Budgets Don't Make The Cut For Pregnant Women, Mothers And Children

A number of states are considering or enacting budget cuts that undermine the importance of social services for pregnant women, mothers and their children. In what will likely be proven to be a feeble attempt to stabilize their economies, these states are looking at massive budget cuts of up to 25% -- and in departments that dole out much-needed support services like health care and food stamps. They include:

Ohio, which has proposed a $67 million cut to the Department of Jobs and Family Services. Such a cut could cripple the state's Medicaid system, which provides health care coverage for pregnant women and children without medical insurance (http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/01/28/daily50.html).

Utah, which is considering a 7% budget cut that will make it more difficult – yes, MORE DIFFICULT – for pregnant women to receive medical care (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11274672).

California, which is considering budget cuts that would jeopardize the reach of human services programs like WIC and Healthy Families, a program that provides medical coverage for children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid (http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/08_12_A_Time_of_Growing_Need.pdf).

So, to these states, the answer to increased poverty, unemployment and staggering economies is to cut funds from programs that support the victims of economic recession. Wow. When more and more women do not have access to prenatal care and more and more children do not have health insurance, the solution is to make these things even harder to get? This makes no sense, especially when you consider that states save $2 to $3 for every $1 spent on prenatal care. These are your elected officials, hard at work.

The fact that states are likely going to cut human services budgets is not only immoral, it is irresponsible. Consider the work of notable economists Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Orszag, who state that spending cuts are more harmful to an economy than carefully-planned tax increases (http://www.cbpp.org/1-8-08sfp.htm).

Comprehensive cuts will slow spending; while an increase in taxes only slows saving, allowing economic spending to continue.

The research is there, in black and white – the solution does not lie in cutting programs, it lies in affording programs. States seem to forget that many things become more expensive in time; instead of cutting services from those in need, perhaps states should cap the cost of, say, medical services – which would benefit nearly everyone and help to reduce state-funded health care spending. Dropping services now, only to re-institute them later, puts a state economy on a perpetual yo-yo and does nothing for long-term growth.

It's disturbing to think that states are more willing to drop services for their most disadvantaged citizens rather than find a way to balance their budgets with tactics developed by the world's top economists.

I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron