House Committee Pushing Budget $9 Billion below Level Needed to Maintain Current Services

by Mary A. Cooper

Congress has begun to work on the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget, covering the period from October 1, 2007 through September 31, 2008. The House Budget Committee on March 28 approved a proposal that was expected to be voted on by the House prior to the Easter/Passover recess. However, due to intra-party disagreements among moderates, fiscal conservatives, and appropriators, the Republican leadership was unable to bring the bill to the floor. At press time, it is uncertain when and if the leadership will bring the committee-passed budget resolution to the House floor for a vote. It is still important to call your Representative and urge them not to support a budget resolution that will force cuts in human needs programs.

The House Budget Committee-passed budget resolution funding level for annual appropriations is $9 billion short of the cost just to keep up the current level of services next year — for education, food packages for the poor, housing, child care, meals on wheels, and many other services.

Although the House Committee rejected President Bush's proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, it accepted most of his plan to cut spending by all government agencies except the Pentagon. Particularly damaging cuts were proposed in programs that assist low-income people, children and the elderly.

The Senate Budget plan added $16 billion to the President's budget, and it is likely that the House will add funds for some programs. Last year's budget was approved four months late and it appears that the debate may be just as prolonged this year, especially given the generous amounts of time off that legislators have given themselves on account of congressional elections in November.

While most of the proposed cuts for 2007 seem relatively small, they are the tip of the iceberg. Massive cuts are projected between now and 2011, but detailed information about them was withheld by the Administration. A few supportive documents were apparently released accidentally, giving access to the projections for future years, but they were not part of the public release, unlike the practice in past years.

Supportive Services for Children and Elderly People

Child Care: The Administration proposes to cut discretionary funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $1 billion over the next five years, leading to a cut of 14% by 2011. Funding for mandatory child care spending and child care funds under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families are frozen for five years despite significantly increased work requirements under TANF, meaning a substantial cut in available child care subsidies for families attempting to leave welfare for work, as well as other low-income working families. By 2011, the number of children receiving child care subsidies will be 400,000 below the 2005 level, despite increased need for such assistance resulting from federal mandates. Government child care subsidies have never reached more than one eligible child in five, so increased funding is clearly needed.

Head Start: The Administration proposes to hold funding for Head Start at the current level, with no increase for inflation. Since costs will inevitably rise, fewer children will be served in 2007, probably as many as 19,000 nationwide. Head Start also receives funding through the Community Services Block Grant, which the Administration wants to eliminate, resulting in the lost of more Head Start slots. Given the absence of child care subsidies and affordable child care, thousands of families use Head Start as an alternative to child care.

The Community Services Block Grant: The CSBG operates in 95% of the nation's counties and provides various kinds of assistance to Indian tribes, migrant and seasonal farm workers, and other impoverished groups, including homeless people and the elderly. Its programs address areas such as employment, education, housing, nutrition, emergency services, health and financial counseling. The program is operated locally by Community Action Agencies.

The program was funded at $626 million in 2005. According to the U.S. Administration for Children and Families, it:

• helped nearly 123,000 poor families have improved housing,
• reduced homelessness,
• provided assistance such as child care to low-income families in crisis situations,
• helped nearly 54,000 people receive increased earnings through education,
• helped over 109,000 people complete their educations through GED and high school or higher training,
• enabled nearly 800,000 seniors and 30,000 people with disabilities to stay in their own homes through providing supportive services to meet their greatest needs.

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance: LIHEAP serves only about one-seventh of the eligible households, helping them meet the cost of home heating. The Administration proposes to increase funding for 2007, after which funding is cut sharply for the rest of the decade. If this plan is accepted, funding will have dropped by 29% by 2011, adjusted for inflation, despite the inevitability of rising costs.

Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that over one million very low-income elderly households receive no federal housing assistance but either pay more than 50% of their income for housing or live in severely substandard housing. Nonetheless, the Administration proposes cuts in the Housing for the Elderly program that would amount to 37% by 2011, over the 2006 level. Consequently, the number of new subsidized housing units for the elderly would drop by 2,000 units in 2007, with greater losses in each succeeding year.

Nutrition Programs

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): By every measure, WIC is one of the most effective programs operated by the federal government. It is efficiently managed and has shown notable success in improving the health of impoverished mothers and children. The program's stated goal is to provide nutrition aid to every eligible family in the nation. The people served are low-income pregnant women, nursing mothers, and their infants and pre-school children.

The Administration proposes to cut WIC funding by nearly $2.5 billion over five years, resulting in 474,000 fewer low-income mothers and children would being served in 2011 than are likely to receive assistance in 2006. Every state is slated to suffer significant WIC cuts. This comes at a particularly troubling time for families who lost their housing and employment in the 2005 hurricanes, because no new resources will be available to meet the increased food need.

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program: The CSFP provides monthly food packages primarily to low-income seniors 60 and over in 32 states, the District of Columbia, and a couple of Indian reservations. The packages cost the government less than $20 apiece per month and include high-nutrition items such as canned tuna, peanut butter, cheese, cereal, and canned fruits and vegetables. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has conducted research which showed that, in 2004, one-fifth of low-income households with elderly members had difficulty providing food to all family members (i.e., met the definition of being "food insecure").

The Administration contends that CSFP overlaps with two other programs —  WIC and Food Stamps; however, elderly people are not eligible for WIC. The proposal assumes that seniors who lose these food packages could replace them by enrolling in the Food Stamp Program. This is not a realistic alternative for several reasons. Registering for Food Stamps is complicated and could be hard for many seniors to manage because it involves travel and requires quantities of financial records. Many seniors would find it humiliating to enroll because they regard food stamps as welfare. Also, many of the people who receive CSFP packages are already on food stamps, often receiving the minimum $10 monthly benefit. Their food stamp benefit would not be increased to cover the loss of CSFP. They would simply have less food. CSFP is a convenient program for elderly people because it primarily serves those who live in rural areas, and the food is delivered to their homes. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 420,000 seniors nationwide would lose this nutritional benefit if the CSFP is eliminated.

Finally, the Administration proposes to eliminate the Census Bureau's annual Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). This survey establishes the nation's poverty rate each year, showing increases or decreases, documents the number of people who do not have health insurance and measures participation in other government programs that meet basic needs and promote upward mobility. The National Academy of Sciences has said, "SIPP should become the nation's primary source of income statistics ... [Othernational surveys] can never be designed to provide the same extent of detail or achieve the same quality of reporting as in SIPP." The advocacy community opposes this funding cut, saying that "for good policy, we need good data."

General Assembly

The 207th General Assembly (1995) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) called on Congress "to defeat any proposals that base budget or deficit reductions primarily on the services provided to children, families, the needy, and the homeless" and urged strengthening of federal commitments to these groups. The Assembly also called on Congress "to insist on a government that follows ethical values of justice for the poor, welfare for children, hospitality to the stranger, and assistance to the disadvantaged." (Minutes, p. 718)

Minimum Wage: "In light of the growing disparity in household income and the past positions of the General Assembly," the 200th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) "urge[d] the President and Congress of the United States to raise the minimum wage to its historical level of 50 percent of the average non-supervisory, nonagricultural wage and provide for regular increases that will keep the minimum wage at an adequate level to lift people out of poverty." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly earning of production workers was $15.85 in 2004.

Budget: The 200th Assembly also urged the President and Congress "to oppose further cuts in social programs that benefit poor people and to increase support for programs unable to serve all eligible persons due to lack of funds." (Minutes, PC(USA), p. 364)