It shouldn't be a news flash that President Bush's new budget has more bad news for the poorest Americans.
18 community development block grants are gone, victims of an 11.5 percent cut to the Housing and Urban Development Department. This makes sense, because urban areas went overwhelmingly for Kerry. Leave it to Bush, "a uniter, not a divider," to punish people who voted against him.
He even punishes those who can't vote. Witness $2 billion in cuts to programs like Upward Bound and Gear Up that prepare low-income students for college. The poorest college students currently receiving Pell Grants aren't getting them next year, either.
$45 million will be cut from Medicaid, the healthcare program providing coverage largely for single women and children living in poverty, at a time when it is needed most. Medicaid now covers 50 million Americans; it's no surprise that amount rose by 10 million people once Bush took office and poverty began increasing. According to The Economist, Medicaid costs per patient have risen at just over half the rate of private employer-based insurance costs. As public expenditures reach 50 percent of all healthcare costs over the next 10 years, the debate should hardly be over the settled question of whether our healthcare system will remain private. We should be talking about which system is more effective. Without stronger regulation of the insurance industry, the government can actually do a better job of providing healthcare.
Perhaps these cuts wouldn't be a problem if the private sector companies were responsible enough to provide workers with benefits and livable wages. But - surprise, surprise - they aren't. According to the 2000 Census, 66 percent of families below the poverty line had a fully employed family member. The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that a single parent with two children living in the Bay Area would need to work at least three minimum wage jobs to care for their family's basic needs. Millions of Americans are stuck in poverty, despite working full-time.
There is no justification for the world's richest nation to have full-time workers being paid wages that keep them and their families in poverty. Our society has always said that one can get ahead by working. We have always said that productive members of society who play by the rules will be assured of a comfortable existence. We have not kept this credo by rewarding hard work with an honest day's pay.
It comes down to benefits as well. Only 35 percent of low-income workers have health insurance provided by their employers. That amount is less than half the percentage of other workers receiving healthcare from their employers, and down 5 percent in the last two years.
In Tennessee alone, 10,000 Wal-Mart employees and their dependents are covered by Medicare - the public is paying for something their employer ought to. In Arkansas, the company's birthplace, 10 percent of Wal-Mart employees are receiving public assistance.
This problem is, quite simply, inexcusable. And it is getting worse. The number of full-time workers living in poverty increased by 45 percent between 1978 and 2002. This affront to hard-working citizens, to human dignity and to our nation's morals must end. Anyone who works full-time should be provided a decent living for themselves and their family in return.
Fortunately, there is a pretty straightforward solution: expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC works by augmenting the income of individuals who work but still live in poverty. It is an effective program, with administrative costs adding up to just 3 percent of the benefits extended, as opposed to 16 percent for welfare. Because it is a tax rebate, it is also non-stigmatizing, unlike food stamps or welfare. Ronald Reagan, of all people, called it "the best pro-family, the best job creation, the best work incentive program ever to come out of Congress." The issue of the "working poor" could vanish if the EITC were expanded to lift all full-time workers out of poverty. Doing so would make it possible to eliminate the difficult application process as well, because the only information needed would be available on tax forms possessed by the IRS - hours worked, income, and number of dependents. This would further reduce administrative costs while reducing dependence on welfare, food stamps and Medicaid.
Anyone with sense would see this as a win-win for America's hardest working citizens. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for someone with sense to take the Oval Office. Bush wants to shrink the federal safety net but he doesn't want to ask his corporate backers to step up to their responsibilities as employers. I'd say either have your cake or it eat, George. But something tells me you'll hold on to your own, and devour the loaves of those who can hardly afford to eat.
Rob Sand '05.5 is ready for spring.
