Editorial: GOP-run House shows its dark side

Sunday, Nov. 20, 2005 | 8 a.m.

House Republican leaders narrowly -- and we mean narrowly -- were able to pass a budget this past week that would cut $50 billion from the federal budget over the next five years. By a 217-215 vote the Republican-controlled House made spending cuts to programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps and student loans. In contrast, the Republican-run Senate passed cuts totaling $35 billion over the coming five years. The differences in the two plans will have to be ironed out later by House and Senate negotiators.

The cuts passed by the House are nothing short of cruel. As Gannett News Service reported in an analysis of the House's action, one proposal will have a significant impact on single parents receiving welfare assistance. Under the plan, single parents who have children younger than 6 years old will have to work 40 hours a week instead of 20. Although there would be $500 million more in funding for child care, the Congressional Budget Office says that is a small portion of the $4.1 billion that would be necessary.

An advocacy group for the poor, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that a total of 330,000 low-income children would no longer get child care through 2010. What is a parent trying to get off welfare supposed to do? Go to work but leave her infant home alone? And the Republican Party claims to be the party of family values.

Gannett News Service goes on to note that, under the House plan, low-income and disabled children receiving assistance through Medicaid could lose important health care coverage, such as dental care, hearing aids and glasses. The matching grants that go to states for child-support enforcement would decrease by $5 billion in the next five years under the House plan.

Interestingly enough, while the House is proposing Draconian cuts in welfare, Medicaid and child-support enforcement, the Senate wouldn't make similar changes to these programs. It is shameful that the House would go forward with such cuts -- ostensibly to offset the cost of paying for Hurricane Katrina recovery and relief efforts -- at the same time it is poised to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.