Infographic: Tax Breaks vs. Budget Cuts

Infographic: Tax Breaks vs. Budget Cuts

This chart has been making the rounds under various headings generally labeled "class warfare." It compares the cost of federal social programs at risk of being cut with some of the latest tax breaks for the wealthy. The reasonable take-away from the chart is that by eliminating these tax cuts we could pay for the social programs. The chart includes early childhood prorgams, low income housing programs, supplemental nutrition (WIC), teacher traing and after school programs, job training for unemployed and new workers, low income home energy assistance, community health centers, legal services for the poor and family planning services. The total tab for all these programs is $44 billion.

Assuming that these are all good programs that offer excellent bang for the buck, I am left with a nagging question: why are these federal government programs in the first place?

At best the federal government adds another layer of bureaucracy to the distribution of the money. At worst it demands that money be spent in ways that local people disagree with. Caring for people who are unable to care for themselves is an inherently local task. No one in Washington, DC can hand food to someone in Fresno. Unfortunately, paying for the care may well be beyond the ability of localities that need it most. Larger clusters of people need to be organized to provide assistance. This means that regional or even state-wide organizations may need to help hard hit areas. Some events, like the gulf oil spill, may even require coordination at the national level.

None of the programs in the infographic are designed to provide disaster assistance. They are for chronic problems that must be sustainably addressed at the local level. Local agencies spend much energy chasing the next federal grant and never know whether the staff will have jobs at the end of the current grant. This cycle has implications of many kinds for local organizations, none of them good for those in need.

Let the federal government work with matters that require interstate coordination, and let local people manage local needs with money that would otherwise go to federal coffers. Fresno's per capita share of the $44 billion is about $70 million. Maybe some of the money would even get to groups doing the best work, instead of the best grant writing.