Can't We Do Better Than Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Budget Cuts for Poor Kids?
Chuck Sheketoff
I’ve noted before how Oregon’s wealthiest households are slated to receive a hefty tax cut in the next budget cycle.
Meanwhile, what’s in the offing for Oregon’s poorest, most vulnerable children?
The Governor has proposed radical changes to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), one of the largest and most important programs protecting Oregon’s poorest children. These changes would slash $67 million in state funding for TANF. The Department of Human Services, which administers the TANF program, has concluded that some of the proposed changes likely will result in families being thrown out into the street and more children ending up in the costlier foster care system.
The most devastating of all changes proposed by the Governor would impose an 18-month lifetime limit on the time that families can receive assistance, down from the current 60-month lifetime limit. Coming at a time when unemployment is expected to stay at elevated levels for years, making jobs for TANF parents hard to find, the 18-month lifetime limit promises to set thousands of families in poverty adrift and make life even harder for their children.
The Governor’s proposal is especially harsh because it turns a cold shoulder to the significant barriers to employment that many TANF families have. Current law stops the time clock from ticking when the parent has a significant barrier to employment, such as a certified learning disability, is a victim of domestic violence or has a mental health condition. The Governor would keep the clock running for those families, disregarding the harm that would befall the kids.
The scheduled $134 million tax cut for the wealthiest Oregonians just happens to be twice the amount that the Governor’s proposal would cut in state support for TANF. Keeping tax rates at the current level for the most well-off Oregonians would more than offset the harm that the Governor has in store for Oregon’s poorest kids.
The legislature must reject the devastating changes to TANF proposed by the Governor. Surely Oregon can do better than harm poor kids.
Discuss.
Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:50 p.m.
Apr 5, '11
I am guessing you voted for that tax cut.
3:27 p.m.
Apr 5, '11
Chuck not only voted for it, he debated people all over the state in support of it.
On the other hand, I'd recommend people click on the other links above and read about the consequences of the proposed changes to TANF.
It's always easy to say, "There are no painless solutions." It's a little harder when you have to consider the very real effects of some of these cuts.
3:38 p.m.
Apr 5, '11
Jack's correct, again. And as to the tax cut, I still hope that the leg has the will to do as our mutual friend Ellen Lowe likes to remind people, "always reserve the right to be wiser tomorrow" -- we are now wiser about the depth of the recession and anemic recovery and cannot afford to move to the permanent rates at this time.
4:11 p.m.
Apr 5, '11
Let me preface this comment by stating I voted for M66 then and would do the same today...
That being said, I think you are running the risk of handing the GOP a major PR win. All the GOP has to say is: "See, there is no such thing as a temporary tax increase when the Democrat party is involved. Once they get their grubby paws on your hard earned money, they never want to let go." I am willing it will resonate with a large chunk of the population.
6:55 p.m.
Apr 5, '11
So this puts you in the company not just of Ellen Lowe, but John Maynard Keynes' famous (and maybe apocryphal) quip, "when the facts change, I change my mind."
8:57 p.m.
Apr 5, '11
Just pragmatic and willing to accept reality...because facts matter.
7:41 a.m.
Apr 7, '11
Many of your conservative friends seem to enjoy slashing and burning civilization.
2:38 p.m.
Apr 5, '11
Street Roots has launched a letter writing campaign today to save TANF dollars. Go here to write a letter to the Governor and Oregon lawmakers... http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5474/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2592
Thanks for writing the post, and for the report!
3:38 p.m.
Apr 5, '11
You are welcome. Onward!
5:58 a.m.
Apr 6, '11
Look how you framed the debate: Poor people need money - rich people have it... From those according to their ability to those according to their need.
Are there no other solutions besides vague Marxist envy?
8:35 p.m.
Apr 6, '11
"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
JFK's inaugural address
7:40 a.m.
Apr 7, '11
It's called common decency, not Marxism Martin. Some people have the crazy notion that the richest nation on Earth should provide education, safety, shelter, food, healthcare for all of it's citizens. Don't you have better things to do than whine about someone asking the rich to invest in our people?
5:55 a.m.
Apr 8, '11
Joshua, I suggest there's another solution than setting one side against the other. Self-righteous, self-serving statements do not contribute to an answer.
9:48 a.m.
