The New Republic, in an editorial, argues that conservatives’ demands for spending cuts hurt the poor–because the only spending cuts that are politically achievable are cuts to anti-poverty programs.

After Hurricane Katrina and the disaster spending that followed, House conservatives demanded even greater cuts–some $500 billion over ten years to such wide-ranging programs as federal highways and the National Endowment for the Arts. But, wouldn’t you know it, of the $40 billion in savings over five years finally approved last Wednesday, the vast majority of cuts affect the poor, who will face higher premiums, among other things. . . . [I]f it’s no mystery why the poor consistently lose out, it is perplexing why conservative intellectuals continue to abet this process. . . . Even honest conservatives seem unable to appreciate the practical effects of their one-note calls for spending restraint.

The editorial offers me as an example of an honest, but misguided, conservative. I had suggested an across-the-board cut in discretionary spending last fall, and that’s the kind of thing that, in TNR’s view, results in practice in cuts to antipoverty programs.

I appreciate the positive adjective, but disagree with TNR’s analysis. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation informs me that federal spending on antipoverty programs actually increased 39 percent between 2001 and 2005, and that antipoverty spending has reached a record proportion of the budget (16 percent). It has grown faster under Bush (8.6 percent a year) than it did under Clinton (5.6 percent). The number of people receiving food stamps has grown by 8 million, and the number covered by Medicaid by 10 million.

Riedl also suggests that the editorial exaggerates the savagery of the recent bill to save $40 billion. By his calculation, only 16 percent of the savings might affect the poor. The legislation gets $4.7 billion out of Medicaid, slowing its growth over the next five years from 41 percent to 40 percent. And it saves $1.5 billion by reducing federal match grants to states for child-support enforcement.

I’m not horrified by the idea of cuts in antipoverty programs (it would depend on the details), but they don’t seem to have been happening.