Tax cuts for the rich paid for by the poor ~ echo editorial
Acron Beacon Journal/Ohio.com
Republicans in charge of Congress see a campaign ahead in which they tout their enactment of tax cuts.
Unfortunately they approved $1.9 trillion in tax reductions during the next 10 years (with interest added), the vast majority of the sum going to wealthy individuals. That addition to deficits and the national debt? They have talked about curbing social spending to narrow the revenue loss.
Now, House Republicans* have signaled where they wish to start — food assistance for those with low incomes.
Michael Conaway of Texas, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has included in the proposed farm bill, approved by the panel on Wednesday, changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that would narrow eligibility. He and Paul Ryan, the House speaker, want a more aggressive work requirement. The trouble is, their idea offers little prospect of expanded employment while inviting deeper hardship.
States currently have flexibility to permit some households with incomes above 130 percent of the federal poverty level to receive food assistance. That option would end, removing many beneficiaries from the program.
Recipients already face a work requirement. The Conaway plan would add onerous and unproductive elements. Those recipients between ages 18 and 59 who are not seriously disabled or raising a child under age 6 would have to show officials each month that they work at least 20 hours per week or participate in a training or related program. If they fail to comply with the paperwork, they would jeopardize their benefits, which hardly are excessive at an average $122 per month for Ohioans.
Most recipients already work. Those who do not? They face high barriers including few skills and mental or physical health problems.
States would have the task of adding mechanisms to monitor the weekly reporting by recipients. The complexity shouldn’t missed, many low-wage workers with irregular hours, uncertain shifts, often lacking sick leave and adequate child care. Many of the needy would slip through the widened cracks.
More, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out in its analyses, the proposed funds for work programs and training would be a pittance — about $28 per month for each recipient when the typical welfare-to-work program costs $414 per month. The experience with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program has seen little by way of employment gains while many families and children have fallen into deep poverty.
Robert Greenstein of the center reminds that in 2013, the House launched, on a bipartisan basis, a series of pilot projects to test various work concepts related to food assistance. The results would help define any changes. Unfortunately, rather than act in such an informed way, House Republicans *now want to leap into the task, their proposal ill-conceived and the risk substantial of leaving many households without the assistance they need.
Now, House Republicans* have signaled where they wish to start — food assistance for those with low incomes.
Michael Conaway of Texas, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has included in the proposed farm bill, approved by the panel on Wednesday, changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that would narrow eligibility. He and Paul Ryan, the House speaker, want a more aggressive work requirement. The trouble is, their idea offers little prospect of expanded employment while inviting deeper hardship.
States currently have flexibility to permit some households with incomes above 130 percent of the federal poverty level to receive food assistance. That option would end, removing many beneficiaries from the program.
Recipients already face a work requirement. The Conaway plan would add onerous and unproductive elements. Those recipients between ages 18 and 59 who are not seriously disabled or raising a child under age 6 would have to show officials each month that they work at least 20 hours per week or participate in a training or related program. If they fail to comply with the paperwork, they would jeopardize their benefits, which hardly are excessive at an average $122 per month for Ohioans.
Most recipients already work. Those who do not? They face high barriers including few skills and mental or physical health problems.
States would have the task of adding mechanisms to monitor the weekly reporting by recipients. The complexity shouldn’t missed, many low-wage workers with irregular hours, uncertain shifts, often lacking sick leave and adequate child care. Many of the needy would slip through the widened cracks.
More, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out in its analyses, the proposed funds for work programs and training would be a pittance — about $28 per month for each recipient when the typical welfare-to-work program costs $414 per month. The experience with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program has seen little by way of employment gains while many families and children have fallen into deep poverty.
Robert Greenstein of the center reminds that in 2013, the House launched, on a bipartisan basis, a series of pilot projects to test various work concepts related to food assistance. The results would help define any changes. Unfortunately, rather than act in such an informed way, House Republicans *now want to leap into the task, their proposal ill-conceived and the risk substantial of leaving many households without the assistance they need.
MaineWriter ~ *House Republicans: the same ones who fired the Jesuit chaplain father Pat Conroy because he prayed for the poor.
Labels: Beacon Journal, Ohio, Republicans
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 5:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home