Bush steals from the poor to give to the superrich
By Nicole Colson | February 14, 2003 | Page 12
DOES ANYONE remember when George W. Bush campaigned for president claiming to be a compassionate conservative? Bush's new budget is all conservative and no compassion.
Huge increases in defense spending and more tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy will push the federal government's deficit to $304 billion for next year--even after Washington makes huge cuts in social services and programs for the poor.
"We've got huge needs in national defense and homeland security that are driving a lot of the spending," House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) told Reuters. "You've got to buy the groceries, but you don't have to remodel the kitchen," he quipped.
What arrogance! Nussle and his pals know that the massive cuts in programs for the poor will leave plenty of families without enough to "buy the groceries"--or pay the rent or keep the electricity on. They just don't care--as long as they can stuff more money in the pockets of the superrich.
What they showered money on...
Tax cuts for the rich
Adjusting for lost interest, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the Bush tax cut will cost a whopping $920 billion by 2013--with most of it going straight into the pockets of the filthy rich.
What they slashed money from...
Medicare and Medicaid
Bush's budget also goes after Medicaid, the federal program that provides health care to the poor, offering $12.7 billion over the next seven years to states willing to undertake "reforms." That means that the more poor people a state can cut from its rolls, the more money it would receive--a pattern that proved disastrous during welfare "reform" under the Clinton administration.
In one pilot project that tightened the restrictions, the number of children approved for the free lunch program was cut by 50 percent. That's both because families who just missed the poverty cutoff were forced to drop out of the program, but also because many who did qualify couldn't deal with the paperwork and increased bureaucratic hurdles.