House Passes Bombs Not Bread Budget

By Imogen Reed



Paul Ryan

The House of Representatives voted 218-199 to approve Paul Ryan’s ‘bombs not bread’ budget last Thursday. The vote means that America’s military will be exempted from all budget cuts over the next decade. The same cannot be said for the poorest and weakest elements of society who will continue to feel the brunt as the budgets for Medicaid, federal worker benefits and food programs are cut to ribbons.

This new budget will actually allow the defense budget to grow by 20 percent and was designed in order to head off an automatic budget of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, which would have kicked in during the summer. Termed a ‘reconciliation’ budget by the Republicans, the budget has effectively saved the military from a budget cut of about $600 billion.

Instead, the Republicans will force retired federal employees to take a 5 percent pay cut to make an $83 billion saving, cap malpractice lawsuits for Medicaid thus saving around $49 billion and by cutting another $48 billion from Medicaid programs in general. In addition to this, the budget is due to slice $36 billion off the food aid budget. It is the kind of budget to make the blood boil, and it even riled 16 Republicans into rejecting the deal; sadly their votes were not enough.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D. Mass.) exploded during the floor debate and said:

"I am so sick and tired of the demonization of programs that benefit poor people in this country, especially the [food stamp] program. This is not some extravagant, overly generous benefit. Rather than cutting waste in the Pentagon budget, which we all know exists, you protect the Pentagon budget. You know, rather than going after subsidies for oil companies and going after billionaire tax breaks, you protect all that."

Dennis Kucinich asked Republicans how they could “reconcile more money for bombs while cutting money for bread?”

The question is especially pertinent as the Congressional Budget Office reported that the number of people requiring the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has increased by 70 percent in five years from 26 million people in 2007 to 45 million in 2012. As a result of this, the cost excluding administration, has increased over 100 percent from $30 billion to $72 billion. As a result of this budget, less money will have to help more people.

Speaking in a Catholic Church, Paul Ryan defended his budget as a moral budget by saying that he supposed “that there are some Catholics who for a long time thought they had a monopoly of sorts, not exactly on heaven, but on the social teaching of our Church." Also that the poor should see independence from the state as a preferred option, but Ryan is ignoring or not realizing that many depend on the state not out of choice, but out of necessity.

90 faculty members and priests of the Catholic Church, however, deigned to disagree with the rising star Republican. In their letter, they said: "We would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few."

In a final quip and attack on Ryan’s budget, the letter added that his “budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Ayn Rand, born Alisa Zinoy’yevna Rosenbaum was a Russian-American philosopher who died in 1982. She is most famous for her novel Atlas Shrugged and for her philosophy of Objectivism whereby she put cold calculated reason ahead of ideas such as faith and religion. The Church, therefore, was calling Ryan amoral.

While certain Republicans who voted in favor of the bill and those who support it like Mitt Romney have accused the Democrats of playing politics with the budget, it is clearly a case of accusing someone else of doing exactly what you are. The budget helps to draw the battle lines for the forthcoming election by pitting the party of the poor against the party of the rich, with the former ranting from the unemployment lines while the latter prosthelytizing from their expensive chaise sectionals and luxury yachts. Republicans will point to creativity and venture capital, to small government and the rich creating jobs.

The budget, in actual fact, is a godsend to the Democrats. It emphasizes all of the negative perceptions people can have about the Republicans. The party of small government is expanding the Pentagon while cutting back on care to the vulnerable, is penalizing the poor’s pockets while not taking a cent more from the rich, the party of the Church and of religion, is being left behind by those very institutions.