Bush's budget weakens programs that help country's most vulnerable

The $2.9 trillion budget proposal President Bush's administration sent to Capitol Hill on Feb. 5, which aims to balance the budget by 2012, calls for a 10.7 percent increase in defense and homeland security spending and a one percent increase in domestic spending in 2008. Over the next 20 months, Bush is asking for almost $250 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to the Pentagon's regular budget. The administration eliminated, cut or capped funding for many programs. Unfortunately, those affected would be society's weakest–those with low income, the elderly, mothers, children and abused women. CSFP, food stamps and WIC Bush's proposal eliminates funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)–a nutrition program benefiting nearly half a million low-income seniors and women with young children. "CSFP serves the most vulnerable population of low-income Americans in the United States, and in many cases it is their most critical source of nutritious food," said Vicki Escarra, president and chief executive officer of America's Second Harvest, the nation's largest hunger-relief organization. The proposal also changes the current categorical eligibility structure for the Food Stamp Program, eliminating eligibility for approximately 300,000 low-income citizens. Additionally, it caps funding at Fiscal Year 2006 levels for the Nutrition Services and Administration, weakening Women, Infants and Children (WIC), a critical nutrition program for pregnant and postpartum women, infants and children under five. Medicare, Medicaid, Title X and SCHIP Bush's proposal calls for health care spending cuts, including a five-year reduction in Medicare expenditures, which would cause more beneficiaries to pay higher premiums for coverage of prescription drugs and doctor services. The cuts to Medicare and Medicaid–the federal health insurance programs for the elderly and lower-income citizens–are $78 billion, although Medicare spending would increase $28 billion over this year before the proposed reductions take effect. The budget also provides no increased funding for Title X, which provides poor women and couples with family planning services. "For years, women and families have relied on Medicaid and Title X for family planning services.... This budget will only worsen America's health care crisis," Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards said. The proposal would also cut health coverage for children in low- and moderate-income families and reduce eligibility in eighteen states, under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The country currently has nine million uninsured children. "Not only will states be unable to enroll more children, but they will be forced to terminate coverage for hundreds of thousands of children, thereby consigning them to the ranks of the uninsured," Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA, said. Comprehensive sex education The proposal allocates $28 million more–for a total of $191 million–for faith-based abstinence-only education programs for students aged 12 to 18, with no increased spending on comprehensive sex education. Advocates for Youth (AFY), an organization that promotes comprehensive information about sex for young people, is critical of Bush's renewed support of abstinence-only education because it puts "ideology over science and basic common sense." James Wagoner, president of AFY said. "Research tells us that teenagers who receive comprehensive sex education that includes discussion about abstinence and contraception are more likely to delay sexual initiation longer and, when they do become sexually active, to have fewer partners and use contraception than those who receive abstinence-only messages." Domestic violence and sexual assault Bush's proposal would shift control over how anti-violence programs are funded from Congress to the Office on Violence Against Women, an agency within the Department of Justice. This has lawmakers and advocates against domestic violence worried because it would give the executive branch, rather than the legislative, discretion over how to spend federal dollars earmarked to combat domestic violence and sexual assault. If the proposal becomes law, critics fear the administration could disregard programs approved in the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which allows the government to spend as much as $3.4 billion over five years on domestic violence and sexual assault programs administered by the Office on Violence Against Women. Currently, funding is divided among a number of separate programs approved last year by Congress during the authorization process. Critics fear the administration would eliminate certain programs and add funding for new, untested programs, denying women access to what advocates say is a "well-rounded" menu that was carefully considered by Congress and signed into law by the president. New programs would be especially vulnerable because they haven't had time to mature, including programs to treat sexual assault victims and efforts to reach out to communities of color, Native American women and rural victims of abuse. Advocates insist the power over funding should remain with Congress to defend against arbitrary or politically motivated cutbacks. But even if Congress retains authority, it doesn't mean the programs will get their full $3.4 billion, or an average of $680 million per year, because every year Congress decides how much of the budget to spend. Funding for domestic violence programs has not increased since 2002, when it was boosted to $390 million. Since then, funding has gradually dropped. In 2006, it was $387 million, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence. In 2007, domestic violence and sexual assault programs administered by the Office on Violence Against Women are estimated to receive only $367.4 million. Under the proposal, in 2008 funding for domestic violence programs would be frozen at $370 million. Allison Randall, public policy director at the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said: "Every year more and more victims of domestic violence are requesting shelter and being turned away. They're calling to try and find an attorney and they can't find one. Thousands of calls to the hotline get dropped because they can't answer all of the calls."