Poor hit hardest by Washington budget cuts

[sinkingfeeling]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/24/news/economy/sequester-poor/index.html?source=cnn_bin

Forced federal spending cuts intended to be equal and across-the-board have lately fallen harder on the nation's poor, sick and elderly.

At the other end, the top brass of federal employees are on track to receive bonuses. And workers who impact the food and airline businesses, like meat inspectors and air traffic controllers, have managed to get a break from Congress.

But underprivileged children waiting to attend preschool, low-income seniors who rely on regular breakfasts from the government and elderly cancer patients seeking chemotherapy are among the first to really feel the impact of $85 billion in forced spending cuts that kicked in on March 1.

"These are the things low income people need: Legal representation, health care, child care," said Professor Tim Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. "The more inequality grows, the more they'll need the exact programs we're cutting,"

"The idea that some of the highest paid federal government employees could be getting bonuses while others are being furloughed is outrageous," said McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, who has crafted a bill to end such bonuses while sequester is on.

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[BenzoDia]

2. Not surprising. It's always the poor that are hit the hardest.

I can't figure out why anyone thinks removing Government spending is a good thing for an ailing economy.