Bah, humbug!

Anticipating the joys of Christmas, Christians and perhaps many others turn their thoughts to the traditional pleasures of the season: to astonishment that the Lord of all creation was once a babe in a manger; to family reunions and reminiscences; to gift giving and receiving; and especially to the excited presence of children around the tree. From these familiar expectations, we should turn with a similar measure of generosity and warmth to our neighbors and to those less well-off. Yet in that regard, it is likely that the immemorial phrase "there was no place for them in the inn" will carry a deep resonance this year.

As we write, Congress and President Bill Clinton bicker and barter over a budget the Republican majority correctly calls "revolutionary" and the president correctly considers extreme and unfair. Most Americans have yet to come fully to terms with its likely consequences. A consensus exists for balancing the federal budget, reforming welfare, and restraining the growth of government. Still, no workable political consensus has emerged behind the Republican proposal to balance the budget in seven years by cutting an astounding $1 trillion from projected spending. Republicans deserve credit for trying to restrain the rate of growth in entitlements, especially Medicare. Demagoguery is not too strong a word to describe the Democrats' approach to the threat of Medicare cuts. But the Republicans' overall budget, and especially its unnecessary $248 billion tax cut, is being driven by steep cuts in welfare, Medicaid, and other programs benefiting the poor. In other words, the burden of balancing the federal budget has been placed disproportionately on the backs of society's most vulnerable. There really is no place for them' in the inn, as far as the self-proclaimed Republican "revolutionaries" are concerned, except possibly as stablehands or livestock.

At its annual meeting in November, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops spoke forcefully and in a nonpartisan way about the excesses of the Republican budget as well as the "dangerous blame game" at work in the popular rhetorical assault on the poor. "We believe these debates have fundamental moral dimensions and human consequences," Cardinal William Keeler wrote on behalf of the bishops. "In the welfare, tax, and budget debates, our conference believes that the nation should put poor children and families first .... Fiscal restraint and eliminating deficits are necessary, but the weakest members of our society should not bear the greatest burdens" (Origins, November 23).

Fair-minded people disagree about welfare reform, the role of the federal government, and the shape of the tax system. But any dispassionate evaluation of the Republican budget reveals a plan weighted heavily to benefit the well-to-do and almost heedlessly cavalier about the likely impact on the poor of shredding an already porous safety net. While spending on the poor makes up roughly 12 percent of the federal budget, those programs will absorb $300 billion, or one-third, of the proposed spending cuts. The cuts include a reduction in the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program designed to keep working people off welfare, one that even Ronald Reagan touted. Drastic cuts in Medicaid and the food stamp program and the abandonment of minimum national standards for welfare benefits are not likely to be made up for by tax-phobic state governments.

The GOP's $248 billion tax cut is not needed to stimulate the economy; without it the stock market is breaking all records. It has nothing to do with fairness; despite denials, the benefits derived from reductions in capital gains and inheritance taxes would go to wealthier Americans. Even the proposed $500 tax credit for children will not benefit the poorest one-third of American children whose parents don't make enough money to pay taxes.

Should the federal budget be balanced in seven years? Opinions vary. Whatever the truth about the dangers of federal deficit-spending, the American people clearly want it stopped. Fair enough. What is not fair is a budget that compels the largely unrepresented poor to suffer while more secure Americans sacrifice little or nothing.

As the bishops warned, the highly politicized "blame game" that stigmatizes the poor and thereby justifies their neglect is dangerous, inhumane, and unworthy of a great democracy. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) provided yet another example of the malign influence of such thinking when he blamed the "welfare state" and the "Left" (does it still exist?) for a depraved series of killings last month in Illinois. With enormous dignity, the family of the pregnant welfare mother who had been so brutally killed, implored Gingrich not to exploit their tragedy for political gain. All of us should say Amen to that plea, especially as we give thanks for the birth of a redeemer who was both poor and a scapegoat for the powerful.