( - promoted by ctblogger)
This blog has been the center of much discussion recently regarding the merits of extending the upper-bracket tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.
By now, we're all familiar with the argument in favor: even a slight, marginal increase in the tax burden levied on the top 2% of earners would be enough to depress a nascent economic recovery. Something that's also offered up is that the cost of a temporary extension --- somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 billion over two years --- is "trivial."
Yesterday came news that the House Democratic leadership was almost certainly going to punt on the tax cuts until after the election, missing an opportunity to call for a roll call vote on tax relief for the middle class.
What's not as frequently mentioned in the conversation about whether or not to extend the tax cuts, or what that would cost, is what else has been ruled "off the table" with a similar or even smaller price tag.
Consider the case of SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as food stamps. The moral and economic case for food stamps in a time of increasing poverty and decreasing wage stability for million of American families is clear: we have an obligation to ensure children and families don't go hungry in our country, and economists say that food stamps -- by giving money to people who will immediately spend it -- are the single-most effective form of stimulus.
Yet this year, the Democratic majority in Congress has passed or proposed a total of $27 billion in cuts to the SNAP program, whose budget was temporarily increased as part of the Recovery Act in 2009. To be sure, these cuts have gone to pay for other big-ticket items on the Democratic agenda: FMAP aid to the states, money to keep teachers in classrooms, etc. But the statement on priorities is remarkably clear: instead of raising taxes on those whose incomes have skyrocketed in the last several decades while their tax burden has diminished, instead of cutting farm subsidies to precious contributors like Monsanto and Cargill, instead of closing tax loopholes where billions of dollars of revenue disappears into oil and gas companies' offshore accounts, instead of doing any of those things, we will take money from families and children trying to put food on their tables.
I appreciate the progressive accomplishments of the 111th Congress and the young Obama presidency. I understand that the November election isn't solely a referendum on the extension of the Bush tax cuts. I think the Affordable Care Act will go down in history as a a landmark social reform, rife as it is with imperfections. But I think it is fair to ask for answers when an historically large Democratic majority thinks its acceptable to slash $27 billion from a program whose constituency is the poorest and most vulnerable among us. |
MLN is powered by