« Jobs Program? | Main | Is the Slowdown in the Recovery Temporary? »

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Proposed Cuts to the WIC Nutrition Program Bassed Upon False Information

Apparently, some members of Congress think the phrase "women and children first" applies to budget cuts. Even worse, the proposed cuts are based upon false information:

Ill-Informed Claim Does Not Justify WIC Cuts, CBPP: The House is scheduled to vote today on a measure to slash funding for the WIC nutrition program, which (as we have shown) would force the program to turn away at least 200,000 to 350,000 eligible low-income women and children next year.  The Appropriations Committee approved this unprecedented cut last month, in part based on the claim that more than 40 percent of WIC costs go to program administration.  But this claim is flatly false, as our new paper shows.
In reality, only about 9 percent of federal funds for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) go to administrative costs, and these costs represent only about 6 percent of the program’s total cost.. In deriving the 40 percent figure, the Committee apparently misunderstood a finding in a federal Agriculture Department (USDA) report...
The proposed funding cuts for WIC are unprecedented.  Since 1997, Congress — on a bipartisan basis — has provided sufficient funding each year for WIC to serve all eligible low-income pregnant and breastfeeding women, infants, and young children at nutritional risk who apply.  False claims regarding WIC administrative costs are no justification for breaking that 14-year commitment.

It's definitely more important to cut nutrition funding for 200,000 to 350,000 children than to, say, cut back on defense spending. Or raise taxes on the wealthy, run a temporary deficit, or just about anything else. And if there are real administration problems with a program like WIC instead of phantom, imaginary problems as in this case, we should make children pay the cost instead of firing administrators and then trying to fix the administrative problems. Let's hope the vote on this fails.

    Posted by on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 10:08 AM in Economics, Social Insurance | Permalink  Comments (24)


    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.