Tag Archives: Economic Policy Institute

We need a budget that works for all of us …


You may have seen in the news recently how GE¹—like many other multinational corporations—is getting away with paying zero taxes, even though it raked in $26 billion in record profits.

Unbelievable, right? Well it’s only going to get worse—if we don’t stop it.

http://afl.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=yHzrr33xgU1Ywr6ssSyVENJtMUMH5SJ%2B&url=http%3A%2F%2Faction.afscme.org%2Fc%2F51%2Fp%2Fdia%2Faction%2Fpublic%2F%3Faction_KEY%3D1882%26amp%3Btag%3DAdvE_201104_BackToFuture_blast-32792%26amp%3Btrack%3DAdvE_201104_BackToFuture_blast-32792%26amp%3Butm_source%3Dblast-32792%26amp%3Butm_medium%3Demail%26amp%3Butm_campaign%3D BackToFuture

This week, House leadership released a budget that is an extreme version of old policies to hand more tax breaks to millionaires and corporations—while putting all the sacrifice on the backs of working people. This back to the future budget would radically undermine the economic security of America’s middle class.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, “House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s fiscal year 2012 budget resolution would undermine the modern social safety net, reversing the gains America has made in health and economic opportunity. This resolution would deny millions of middle-and low-income households access to the American Dream.”

Please click here to tell your representative NO to going back to the future. It’s time to move forward with a budget that works for everyone.

http://afl.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=yHzrr33xgU1Ywr6ssSyVENJtMUMH5SJ%2B&url=http%3A%2F%2Faction.afscme.org%2Fc%2F51%2Fp%2Fdia%2Faction%2Fpublic%2F%3Faction_KEY%3D1882%26amp%3Btag%3DAdvE_201104_BackToFuture_blast-32792%26amp%3Btrack%3DAdvE_201104_BackToFuture_blast-32792%26amp%3Butm_source%3Dblast-32792%26amp%3Butm_medium%3Demail%26amp%3Butm_campaign%3D BackToFuture

Many vital public services and programs are targeted for near destruction by Ryan:

The budget would end the guaranteed benefits of Medicare that seniors and the disabled depend on. Medicare would be replaced with a voucher that would be paid to insurance companies. The plan is designed to shift more costs onto seniors while giving insurance companies more control.

The budget would slash support for seniors and the disabled in nursing homes by cutting Medicaid by nearly $800 billion over ten years.

This budget even lays out a plan for making future cuts to Social Security.

These leaders in Congress are so committed to protecting tax breaks for their corporate donors, that they are about to shut down the federal government rather than compromise. Instead, they are demanding a budget that would destroy public services, jobs, K-12 schools, public safety and more.

Enough. Please take a moment to send a message to your member of Congress now. Click here. http://afl.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zFp8q5VhdL9DKRZe1iPYHtJtMUMH5SJ%2B&url=http%3A%2F%2Faction.afscme.org%2Fc%2F51%2Fp%2Fdia%2Faction%2Fpublic%2F%3Faction_KEY%3D1882%26amp%3Btag%3DAdvE_201104_BackToFuture_blast-32792%26amp%3Btrack%3DAdvE_201104_BackToFuture_blast-32792%26amp%3Butm_source%3Dblast-32792%26amp%3Butm_medium%3Demail%26amp%3Butm_campaign%3D BackToFuture

Thanks for all you do, 

Chuck Loveless

Legislative Director

AFSCME

Budget: ‘Invest and Grow’ vs. ‘Slash and Burn’


The Obama administration released its fiscal year 2012 budget yesterday, even as Congress continues to grapple with funding for the remainder of the fiscal 2011 year (which ends in October). The $3.7 trillion budget makes key investments in infrastructure, scientific research, education, and job creation, while still reducing the deficit in the medium term and stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio, two key steps to getting the long-term structural deficit under control. “Even as we cut out things that we can afford to do without, we have a responsibility to invest in those areas that will have the biggest impact in our future,” President Obama said in a speech yesterday. Of course, Republicans in Congress immediately criticized the administration for not proposing enough in the way of budget cuts, claiming that the lack of cuts will result in job losses. “It’s going to destroy jobs because it spends too much, it borrows too much, and it increases the deficit,” Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. But at the same time that they’re falsely accusing the administration of crafting budget policies that will cause unemployment to rise, House Republicans have proposed a deeply irresponsible spending plan for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 that, if enacted, would result in deep cuts to vital and popular programs that promote competitiveness and job creation, while simultaneously harming some of the nation’s most vulnerable residents.

