Bush's unequal society
" How, exactly does Bush propose to narrow the gap between
rich and poor? It can't be through the tax code. The bill he
forced through Congress last June gave over 40 percent of the
tax relief to the top 1 percent. The new Republican tax
proposal for economic stimulus is relief mainly for
corporations. No gap-narrowing here."
By Robert Kuttner, 1/21/2002
Boston Globe
ACCORDING TO the White House press office, a theme of
President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address,
remarkably enough, will be narrowing the gap between
''haves'' and ''have-nots.'' Imagine that. The man must have
boundless faith in the gullibility of the American public.
Bush's approval ratings for the campaign against terrorism are
astronomical, but his support on domestic issues is as shaky
as the economy. So his political advisers are repeating their
successful strategy from the 2000 campaign of stealing the
Democrats' clothes - not the reality, of course, just the
costume.
How, exactly does Bush propose to narrow the gap between
rich and poor? It can't be through the tax code. The bill he
forced through Congress last June gave over 40 percent of the
tax relief to the top 1 percent. The new Republican tax
proposal for economic stimulus is relief mainly for
corporations. No gap-narrowing here.
What about public spending? Bush's budget spells bad news
for poor and middle class Americans, too. Several government
programs narrow the gap between haves and have-nots. Start
with health care. Government subsidizes health insurance for
some 44 million low-income people through Medicaid, and for
all seniors through Medicare.
A big chunk of Bush's tax cut, however, was financed by
shifting $526 billion out of Medicare - a universal program that
keeps millions from being medically destitute. Budget cuts
mean reduced benefits. Medicaid is a joint state-federal
program. Its costs rose 11 percent last year, and states are
slashing benefits. But Bush opposes increasing the federal
Medicaid share.
A lot of moderate-income people literally choose between filling
prescriptions and eating. The administration's plan for
prescription drugs is a corporate-sponsored voluntary discount
card.
The White House rejects an effective drug program under
Medicare (it spent the money on tax cuts.) Millions of working
people are losing health coverage, either because they can't
afford the premiums, or because HMOs are shifting costs to
patients and denying necessary treatments.
This trend also widens the gap between haves (who can pay out
of pocket) and have-nots. But the administration opposes
tougher regulation of HMOs, much less universal coverage.
How about children? A third of America's poor people are kids.
Nearly every federal program that helps children is either
being cut or frozen at last year's levels, at a time of rising
national need. That includes Head Start, general social
services, child care, child abuse prevention, and, of course,
welfare.
The 1996 welfare reform was a partial success because it
coincided with a period of full employment. The program gives
states a flat block grant called Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families. Temporary means that in most cases, people have a
lifetime limit of five years of benefits.
In flush times, the states could spend some of the money on
things that actually enabled mothers to succeed in the paid
workforce without having their children suffer. Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families supported child care, and in a
few states it even paid for community college. Now, however,
the welfare rolls are rising again and the supports are
disappearing.
In a recession, more newly unemployed people are qualifying
for welfare benefits, so money for the creative uses of the
program is crowded out. Yet the administration opposes
increasing funds for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families to
cope with the increased need, and resists even maintaining
current funding levels.
The president does propose a few token, high-profile increases.
His budget will slightly increase the popular WIC program
(Women, Infants and Children), which pays for prenatal and
baby care. And, in a bid for Hispanic votes, he wants to let legal
immigrants again qualify for food stamps, a benefit withdrawn
in the 1990s by the Republican Congress. But these symbolic
increases are more than wiped out by other cuts.
The states are collectively now some $50 billion in the red, and
budget cuts are falling mainly on the poor and the working
middle class - health, child care, housing, social services, you
name it. The administration rejects a temporary increase in
federal revenue sharing to the states. To add insult to injury,
the proposed Bush corporate tax cuts would reduce state
revenues, since 44 states follow federal depreciation rules.
Narrowing the gap between haves and have-nots? The sheer
cynicism is breathtaking.
Hypocrisy has been defined as the tribute that vice pays to
virtue. Bush's embrace of economic justice, even only as
rhetoric, shows at least that a more equal society is popular.
But until we have strong leaders who champion that goal for
real, ordinary Americans will get only symbolism and crumbs.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His
column appears regularly in the Globe.
This story ran on page A13 of the Boston Globe on 1/21/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company. |
