GOP Spending Priorities Begin to Come to Light: cuts to supplemental nutrition for women, infants and children (WIC)

[essentialsaltes]

Republicans want to cut food assistance for 5 million low-income babies and parents​

Under the House GOP agriculture appropriations bill, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children — known as WIC — would not be funded to the extent the program needs, according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, potentially leading to hundreds of thousands of kids and postpartum parents getting turned away or cutting their food budgets.

As the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell notes, WIC is a rare bipartisan program that both sides of the aisle have historically agreed to fund. The OMB said in its statement that it "urges the Congress to continue the long
bipartisan agreement to provide enough funds for WIC to serve all eligible participants without harmful benefit cuts."

[From that WaPo link: There’s been strong bipartisan support for WIC for decades. Every year since 1997, Congress has committed to fully funding WIC — a fancy way of saying we’ve ensured there would be enough money to serve everyone eligible who applied.]

 

[NxNW]

One wonders why the GOP seems to dislike babies so much.

 

[Mayzoo]

Once the kid is born, it is preferable that mother undergoes mytosis x 3 so she can be a SAHM to raise her offspring the "right" way. Additionally, she needs to be working a minimum of 2 non-skilled jobs to provide for the child whose existence is the fault of the mother.

The people of the US should not provide assistance beyond ensuring laws exist to ensure the child is born.

Back to reality, I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-child. Once that child is born, it needs to be fed, clothed, educated, medically cared for etc. If the people of this country/state insist a child be born to someone who is ill-equipped to care for that child, it is not at all a good idea to force the child to suffer for an existence they had no say in. Reform certain services, absolutely. Cut back or delete services for those children, bad idea IMO. A child punished/abused merely because they exist will typically not make a productive citizen as an adult.

 

[Fantine]

We are no longer in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Our $883 billion defense budget is 3x our nearest competitor.
And yet we ended the wars and need to spend more?
Why?
My guess: legislators' debts to lobbyists and defense contractors.
Ugh.

 

[Kale100]

O well, look at the positives. Should your characterization of the issue be true and it should come to pass, that's more opportunities for Christians to reach people through good works.

 

[Pommer]

O well, look at the positives. Should your characterization of the issue be true and it should come to pass, that's more opportunities for Christians to reach people through good works.

Why do you seem to think that Churches would suddenly “pick up the slack” when social-services are cut?

 

[variant]

O well, look at the positives. Should your characterization of the issue be true and it should come to pass, that's more opportunities for Christians to reach people through good works.

That strategy has clearly served us so well in the past.

 

[variant]

Republicans want to cut food assistance for 5 million low-income babies and parents​

Under the House GOP agriculture appropriations bill, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children — known as WIC — would not be funded to the extent the program needs, according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, potentially leading to hundreds of thousands of kids and postpartum parents getting turned away or cutting their food budgets.

As the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell notes, WIC is a rare bipartisan program that both sides of the aisle have historically agreed to fund. The OMB said in its statement that it "urges the Congress to continue the long
bipartisan agreement to provide enough funds for WIC to serve all eligible participants without harmful benefit cuts."

[From that WaPo link: There’s been strong bipartisan support for WIC for decades. Every year since 1997, Congress has committed to fully funding WIC — a fancy way of saying we’ve ensured there would be enough money to serve everyone eligible who applied.]

It's weird that the same people who complain incessantly about inflation and costs being more also want to shift more of the burden of feeding low income people onto the low income people themselves.

The article acts like this hasn't been standard Republican policy for a generation though.

It hasn't been a "both sides of the isle" thing, it used to be that Republicans were willing to trade food assistance for agricultural subsidies. Now they just want the agricultural subsidies without the food assistance.

 

[essentialsaltes]

House GOP bails on funding fight amid conservative impasse​

Republican leaders punted their agriculture and FDA spending bill until September — a setback for their hopes of unity.

House Republican leaders on Thursday punted a second government funding bill and dismissed lawmakers for a six-week break from Washington, hamstrung by conservative demands for more spending cuts and internal division over social issues like abortion.

In a 219-211 vote on Thursday, the House passed the only Republican funding measure that GOP leaders could build support around before the break — the bill that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects.

Apparently, they have 11 more to pass in the 3 weeks in September before a government shutdown deadline.

The Federal Fiscal Calendar starts on October 1st. Everybody in Congress knows this. The Constitution puts the House in charge of Appropriations. It was a given that the GOP would ignore Biden's budget request, but it's becoming clearer that the GOP cannot deliver an alternative.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Looks like some in the GOP are also taking aim at PEPFAR.

Republicans are threatening to sabotage George W. Bush’s greatest accomplishment​

You may not have heard of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). But you should: It has saved more lives than any other US government policy in the 21st century. And now, for the first time in the program’s history, it is at risk of losing a critical vote in Congress — for reasons that say a lot about today’s Republican Party.

 

[comana]

O well, look at the positives. Should your characterization of the issue be true and it should come to pass, that's more opportunities for Christians to reach people through good works.

The opportunity has always been there, why do Christians need to wait until state services/ benefits are cut to step up?