KEY INVESTMENTS: As Center for American Progress economist Adam Hersh wrote, “If there is one point on which all economists can agree, it is that investment — in infrastructure, in research and innovation, and worker productivity — is the foundation for economic growth.” To that end, the Obama administration included in its budget proposal $556 billion for a six-year surface transportation authorization. The administration proposed $8 billion next year to invest in passenger and high-speed rail and $30 billion for a National Infrastructure Bank. The infrastructure funding drew the support of the National League of Cities, but even with those spending boosts, the nation would still be far short of fulfilling what the Army Corps of Engineers has assessed as roughly $2.2 trillion in infrastructure needs. The administration’s proposed budget would also include $8 billion “to boost electric cars, wind and solar power, [and] clean-energy manufacturing,” as well as $200 million in subsidies for energy efficiency and renewable energy loan guarantees. In the education realm, the Obama administration proposed a new round of the Race To The Top program — this time making competitive grants for education reform available to individual districts, instead of entire states — while increasing money for special education, school turnaround grants, and early intervention services for toddlers with disabilities. The budget also preserves the maximum Pell Grant, as well as the Teacher Incentive Fund and the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants. “The administration’s budget generally reflects the principle that we cannot out compete the rest of the world if we are leaving one-third of our citizens behind,” CAP’s Half in Ten manager Melissa Boteach noted. However, the proposed budget also includes some disappointing cuts, reducing both the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance and Community Services Block Grant by 50 percent. “These services both stabilize families in crisis and provide a pathway to long-term economic security,” Boteach wrote.

RESPONSIBLE DEFICIT REDUCTION: The release of the budget resulted in a predictable outcry from self-styled deficit hawks, who moaned that the administration did not attempt to reduce the deficit even more drastically than it did. “Regrettably, this budget keeps our nation on a reckless fiscal path, representing more unaffordable debt and spending,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The budget also received fire from Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), who said we need “a much more robust package of deficit and debt reduction over the medium and long term.” Alice Rivlin, a member of the now-completed Presidential deficit commission, claimed, “I would have preferred to see the administration get out front on addressing the entitlements and the tax reform that we need to reduce long-run deficits.” However, the President’s budget does responsibly reduce the deficit. As Center for American Progress Associate Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden wrote, “The President’s budget goes exactly as far as it should, showing deficits declining from a high of 10.9 percent of GDP down to 3.2 percent of GDP by 2015.” “His deficit reduction eases in to allow the economic recovery to get more momentum before the deficit-cutting measures start to bite. And, although there are lots of spending cuts, there are lots of investments in the economy that can produce returns in job creation and economic growth,” added CAP Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger. Even so, the administration left some big fish on the table in terms of possible deficit reduction, including plenty of wasteful tax expenditures and the bloated defense budget (from which the administration only suggested $78 billion in savings over five years, which only slows DOD’s rate of growth).

GOP‘S SLASH AND BURN: As the President rolls out his budget, House Republicans are using their new majority to try to cut spending for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year. (Currently, the government is operating under a continuing resolution that keeps funding consistent at the 2010 level.) After initially releasing roughly $30 billion in cuts (below the fiscal 2010 level), House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) was forced to go back and find further reductions after a revolt from members of his own party. The roughly $60 billion in savings that the GOP found, on its second attempt, would severely undermine job creation — causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs even as unemployment is at 9 percent — while also cutting vital and popular programs. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the GOP’s first round of proposed budget cuts alone would cause the loss of 600,000 jobs. With their proposed cuts, House Republicans take aim at everything from Pell Grants and special education funding to WIC, which provides nutrition assistance for infants and low-income pregnant women, and other programs benefiting women and children. They also proposed cutting half of federal job training programs, more than one billion from community health centers (which they used to call “essential”), and slashing clean-tech and energy investments by nearly 30 percent, “devastating this growing but immature industry that struggled during the Great Recession.” Programs that they propose completely eliminating range from investments in high-speed rail and weatherization assistance to assistance for homeless veterans. Finally, at the same time that some Republicans decided to criticize the President for not reducing the deficit fast enough, they proposed new, unfinanced tax cuts that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

CONGRESS: Ryan’s Radical Vision


Republicans announced last Friday that Rep. Paul Ryan (WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee, will deliver the GOP‘s response to President Obama’s State of the Union address tomorrow. According to reports, GOP leaders chose Ryan because he is supposedly a “champion of slashing government spending.” The seven-term Wisconsin congressman gives Republicans a “chance to emphasize their core message: government spending must come down to reduce the nation’s annual deficit and long-term debt.” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said Ryan — who has been given “stunning and unprecedented” power to shape the budget — is “uniquely qualified to address the state of our economy and the fiscal challenges that face our country.” Ryan is known as the GOP’s numbers guy in the House, and he laid out last year what he calls a “Roadmap” to fiscal health. But as the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein notes, “The more they elevate Ryan, the more they elevate Ryan’s Roadmap. And that document is a timebomb for them.”

