Feds slicing aid to rape victims By Fran Hathaway, Palm Beach Post Editorial Writer Sunday, December 8, 2002 When politicians warn that "pressing needs" may require cutting money for social programs, it's often bluster designed to camouflage their real intent. This year, it's not, and that's scary. The reductions often are being done quietly -- no headlines, please -- so Americans won't know what services are suffering. For example, I didn't know that Congress stiffed the Children's Health Insurance Program until I read economist Paul Krugman's column in The New York Times. As a result, about 900,000 children will lose coverage over the next three years. And we were doing so well with that program. A cut we won't know about unless we're sexually assaulted pares money from rape crisis services. States have been told to prepare for a 15 percent reduction in money they usually receive from the federal Victims of Crimes Act. "We lost about $66,000 in VOCA money last year," says Mary Wilson, therapy coordinator for Palm Beach County Victim Services, "and expect to lose more next year. Yet we don't have enough services for rape victims now." In Palm Beach County, VOCA used to pay for five people who stand ready 24/7 to respond to rape victims. Now there are two. The three therapists, including Ms. Wilson, are not enough because the crimes are more monstrous. "I've been doing this work for 20 years," Ms. Wilson says, "and crimes today are much more vicious and heinous. Now, there may be every kind of victimization -- rape, domestic violence, maybe incest, all in the same family." Girls and women who have been raped -- the most victimized group is age 14 to the early 20s -- also require more time. "We may be at the hospital with a rape victim for seven hours," Ms. Wilson said, "while the exam is completed and all the other work done." Women who reject counseling at the time of the rape often realize afterward that they need it. Even years later, they get it, free, like all services. Some women don't know whether they're victims of sexual violence. A teenager called to say her father wants to shower with her and bathe her. A 75-year-old woman says her husband is taking Viagra and won't let her eat unless she has sex. Another woman says her husband insists on tying her up for sex; is that marital rape? Yes, they're all victims, Ms. Wilson says. Everyone has rights. Unlike some states, Florida provides no money for sexual assault services. In Palm Beach County, if it weren't for money from the county commission, local services would have to shut down. While Orlando has a comprehensive rape crisis center, a woman in Hernando or Pasco counties may wait weeks to see a counselor. In Pinellas County, more than 1,000 rapes were reported last year, yet the county has just two rape counselors. Ms. Wilson is envious of Broward County's excellent one-stop center, where victims receive all services in a comforting environment. "One of our dreams," she says, "is to serve women like abused children are served at Home Safe, where all services are available in one place." Next year, Florida advocates for rape victims plan to ask the Legislature for $4 million to ensure services in all 67 counties. In a bill proposed by Sen. Anna Cowin, R-Leesburg, however, the money would come from a fee imposed on convicted rapists. That's a tortured and probably impractical solution, but the state budget already is in the red. Sure it's hard times -- but for whom? If money's so tight, why did President Bush restore a program that gives large cash bonuses to political appointees? That's like rubbing salt in the wounds after he announced last week that federal workers' pay raises would be smaller than approved by Congress. And why couldn't the administration extend unemployment benefits, due to run out this month? Happy holidays to you, too. Then there's child care, crucial for poor women who want to work. Congress didn't reauthorize welfare-reform legislation before adjourning. When the new members of Congress convene next month, will they cut that program, too? Republican versions of the bill include far less money for child care than Democrats say is needed. Where you stand on "pressing needs" depends on where you sit.
If money's so tight, why did President Bush restore a program that gives large cash bonuses to political appointees? Because it's more fun to pay back friends than help pay for health insurance for kids.
Thanks rimrocker. Yet again, I am not surprised by this at all. It's nice to have all these articles because they put a little truth behind my assumptions.
Oh please. You smugly assume that there aren't programs that Dems would be cutting were they in charge. I've got news for you. Dems are rich guys too. They have rich friends. They get bought off too. This isn't a monopoly help by the Republicans. Interestingly enough...this is part of a budget that Dems in Congress had to sign off on to get it out of committee.
Oh please. You smugly assume that there aren't programs that Dems would be cutting were they in charge. I've got news for you. Dems are rich guys too. They have rich friends. They get bought off too. This isn't a monopoly help by the Republicans. Interestingly enough...this is part of a budget that Dems in Congress had to sign off on to get it out of committee. More of the "the others guys do it too" argument - I like the deflection. That's fine - when the Dems do it, point it out, and we'll criticize that too.
Are you suggesting that the budget cuts at issue weren't signed off on by Democratic lawmakers in deriving the Federal budget?
In the Senate perhaps. Budget matters are so screwed up it could have gotten into any bill without anyone except the author realizing it. It would be interesting to see how it went down. Still, in THIS case, Dems suspended extra payments to political appointees. Bush reinstated them. Also, on the VOCA money, I think it's the Admin. that can decide how the funds are ultimately distributed. Not sure though.
I doubt that. The committee is full of some pretty sharp people from both sides of the aisle. "One got past the goaltender" isn't going to give them even polausible deniability. That's the one point where I look at it and say..."you got me." I can't rationalize that one at all. I don't think that's the way that works. The President isn't given billions in a discretionary fund and told to spend as he sees fit. The budgets are written in minute detail.
