February 8, 2005

Subject to Bush's Knife: Aid for Food and Heating

By: Robert Pear

Under President Bush's budget, many food stamp recipients, farmers, veterans, small-business owners, nursing students, air travelers and Amtrak passengers would have to pay more or would receive less from the government.

Spending for domestic programs, aside from security and entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, would decline slightly in 2006, to $389 billion, and would remain flat for the next four years -- a freeze with no obvious precedent in the last two decades. The budget promises to reduce the deficit to $207 billion in 2010, from a record $412 billion last year. Mr. Bush proposes stricter eligibility rules for food stamps, expected to save $57 million in 2006 and $1.1 billion over 10 years. Under the proposal, welfare recipients who receive only child care, education, training and other services would no longer be automatically eligible for food stamps. Poor people receiving cash assistance would remain automatically eligible.

The proposal has huge implications because cash assistance now accounts for less than half of all spending under the nation's main welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Ellen M. Vollinger, legal director of the Food Research and Action Center, a liberal advocacy group, said: ''We do not support this proposal. Families who have moved from welfare to work and are struggling with the high costs of child care could lose nutrition assistance.''

One indication of new priorities is Mr. Bush's proposal to end the Community Services Block Grant, a $637 million program that helps pay for community action agencies begun more than 35 years ago as part of the fight against poverty.

The agencies provide housing, nutrition, education and employment services to low-income people. But the Bush administration said the program had been ''unable to demonstrate results.''

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps people pay their heating bills, would be cut 8.4 percent, to $2 billion.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said this proposal could not have come at a worse time, since the cartel of oil-producing countries ''continues to jack up oil prices and tip American consumers upside down.''

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, rejected the plan, saying she would push legislation to provide $3.4 billion in energy assistance.

Michael O. Leavitt, the new secretary of health and human services, defended Mr. Bush's proposal to cut the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including grants to help state and local agencies prepare for bioterror attacks. He said Mr. Bush had significantly increased such aid since 2001.

But the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, representing health officers of the 50 states, said the cuts would ''leave the nation vulnerable to public health emergencies,'' including bioterrorist attacks and infectious disease.

In Medicaid, the federal-state health program for more than 50 million people, Mr. Bush is seeking changes that he says will save $60 billion over the next 10 years.

Dr. Mark B. McClellan, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the proposals would reduce payments to pharmacies and state governments without hurting Medicaid recipients.

But Lawrence A. McAndrews, president of the National Association of Children's Hospitals, said the cuts would force many hospitals to reduce or eliminate services. Medicaid accounts for more than 40 percent of the revenue at such hospitals, he said, and ''the care of all children, not just those on Medicaid, would be affected by the reduction of services.''

The president would also cut $100 million from a $301 million program that trains doctors at children's hospitals. He would cut the budget for training other health professionals by 64 percent, to $160.5 million.

Brian M. Riedl, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the cries of anguish were predictable. ''Over all, it's a good budget,'' Mr. Riedl said. ''It sets priorities and takes a big step to eliminate wasteful spending. The president was courageous to propose cuts in farm subsidies and the elimination of Amtrak's operating subsidies. Those proposals show that no programs are immune.''

''Farm subsidies are America's largest corporate welfare program,'' Mr. Riedl said, ''and in a tight budget, there's no room for corporate welfare.''

Many of Mr. Bush's proposals face stiff opposition in Congress. Administration officials said they had tried to spread the pain of cuts among a large number of constituencies.

Aviation security fees, which pay for the screening of air travelers, would rise to $5.50, from $2.50, for a typical nonstop trip.

Airlines plan to fight the proposal. James C. May, president of the Air Transport Association, said: ''A tax on travelers is a tax on airlines. Any new tax or fee raises ticket prices and the cost of airlines' doing business.''

The tax increase, Mr. May said, ''will jeopardize airline jobs and local air service to small- and medium-size communities.''

Joshua B. Bolten, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the fees reflected the cost of screening passengers and baggage. Such costs, he said, should be paid by air travelers, not by taxpayers in general.

The budget would eliminate operating subsidies for Amtrak, the nation's rail passenger service, unless Congress overhauls it.

Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, said the proposal would have ''disastrous effects'' for New Jersey commuters and for the economy in the Northeast Corridor.

But Mr. Bolten said Amtrak was meant to be ''a for-profit, self-sustaining corporate entity,'' not permanently dependent on federal subsidies. ''The market needs to apply in railroads, as everywhere else.''

Mr. Bush would slash the budget of the Small Business Administration. Its spending authority would be sliced to $636 million in 2006, from $3.3 billion this year. The agency administrator, Hector V. Barreto, said the plan was ''fiscally responsible, good for small businesses and good for the American taxpayer.''

But Ms. Snowe, the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, said the proposed cut would impair the agency's ability to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

 

 
 

 



 

 

back to articles