 

[Fantine]

The opportunity has always been there, why do Christians need to wait until state services/ benefits are cut to step up?

In the first place, weekly church attendance is around 30% of the population, and at least as high a percentage of the population is in the "nones" category.
In the second place, this article says only 13% of evangelicals tithe, and half give away less than 1% of their income.

Only 13% of evangelicals tithe, half give away less than 1% of income annually: study

While a majority of evangelicals say tithing giving 10 of one s income to the church is a biblical commandment, only an estimated 13 engage in the practice, while half give away less than 1 of their ...

www.christianpost.com

So I would call your wishes unrealistic rather than just optimistic.
How many Christians would take this "opportunity?"
Especially since at least 50% of regular churchgoers support the party that is trying to take away all the state services in the first place?

 

[Mayzoo]

O well, look at the positives. Should your characterization of the issue be true and it should come to pass, that's more opportunities for Christians to reach people through good works.

I have read on this Christian forum more times than I want to count that burden of raising that child is the mothers. They see no reason they should assist in raising a child they had no part in creating, which is why many Christians on here want these programs reduced or disposed of. The mother had sex, she is responsible for raising the child.

The below scenario presumes the mother's parents do not offer financial support as many are barely making it on their own, and there is no father in the picture because that seems to be the majority of the cases rather than the minority.

The child is the one who grows up hungry, in clothes that do not fit properly, and has little to no medical care. A mother earning minimum wage earns a gross of $15,080.00 a year. Take out of that every month taxes (189), child care ($500), rent ($800), groceries ($300), gas ($433 @ 10 miles to work), medical care ($125 for baby only), insurance for the car ($50) and she will have a bring home pay monthly of negative $1,140. So the woman can work two full-time minimum wage jobs and have left negative $572 (double daycare costs) with no time for the child and still needing to skimp on basics like food and medical care. This scenario does not even include diapers, the cost of laundromats and consumables. She can take the bus, but that takes more time as it does not run on a work schedule per se so higher daycare costs and still in the negative every month.

To balance the budget the woman steals, cuts back on food for herself and the child, and cuts out medical care. Or she gets credit cards and starts piling on credit debt, ruining her credit and filing bankruptcy every chance she gets. Everyone in her family is hungry all the time, and health declines because the baby has no medical care and insufficient food intake.

 

[comana]

In the first place, weekly church attendance is around 30% of the population, and at least as high a percentage of the population is in the "nones" category.
In the second place, this article says only 13% of evangelicals tithe, and half give away less than 1% of their income.

Only 13% of evangelicals tithe, half give away less than 1% of income annually: study

While a majority of evangelicals say tithing giving 10 of one s income to the church is a biblical commandment, only an estimated 13 engage in the practice, while half give away less than 1 of their ...

www.christianpost.com

So I would call your wishes unrealistic rather than just optimistic.
How many Christians would take this "opportunity?"
Especially since at least 50% of regular churchgoers support the party that is trying to take away all the state services in the first place?

I don’t expect any increase in Christian charity, or any charity for that matter. If it hasn’t been capable , on a large scale, of meeting the needs or filled the gaps for those struggling in the past, then it certainly won’t in the future. The government is best positioned to handle this on a large scale as is needed for a population size of the US. I am frustrated with voters who vote against the idea that government exists to service the needs of all citizens rather than favoring corporations and the wealthy.

 

[Pommer]

House GOP bails on funding fight amid conservative impasse​

Republican leaders punted their agriculture and FDA spending bill until September — a setback for their hopes of unity.

House Republican leaders on Thursday punted a second government funding bill and dismissed lawmakers for a six-week break from Washington, hamstrung by conservative demands for more spending cuts and internal division over social issues like abortion.

In a 219-211 vote on Thursday, the House passed the only Republican funding measure that GOP leaders could build support around before the break — the bill that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects.

Apparently, they have 11 more to pass in the 3 weeks in September before a government shutdown deadline.

The Federal Fiscal Calendar starts on October 1st. Everybody in Congress knows this. The Constitution puts the House in charge of Appropriations. It was a given that the GOP would ignore Biden's budget request, but it's becoming clearer that the GOP cannot deliver an alternative.

The “Hastert rule” may be seeing its own end?

 

[Arcangl86]

The “Hastert rule” may be seeing its own end?

How so? If anything this just shows that they are trying to stick with the majority of the majority.

 

[Pommer]

How so? If anything this just shows that they are trying to stick with the majority of the majority.

Yes, but that doesn’t seem to be working anymore and the clock will be ticking when they come back for their 6 weeks of vacation “working the district” time.
This means coalition-building politicking (again), you know “normal”.

 

[Arcangl86]

Yes, but that doesn’t seem to be working anymore and the clock will be ticking when they come back for their 6 weeks of vacation “working the district” time.
This means coalition-building politicking (again), you know “normal”.

Or they force a shutdown.

 

[Pommer]

Or they force a shutdown.

They do seem to like to do that, don’t they?

 

[Arcangl86]

They do seem to like to do that, don’t they?

When you're whole shtick is about Government being broken and unworkable, showcasing that is a good thing.