Are you suggesting that the budget cuts at issue weren't signed off on by Democratic lawmakers in deriving the Federal budget? I'm sure they were. I'm also sure it would be political suicide to aggressively challenge and hold up a Bush budget over a relatively minor expenditure during a time of war / terrorism when there needs to be consistent funds available. That would pretty much assure the inability of the Democratic Party to accomplish anything that it values for the next several years. I also know that these actions were Republican-initiated and Republican-supported. If I'm going to pick a party to blame here, yeah, I'll pick the Republicans.
The committee gets together and they figure out which expenditures to cut. During the Clinton years it was the military (many enlisted men were on food stamps)...now it is going to be something else. My guess is that both sides decided on things they thought wouldn't get a ton of scrutiny. Not being privy to the legislative history we'll never know for sure though.
Smug??? Ok, whatever. You didn't even ask what my assumptions were. Well I'll tell you anyway. I blame this cut not on Republicans being callous or something like that, but the lack of money in the budget due to the tax cuts. I don't think anybody would cut money to a program like that without reason. Anyways, how we got to this point, I don't know, but it probably wouldn't be a stretch to hear you say Clinton was somehow responsible.
First off...sorry that I read something into your post that you didn't intend. Now to the substance of your reply. I don't blame Clinton for any program being cut in 2002. I blame Clinton only for cutting the military as much as it was during his tenure as President. People want to blame the tax cut for various ills. That's strange. The recession is a large part of why government resources are down. Sure the tax cut means less money coming in, but a lot of the shrtfall results from so many more people being out of work with little to no taxable income. Walter Williams, a professor of economics at George Mason University said tonight in an interview with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes that he believes tax cuts are the place to start to right the economy. (I am ordering an electronic transcript) You can read Professor Williams' bio by clicking the link below. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/facultybios/will.htm
I look forward to reading that. Obviously, this guy knows more about the economy than I ever will, but my own personal opinion is that they don't help, at least not with our current situations. Money needs to be spent for an economy to be booming, but that's only half the equation. People need something to spend on and right now people are hesitant to invest and there isn't an innovative business out there that is jumpstarting a new market like in the 90's. When people are employed and making money, they have extra cash to spend during the course of the year. With a rebate, you just get something back and you either save it, use it to pay bills, or you spend it and you spend once. I don't see how that helps. I just don't see the tax cut really being the answer, so why bother. It's not the only reason for there being budget shortfalls, but it's not like tax cuts have nothing to do with there being less money. That leads to the unfortunate cutting of programs that do help people. Clinton's military cuts, well I'd like to see what exactly was cut. It's a new military you know, isn't it quite possible that the cuts went into getting rid of things we don't or hardly use anymore? We don't need huge battalions of tanks, artillary, fighter planes, bombers, and other conventional weapons if we don't use them anymore. Take a plane like the F-18, it pretty much does everything. Let's just do some crude numbers here. Previous time, you needed 5 fighers(F-14) and five bombers(A-6 intruder). Now, you can get by with something like 7 or 8 hornets. You save money on less planes. Of course, the automation of so many weapons also leads to the shrinking of the military if you've got cruise missles and other self guided weapons. Anyways, the military always grows when it needs to. Look at the world wars.
"Compassionate Conservatism" is nothing more than a catch-phrase that helped get #43 selected. It means absolutely nothing, as the pResident's actions are clearly demonstrating.
Rimrocker, your article is an editorial from one of the most staunchly Democrat papers in the country. Democrats have a history of lying about the intent of Republican changes in federal spending. In 1995, Republicans moved all Federal money for school lunch programs to state control, and the net result was an increase in available dollars for school lunches around the nation. The Democrat response, of course, was the charge that Republicans were cutting school lunch programs and starving children.
t2390234u2o4uo2u4owour - you make a good point. i'm reading this article not knowing whether or not i'm being told half-truths or not. just because you cut a program doesn't mean you're leaving people high and dry everytime.
You're completely right that rebates don't work, but you should realize why rebates were included in the enacted tax cut package. Those rebates were not part of the original Bush package, they were part of the proposed package brought forth by the Dems in Congress. In order to draw enough support for the tax cuts, the Bush Administration had to compromise with the Dems on this one and brought in the rebates into the plan. Everyone knows rebates are worthless, but it was part of the politicking required to get the bill passed. So dont blaim Bush on the rebates, blaim the Dems in Congress for requiring it to be part of the tax cut.
Well, now I'm confused because every Republican I have ever talked to was pretty damn happy about getting a rebate. Anybody have a link to the original proposal and the one that actually passed? Didn't Bush say during his campaign that the surplus belonged to the people and it should be given back? How do you give that money back without it being a rebate? Isn't that one of the reasons people voted for Bush, they were expecting a check in the mail if he won?
You can give part of the surplus back in the dollowing manner... Suppose a one dollar surplus. If you cut taxes the next year, but hold spending constant...at the end of the next year the surplus is $0.75. Thus 25% of the surplus was "given back."
