an 
optional war) created the crisis, and now the crisis justifies a radical 
reordering of the American system. As Edelman and Deepak Bhargava, 
executive director of the Center for Community Change (CCC), put it in a 
recent joint statement:

"The federal budget is not just an accounting tool. It is a statement 
about our priorities and our values as a nation. But because of 
decisions this president made to benefit an elite few -- at the expense 
of the rest of us -- we're now facing a set of budget choices that are 
unsupportable, immoral and dangerous."

The CCC, on whose board Edelman sits, has formed a coalition of more 
than 100 low-income groups in 15 states to resist not just the 
individual program cuts but also the philosophy underlying the cuts.

Resistance won't be easy, since so many middle Americans see their 
interests as nearer those of the rich than of the poor. Besides, the 
cuts will certainly be marketed -- perhaps successfully -- as simple 
practical necessity. I mean, if there's a fiscal crisis in these parlous 
times, you surely wouldn't want to cut defense -- or veterans, or 
highways, or police. Hmm, looks like those programs for poor folks are 
about the only option.

It is important, says Edelman (who quit the Clinton administration in a 
protest against the push to radically downsize public assistance), not 
to look at this budget program by program but at the thoroughgoing 
reordering of the government's role. He sees it as a major advance of 
the goal articulated by the influential conservative Grover Norquist of 
shrinking government "to the size where you could drown it in a bathtub."

"We're talking about tens of billions of dollars in cuts, including many 
programs that, like nutrition, are in-kind income for people," Edelman 
said. "We're talking about a severe blow for millions of Americans who 
are working as hard as they possibly can but still need some help."

Well, why don't we just wait and see if things turn out as badly as some 
of us fear? And if they do, then let the government reenact some of the 
old social programs.

The lovely thing -- at least from the Norquist view -- is that there 
won't be much the radically downsized government /could/ do about it. 
That darned fiscal crisis, you know.

/willrasp AT washpost.com/ <mailto:willrasp AT washpost.com>

© 2005 The Washington Post Company