PRIVATIZING ENTITLEMENTS: Ryan’s Roadmap puts Americans on the path of privatizing entitlement programs, such as Social Security. The plan boasts about “the creation of personal investment accounts for future retirees” that are “the property of the individual.” (Emphasis in the original document). “Individuals will be able to join the investor class for the first time,” the Roadmap says. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes that “the Ryan plan proposes large cuts in Social Security benefits — roughly 16 percent for the average new retiree in 2050 and 28 percent in 2080 from price indexing alone.” It “initially diverts most of these savings to help fund private accounts rather than to restore Social Security solvency.” CBPP also notes that the Roadmap “would eliminate traditional Medicare, most of Medicaid, and all of the Children’s Health Insurance Program” by creating a private voucher system that won’t keep up with the cost of health care. By 2080, under Ryan’s plan, the Medicare program would be reduced by nearly 80 percent below its projected size under current policies. CBPP summed up Ryan’s plan: The Roadmap’s cuts “would be so severe that CBO estimates they would shrink total federal expenditures (other than on interest payments) from roughly 19 percent of GDP in recent years to just 13.8 percent of GDP by 2080. Federal spending has not equaled such a low level of GDP since 1950, when Medicare and Medicaid did not yet exist, Social Security failed to cover many workers, and close to half of the elderly people in the United States lived below the poverty line.”

MIDDLE CLASS TAX INCREASES: Citizens for Tax Justice found that Ryan’s Roadmap would raise taxes on 90 percent of taxpayers and drastically lower them for the richest Americans. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently reported that the rates for the middle class would be higher than those for the rich under Ryan’s plan. “Middle-class families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year would see their average tax rate jump to 19.1% (from 17.7%) under this plan — an increase of $900 on average,” EPI says, while at the same time, “Millionaires would see their average tax rate drop to 12.8%, less than half of what they would pay relative to current policy.” As EPI’s Andrew Fieldhouse concluded, under the Roadmap, “a long tradition of progressive taxation would be abandoned; millionaires and Wall Street bankers would pay significantly lower tax rates than middle-class workers. … Income inequality would soar.” In another giveaway to the rich, the Roadmap calls for a total repeal of the estate and corporate taxes and would introduce a national sales tax. Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) said this idea “would eat up a much larger percentage of total income for poor and middle-class families than wealthy families” because the former “spend most or all of their income on consumption,” while “high-income families are able to save much more of their income.” Ryan’s plan claims federal tax revenue will be 19 percent of GDP, but the Tax Policy Center found last year that his proposal would only bring in “approximately 16 percent of GDP, which amounts to a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over ten years.”

LESS REVENUE, MORE DEBT: Despite raising taxes on 90 percent of Americans, the federal government will lose $2 trillion in revenues over the next 10 years under Ryan’s plan, according to CTJ. “It’s difficult to design a tax plan that will lose $2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more. But Congressman Ryan has met that daunting challenge,” CTJ wrote. Looking at the most optimistic figures, the Roadmap won’t balance the budget until at least 2063 and it won’t reduce federal debt for decades, exceeding 100 percent of GDP before starting to come down. While proposing drastic cuts to entitlement programs, Ryan said he wants to reduce discretionary spending — which includes such expenditures as education, homeland security and other defense spending — but he has no idea what programs to cut. “I can’t tell you the answer to that,” he said earlier this month. However, anticipating the plan’s unpopularity, GOP leadership isn’t publicly embracing Ryan’s plan but at the same time, it appears willing to allow it to go forward. During the midterm election campaign, the GOP dropped Ryan’s Roadmap from its “Pledge to America” scheme and as the conservative National Review noted last week, “praise for the Wisconsin Republican comes easy and often, full-scale endorsement of the roadmap less so.” But while Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said last week that he supports only “elements” of the plan, he said yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press that “we need to embrace” its direction. And last year, Boehner wouldn’t endorse the Roadmap, but at the same time couldn’t name any specific part he disagreed with. But if Boehner dislikes Ryan’s plan so much, it’s unclear why he made him chairman of the House Budget Committee and gave him new and unprecedented powers to unilaterally set spending limits instead of subjecting those limits to a vote on the House floor. Speaking of Ryan’s new power, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said, “Unfortunately, the House GOP is reverting back to the same arrogant governing style they implemented when they last held the majority and turned a surplus into a huge deficit.”