Page 23


WAS HiNGT SOrEtiMES 1T SEEMED AS IF, tHE wHoLe CouNTRI W4S EATING RIGHT OUT of His HAND.. N QD If HE 15, IT MUST BE A VERY NICE WAR! RELAX! FORGET, ABOUT 1-f’. DON’T You REALIZE THIS PRESIDENTIS TRYING To MAKE YOU HAPPY?! sa…r4:11 AND iSIft HE SUPPORTING SoME UNPOPULAR ARYtY I N A SECRET WAR?… VVcisnt tHERE Some PLACE calle.d…”CehtRAL ArrERICA”?… I’m TRYING TO! But +.\\ER SonEPLAcE CALLED LEBANON, AND SOMETHING CALLED A”CoLD WAk’cvn-cl AN pknS evrut p –mpNve DEFICIT.?. 0? 2–vslikv ALv 21k. SNI*IL-1 IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HIS PoSITIoNS ARE ! HE SHIFTS ARouND ALL THE TIME! WHATMATTERS 19 LETTING GOISURRENDER/NG To THE Row OF HIS F’Rsol\\/AL WARMTH! AND FORGETTING. 0 N -r U .5 7 pulled together by the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: 4 . . . We are aiding more people and spending more money in those [means-tested] programs than has ever been spent in history,” Reagan assured reporters at his press conference on July 24 of this year. In fact, data from the Congressional Budget Office shows that spending for low-income programs, adjusted for inflation and unemployment, has been reduced by over $16 billion, or onesixth, from 1981 to ’84. Nearly three *million fewer children eat school lunches, and 500,000 fewer get school breakfasts. There are fewer welfare beneficiaries, fewer mothers and children who receive health services at community health centers, fewer lowincome mothers provided with day care, and on and on. “Our tax policies have been more beneficial to [people at the lower end of the earning scale] than to anyone else,” Reagan told a press conference on June 14. This is not true. A family of four living on the poverty line paid $462 in federal payroll taxes in 1980. Today the same family pays $1079. Real tax burdens for families on the poverty line have nearly doubled over the last four years, rising from 5.5 percent of income in 1980 to 10.1 percent in 1984. Reagan claims his tax policies favor the poor. “And, granted, that blacks in this country had a higher rate of unemployment than whites by the time of the recession. Their rate of recovery is faster than the rate of recovery for whites,” Reagan told reporters June 14. Actually the rate of recovery for blacks has been slower than the rate of recovery for whites. Since the bottom of the recession in November 1982, black unemployment has dropped from 20.5 percent to 15 percent. White unemployment declined from 9.6 percent to 6.1 percent. The gap between black and white employment has of course widened under Reagan. When Reagan took office black unemployment stood at 14.4 percent; white unemployment, at 6.7 percent. Today white unemployment is 6.1 percent; black unemployment, 15 percent. “. . . We probably eliminated 850,000 people from food stamps. But we increased the number of people 1 ,iiho were getting food stamps because we transferred this from people who were at a higher level,” Reagan said at his June 14 press conference. The suggestion that the administration transferred a substantial amount from funds taken from food stamp recipients at a higher level to expand benefits for poorer recipients is false. The poorer families had their benefits cut too. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the removal of 850,000 persons from the food stamp program accounted for less than one-tenth of the $2 billion in cuts during the current fiscal year. At least two-thirds of that figure came from reducing benefits to poor families. 1984 Ma r k Ala n Stama ty. Rep r in te d w it h p e rm iss ion o f t he ar t is t. You KNOW WHO HE REMINDS oF?…THERE WAS SOME GUY ABovi FOUR N/EARS AGo WHO USED TO SAY HE COULD BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET SY 19g 1+ SHUT UP!! THE TEXAS OBSERVER f Ii gaidgt.