I suppose this is self-evident, but I think it’s worth saying. Spending cuts as deep and wide as the House Republicans want would throw many thousands of people out of work.
Based on the total non-security cuts that went to the House floor, the Economic Policy Institute estimated somewhat over 800,000. Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody’s Analytics, projects job losses at 700,000 by the end of 2012 — this apparently based on the bill the House passed.
Add to the jobless an uncounted number of workers who would be subject to reduced work hours or furloughs.
In the latter camp would be employees in the Social Security Administration. So much for getting timely action on benefits claims — let alone hearings on the large percentage of disability claims the agency initially rejects.
But it’s not only federal employees that would be affected. Think of all the state and local public service workers who’d find themselves on the unemployment rolls — Head Start and K-12 teachers, staff in one-stop centers for job seekers, etc.
A fact sheet from the Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center says that the Head Start and Title I (Education for the Disadvantaged) cuts alone could cause an estimated 65,000 layoffs. Not a disinterested source, but not necessarily out of the ballpark either.
And then there are all the private-sector workers indirectly paid by federal grants to the states, e.g., the professionals and other staff in the community health centers that would close or shrink. The centers’ national association estimates job losses totaling 7,434.
Add to these the jobs that would be lost in the maternal and child health centers the Republicans would totally defund. And the 80,000 public service jobs funded by AmeriCorps — also targeted for extinction.
And what about the construction workers who won’t be rehabbing public housing or building new affordable housing because of cuts in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget?
And the workers that we devoutly hope will be maintaining the Washington metro area’s rapid transit system, but probably won’t be if the proposed $150 million WMATA cut is approved?
I could go on generating examples, but I think you’ve got the picture.
Confronted with the loss the federal jobs, House Majority Leader John Boehner replied, “So be it. We’re broke.” Which is stuff and nonsense. But then so is the notion that the proposed spending cuts will reduce the deficit that’s got our policymakers — Republicans and Democrats alike — so agitated.
When people don’t work, they don’t owe as much — or anything — in income taxes. They also don’t buy as much. Business profits go down and, with them, corporate tax payments.
So federal revenues decline, as they did when the recession set in. Meanwhile, mandatory safety net spending, e.g., for food stamps and Medicaid goes up, because more jobless people means more people poor enough to qualify.
So how is the deficit shrinking?
I think just about everyone agrees that federal spending is on an unsustainable upward curve. But the programs the House Republicans would slash have virtually nothing to do with that. The pie chart and analysis on Dustin’s Our Dime blog show why.
Maybe the House Republican leadership has put itself in a box. It pledged to immediately cut at least $1 billion in federal spending while holding the military and programs for veterans and seniors harmless.
This helped get a bunch of Tea Partiers elected. And now they’re insisting that the House make good on the pledge, though the very conservative chairmen of the Budget and Appropriations Committees apparently didn’t want to go there — at least not during the shrinking remainder of this fiscal year.
Whatever the case, I think EPI is right when it warns that the House proposal would magnify the ongoing labor market crisis.
Also right when it says the proposal “suggests that Americans take on unnecessary pain with no long-term gain.” I’d just add that some Americans are going to have lots more pain foisted off on them than others.