Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Davis, you are a member of the Ways and Means Committee so perhaps we can seek some clarification on the earned income tax credit expansion, which you say you have championed, and that is a very effective…
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Davis, you are a member of the Ways and Means Committee so perhaps we can seek some clarification on the earned income tax credit expansion, which you say you have championed, and that is a very effective antipoverty program, one of the elements in the Ryan antipoverty program that you say is a good feature but you object to the pay-for for the expansion of the earned income tax credit.
In order to expand it to folks up to age 64, as he proposes, which is a great idea--and incentives work, because he says a lot of poor people don't want to work--this would enable low-income people to have that subsidy through the Tax Code, as we benefit many corporations that same way.
Just recently, the Ways and Means Committee just extended about $618 billion of corporate taxes. I am wondering what the pay-for for these corporate extenders were.
Mr. Davis, that was very confusing to me, and I will take my seat, but I just wanted clarification on that.
The earned income tax credit, which is a benefit that is provided to ordinary Americans through the Tax Code, we are required to eviscerate programs like Meals on Wheels for elders through the Social Services Block Grant and to get rid of maybe some of the low-income heating programs that heat homes in places like Chicago that are cold in order to pay for an expansion of the earned income tax credit, but the $618 billion in tax cuts which were designed to be just temporary but you made permanent the other day, I guess you pay for it by not giving unemployment compensation to people.
Before you leave, I wanted to know if you would respond to a question, Ms. Lee.
You mentioned in your remarks that, in the Budget Committee and on the budget that this House passed, there were 300--was it ``billion'' dollars in cuts?
But what he says in his rollout is that this is budget neutral, which means that it won't cost taxpayers any more. It is budget neutral, and it won't cost taxpayers any more, but it also will not cut programs. It is a really clever sort of budgeting trick on one hand, don't you think, to say you are not going to cut it from where you have already cut it?
I just want to ask you one more question about this fuzzy math, Congresswoman, since you serve on the Budget Committee.
The SNAP program is an entitlement program. What it means is, if you are eligible for food stamps, you receive them. Food stamps were critical in getting people over the hump in the recession. People sometimes reported that their only income was these food stamps.
So, if you see block grant SNAP--and correct me if I am wrong--what that means is that no matter how bad the economy becomes--because we have a countercyclical economy if we get a recession or a depression-- and no matter how many people are eligible for food stamps, once you get your block grant, your some certain amount of money, and once that money runs out, then you will find yourself on a waiting list or not being served. Is that how you understand a ``block grant''?
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr. Pocan. And I want to join my other colleagues for thanking you for your stewardship with the Progressive Caucus and putting this Special Order together.
I won't waste a lot of time complimenting our fellow Wisconsinite for at least listening to some of the ideas that have come from the Democratic side in his poverty plan. I think that looking at mandatory minimums is a long overdue sort of proposal that needs to get some traction.
Certainly, expanding the earned income tax credit for millions of Americans will make a true difference in many people's lives, and I just want to congratulate Mr. Ryan for that.
But let me be really clear. You don't have to really go through the entire 70 pages of his proposal because he starts right out in the beginning telling you that he doesn't believe that the safety net programs, that the efforts to help people get out of poverty for all these years, have been very helpful. He starts off by calling them a failure.
We all know that many of the programs created under FDR and President Lyndon Baines Johnson literally ended poverty among the elderly, for example. And we have seen poverty, as compared to what it would have been, cut at least by half because of Medicaid, because of Medicare, because of food stamps, because of other sorts of programs.
Yet, I guess Mr. Ryan believes that if you just keep saying it enough times, it will come true. We have heard Mr. Ryan lecture all of us, all over the country, about how the so-called entitlement programs are going to down our economy. He doesn't believe that the $618 billion worth of corporate tax breaks that he passed last week is a detriment to our economy, but he has called for, on a consistent basis, for privatizing Social Security, for block-granting Medicaid--not in this particular plan.
In case people don't understand what block-granting is, just think chopping block. You give the States some certain amount of money, and when they run out, they just run out. You are no longer categorically eligible.
He has proposed voucherizing Medicare, giving seniors some certain amount of money. You do very well if all you need is a flu shot. But if you have a heart attack or a stroke, that is not going to go very far toward your health care.
He has consistently--and now, in this particular proposal, block- granting one of the great entitlement programs, the SNAP program, which worked beautifully in the last recession. We now see the food stamp rolls going down, as
the economy improves. And when the economy is bad, the food stamp rolls go up.
That did not happen with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Act. It was not responsive to our countercylical economy. So what that really means is that these block-granted programs were fixed, framed, and frozen, starting out with a $300 billion cut. Eventually we will see that they will become totally inadequate toward ameliorating poverty, and we will see the poverty rolls creep up, and it will be particularly egregious on women and children.
Women and children: women, are disproportionately adversely impacted and benefit from these safety net programs. Food stamps: women disproportionately need food stamps, disproportionately use these programs.
The pay-fors, it is just egregious to say that we will provide the earned income tax credit and we will start by cutting programs like Meals on Wheels for the elderly and the food and nutrition programs for children.
Go right for the food, right at the bottom of the hierarchy of needs. Go right straight there and take food, literally, out of poor people's mouths in order to pay for the earned income tax credit expansion.
I wish we had sort of done that last week when we passed the $618 billion of corporate welfare without a pay-for at all.
So I just say that this is yet another chapter in a book we have seen before. This is just another incarnation of an idea that there is some moral hazard to helping poor people, that you have got to restrict and limit how much you do for them, and that most of the money that is generated through our economy ought to be plowed back into helping corporations and not people.