Wisconsin Republicans supported massive cuts that would harm Wisconsin families, workers, and seniors as they pushed toward a government shutdown last week
October 3, 2023
MADISON, Wis. – Although a government shutdown was averted, you may have missed that every Republican member of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation voted for an extreme plan on Friday that would have forced devastating cuts to programs including nutrition assistance, low income heating assistance, and access to health care.
While the bill failed to pass, Wisconsin’s congressional Republicans made it clear they are willing to stand by drastic cuts that hurt seniors, workers, and children in our state. Here are some of the major cuts that they voted to support on Friday:
Take food away from children, families, and seniors: House Republicans voted to slash nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children by 30 percent and remove Meals on Wheels access for more than 1 million seniors.
Threaten access to Social Security: The plan would’ve closed field offices and reduced staff, increasing wait times for applications and claim processing for Americans applying for disability benefits.
Decimate heating assistance programs as temperatures drop: As winter approaches, this plan would have cut funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by nearly 74 percent, threatening the ability of 5 million low-income households to afford heat.
Reduce health care in rural and underserved communities: By cutting funding from Community Health Centers, more than 2 million Americans would lose access to care, particularly in rural communities.
“Republicans like Congressman Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden would rather rip nutrition assistance away from women and children than ask big corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share – that’s not the representation Wisconsinites expect,” said Opportunity Wisconsin Program Director Meghan Roh. “Thankfully a government shutdown was avoided, but it’s time for Republicans in Congress to get serious about supporting working families and seniors. As long-term funding continues to be negotiated, it’s time for them to abandon extreme policies like the ones they voted for last week.”
New York Times: Right Wing Tanks Stopgap Bill in House, Pushing Government Toward a Shutdown
[. . .]
The measure put to a vote on Friday would keep the government open for 30 days and during that period impose drastic cuts — in many cases as much as 29 percent — to government programs, except for funding for veterans, homeland security and disaster response. It did not include any military or humanitarian aid for Ukraine, and it directed the homeland security secretary to resume “all activities related to the construction of the border wall” at the southern border that were in place under former President Donald J. Trump.
Democrats said the cuts to social programs included in the stopgap were so severe that they would amount to a “government shutdown in and of itself,” said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the senior Democrat on the Rules Committee. “It guts the heart and soul of our safety net.”
Mr. McCarthy’s allies defended the strategy of putting the doomed bill to a vote as a way to show the public that he tried to keep the government open but was foiled by a handful of his far-right members.
But the move also forced some of his most politically endangered members to go on the record supporting sharp cuts to popular social programs, and almost immediately after the vote on Friday, House Democrats’ campaign arm criticized them for supporting “a hyperpartisan continuing resolution that does absolutely nothing to avert a government shutdown.”
Representative Mike Lawler of New York, who is facing one of the toughest re-election races in the country, vented frustration at the 21 hard-liners who tanked the bill.
“The bottom line is there’s going to be a C.R. that gets passed,” Mr. Lawler said, using the shorthand for the continuing resolution. “And these folks, frankly, for the things that they advocate for and want — they’re going to be worse off as a result because they didn’t want to work as a conference.”
[. . .]
###
