When we look at the poor, we have to be careful how we define that. In Wisconsin, it's not just an arbitrary line based on income. This definition comes from the
Wisconsin Poverty Report 2009.
"The WPM takes a broader view of resources than the official measure, incorporating not only pre-tax cash income, but also the estimated value of other federal and state resources to offset need. It also looks at expenses that reduce income that could be spent on food, housing, and other basic needs, such as child
care and transportation for going to work. The new WPM allows Wisconsinites to see how poverty is affected not only by federal programs but also by their own programs (e.g., the state Earned Income Tax Credit, BadgerCare health insurance, SNAP (FoodShare), Wisconsin Shares child care subsidies, and the Homestead Tax Credit). Our WPM incorporates many elements of the new Supplemental Poverty
Measure currently under development at the federal level, while also taking into account Wisconsin’s own policies and priorities and state-specific costs of living."
So, by this definition, there are a lot more people that could qualify as "poor," even though they have an income that would be above the poverty line. As a very specific, but common example; a family of 4 with one child that has special needs - such as a developmental disability or autism - may have expenditures that stress a budget that might be considered above the poverty line, and thus subject to state and federal taxes. These people are going to be severely hurt without these child tax credits. How high of a tax
increase would that $56 million required? I have a good friend who works 70 hours a week for Habitat for Humanity: He and his wife live in a 1200sq ft house that they bought for $68,000, and she stays at home to raise their two boys, because any full-time job that she got wouldn't pay much more than the cost of child care, but it would bump them into a higher tax bracket, and it would require them to spend more money on gas and vehicle expenses. They rely on BadgerCare because Habitat isn't able to provide good health insurance, and now they're in danger of losing
that under this budget. My Grandmother is 83 years old, and can't work because of crippling rheumatoid arthritis that has basically fused her knee joints. She's got high blood pressure and heart disease, and is under constant threat from blood clots. She lives in a tiny assisted-living facility with assistance from the state that keeps her out of a nursing home. Now, with the double-whammy of increased co-pays on her medication and treatment, along with the loss of money that helps keep her out of a nursing home (which is proven to lower your quality and length of life)
she's under more stress, which is great for someone with a bad ticker. Are the corporate interests receiving tax breaks and incentives going to help her out?
We're bleeding people who cannot afford to lose the money in order to spare other people the inconvenience of having to skip a couple of date nights a month. Like I said before: I understand that we're going to have to sacrifice some in order to get our finances in order. We've effectively cut public workers' wages, along with eliminating their collective bargaining ability, we've stripped funding from our public schools (along with preventing districts from raising local taxes in order to soften the blow), and now we're passing a budget that places extra financial hardship on the people who are least equipped to handle it.
HOW THE FUCK IS THE UPPER CLASS OR CORPORATE INTEREST SUFFERING RIGHT NOW? WHEN THE FUCK ARE THEY PLANNING TO PITCH IN AND HELP OUT? BEFORE OR AFTER MY GRANDMOTHER FUCKING DIES?