Apr 8, '11
Martin, one side is already been set against another. But its not the wealthy against the middle class or poor. Its one part the middle class against the other. Non unionized versus unionized. The upper middle class against the lower middle class.
The Wealthy, and their spokespersons use the term class warfare as if it's unpatriotic slander, with the intent to make any talk of tax increases toxic. And it's worked for 30 years.
But, we do have an ongoing class war, though its not against the wealthy. It's a civil war within the middle class that is funded by the wealthy, captained by their media, and soldiered by well meaning and strapped middle class taxpayers.
10:34 a.m.
Apr 8, '11
Rob, I recognize the nouveau aristocracy, and often war against it when blogging with Conservatives. Many Conservatives recognize the danger but are more afraid of Marxism, so they pick sides. Consider a middle-ground where essential functions are truly socialized (see European examples) with Clinton-era tax rates, traded for by taking social burdens off of business and guarantying fiscal responsibility.
11:49 a.m.
Apr 8, '11
Martin. I think what you're outlining is what a lot of us would prefer. I think of it as liberal-tarianism. Could we have single payer health care, reduce business tax expenditures that pick business winners and losers, assure a safety net and and move to a more historically standard rate of tax revenue as a % of GNP?
There are all sorts of implementation barriers from every imaginable direction.
5:01 p.m.
Apr 8, '11
So, you're with me?
8:33 a.m.
Apr 6, '11
Martin, many recipients of TANF are physically disabled and unable to work, as my mom was after she had a stroke at age 32 that left her single, partially paralyzed, and trying to raise a family.
What do you say to a person in that situation? "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps?"
Programs like TANF, AFDC, and social security enabled me to go to college, start a business that has employed more than 50 people, and has made it possible for me to contribute far more in taxes than our family used when we needed it. It's called an opportunity cost, and not only is it the right thing to do, it makes good business sense.
Your mileage may vary, but I put a great deal of faith in documents like the U.S. Constitution which says that one of the pillars of our society is to promote the general welfare for ourselves and our posterity.
What you dismiss so cavalierly is a seminal part of the most basic contract we citizens have with our government.
9:03 a.m.
Apr 6, '11
Hopefully, Sal you're a Constitutional attorney. (I am: WSBA #40551) I often discuss the topic of liberty, and have written about the term "general wellfare": http://www.martinhash.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=382 Please sign up for my political blog for indepth Constitutional discussions.
1:03 p.m.
Apr 6, '11
As an attorney, I am certain that you are aware that a pedigree is not a substitute for a valid argument. What I saw on your blog offers not so much an analysis as it is an airing of personal prejudice.
2:18 p.m.
Apr 6, '11
Are you really comparing credentials? I was trying not to be rude to your apparent lack of knowledge & understanding of Constitutional precepts.
7:54 p.m.
Apr 6, '11
Ad hominem.
8:37 p.m.
Apr 6, '11
You'd best be hoping he's not comparing credentials 'cause you'd be three feet short of a yard.
9:14 a.m.
Apr 6, '11
Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has provided an explanation for this situation. He said that it is not a budget it is a cause. Toward that end he wants to finish the agenda of GW Bush by privatization of Social Security, the destruction of Medicare and Medicaid, the privatization of the U.S. Post Office and the elimination of any spending other than for the Pentagon.
Having paid in to Social Security and Medicare for more than thirty-five years I wonder just how much more will it take for others to recognize what Barack Obama is about to do to America by agreeing with the fascists.
9:35 a.m.
Apr 6, '11
The Republican proposal is in a real sense fascist, in that it encourages oligarchial control of society. Liberals, of course, reject that concept. However, we should not counter with a collectivist appeal. There is a workable middle-ground where we truly socialize all functions that business cannot do, and remove social burdens from business.
8:35 a.m.
Apr 7, '11
This has been chewing at me all night. The 18 month lifetime limit is harsh but the change in policy on when and how that time is calculated reads like something from Scott, Walker, Kasich, or Snyder. NOT from a Democratic Governor I contributed to and voted for.
4:23 p.m.
Apr 7, '11
Since when did kicking women, children, and disabled to the curb become a policy of the Democratic Party?? Would a party activist or elected official help me out with that??
10:45 a.m.
Apr 28, '11
Honestly the money these families get from tanf is so small i don't understand why they are even cutting this program i thought we voted in a democrat for Governor.