Mr. Barletta went to D.C. and forgot the middle class -- Commentary Stephen Herzenberg

Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader

WHEN RESIDENTS of Northeastern Pennsylvania elected Lou Barletta to Congress last November, they gave him one assignment: get our economy back on track. After all, unemployment in the region was more than 10 percent – and still is.

Now that Rep. Barletta has been in Washington, D.C., for a few months, we can see what he’s actually doing.

One of the congressman’s most important actions was his vote for the “Ryan budget,” named after U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin. This budget passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a party-line vote in April, with Mr. Barletta and all Pennsylvania House Republicans supporting it.

The Ryan budget proposal has been marketed politically as a serious effort to tackle the nation’s long-term debt.

Let’s see what the bill actually does.

For starters, the Ryan plan includes large tax cuts for the highest-income Americans. It makes permanent the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than a quarter million dollars. It continues a cut in inheritance taxes that benefits only the wealthiest one out of every 400 Americans. The Ryan plan also lowers the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, which helps only Pennsylvania families earning more than $175,000 a year.

Since affluent Americans are the only ones who benefited a lot from growth over the past decade, why is Congressman Barletta making more tax cuts for the rich a high priority?

Doing so won’t help the congressman’s middle-class constituents much, but it will mean a big windfall for families living in Fairfield County, Conn., and other places home to chief executives and high-paid Wall Street financiers.

The tax cuts for the rich in the Ryan bill reduce revenue by more than $2 trillion over the next decade. Slashing revenue by $2 trillion is a strange starting point for a plan to reduce the U.S. debt.

It also means the Ryan plan must make deeper cuts in spending to lower future deficits.

Who gets hurt and who benefits from the cuts in spending in the Ryan bill?

The Ryan bill takes a hatchet to health care – for seniors, for individuals not covered through a job and for families in need. Instead of getting health care through Medicare, seniors would receive a voucher. According to the Congressional Budget Office, seniors would end up having to pay twice what they now pay out-of-pocket. While seniors get less health care, but pay more, insurance companies can tap a big new market.

For 34 million uninsured Americans not old enough to receive Medicare, the Ryan bill repeals programs that will help them afford insurance for the first time. The bill also slashes Medicaid funding for Pennsylvania, shifting costs onto the state and the low-income children, people with severe disabilities and senior citizens who rely on Medicaid for their health and long-term care.

Beyond health care, the Ryan bill reduces support for hard-working families in other ways. It cuts Pell Grants that send students to college, food stamps for families on the front-line of the recession and work force training for unemployed workers.

While the Ryan plan’s tax cuts don’t help Congressman Barletta’s constituents, the spending cuts would hurt them. That’s because the district has high unemployment, modest incomes and an aging population.

Another problem: By reducing government spending a lot next year, the Ryan bill would weaken the already faltering economic recovery. Instead of fulfilling a promise to create more jobs, this plan will produce fewer jobs.

Facing grass-roots opposition, House Republicans in Washington now have retreated temporarily from the Medicare cuts, explaining that “the Senate won’t pass them.” Now House Republicans want a cap in overall federal spending. But what does a cap mean if you pass all the tax cuts Congressmen Ryan and Barletta favor? Deep cuts in Medicare that require the same kind of radical proposals to end Medicare as we know it.

So here’s the bottom line: If you sent Mr. Barletta to Washington to lower taxes for the wealthy, cut health care and education for the middle class, and slow the economy, then you’re getting your wish.

But if you sent him to Washington to create jobs and help the middle class, you need to tell him to change course.

A new direction must reduce the deficit and put our nation back on a responsible fiscal path, but only when unemployment drops to 5 percent and the economy is strong enough to absorb reduced government spending. A balanced approach also must include shared sacrifice, with higher, not lower, taxes on the rich.

Stephen Herzenberg is the executive director of the Keystone Research Center, Harrisburg. Visit keystoneresearch.org.