Washington DC (Feb. 4, 2008)–President Bush’s 2009 budget released today eliminates key funding for low-wage American families and communities while the economy struggles and job losses are on the rise, said National Community Action Foundation Executive Director David Bradley.
“The President seeks economic stimulus and has called his budget request a ‘freeze’ on domestic discretionary programs. However, to keep the overall spending level constant, the President recommends destroying dozens of programs that open opportunities for America’s most economically vulnerable families and communities,” Bradley said.
Bush’s budget proposes complete elimination of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), which provides low-income community resources through Community Action Agencies (CAAs) in 99 percent of all U.S. counties. CSBG funds allow each CAA to address local poverty issues by mobilizing resources and people to provide uniquely local solutions.
“Once again Congress is expected to reject the President’s planned elimination of CSBG. Congressional leadership of both parties has found ways to increase Community Action programs because they are able to see the differences they have made in their communities,” Bradley said. “While I recognize Bush is a lame-duck president, I fear his budget proposal may be a place to start if a new Republican president is inaugurated in 2009.”
Bush’s budget request also eliminates the Weatherization Assistance Program, which invests in stateof-the-art energy upgrades for homes of low-wage workers, retirees and the disabled. Homes that have been weatherized through this program in the past 15 years will save an average of $404 this year as compared to their projected bills without the efficiency investments.
This estimated saving from Weatherization is equal to or higher than most bill-payment benefits from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which Bush also cuts in his budget plan.
“In the face of rising energy costs, it is absurd that the President would propose to reduce help for the poorest energy consumers and to do less to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse emissions of low-income households,” Bradley said.
“The proposal is symptomatic of the Administration’s approach to federal spending, which appears to be that those most vulnerable to the current economic downturn contribute the most and expect fewer educational and health resources for their children and aging parents even as the immediate support they can hope for is taken away,” he said.