The Politics.  The President’s budget includes $166 billion in job creation initiatives, investing in infrastructure improvements, clean energy, and a comprehensive re-building approach in 20 poor communities.  It commits modest funding towards all levels of education in addition to the early childhood initiative.  But by using the budget as a platform to put forward a deficit reduction offer already made to Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and rejected by him, it makes cuts in Social Security strongly opposed by most Democrats and raises less revenue than the Senate budget plan.  As a gambit to demonstrate his willingness to compromise and to smoke out Republican unwillingness, the budget seems to have worked.  Pundits praised the elements of compromise and Republicans scrambled away from previous support for the Social Security change in order to stay firmly opposed to the President.  (Last December, Bloomberg News reported that Speaker Boehner was “pressing harder for the CPI revision than for other entitlement changes…”  Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) was looking for higher Medicare premiums for upper-income retirees, raising the age to become eligible for Medicare, and reducing Social Security benefits by shrinking the adjustment for inflation (the “chained CPI”) in order to consider new revenue last winter.)  But although the President included the reduced inflation adjustment and higher Medicare payments for upper-income retirees, his budget was rejected out of hand by the Republican leaders.

The President has said that he will only agree to cut Social Security as part of an overall deal that increases revenues and includes some economic investments.  But many strong advocates for Social Security and other vital safety net programs strongly oppose the Social Security cut under any circumstances.  Even those who could imagine it as part of a plan with healthy doses of revenue and job creation are worried now that the Social Security cut will find its way into a far less helpful budget plan.

The Math.  The President proposes $3.78 trillion in spending and $3.03 trillion in receipts for FY 2014, leaving a deficit of $744 billion, down from a deficit of $973 billion this year.  The deficit will decline from 6 percent of GDP now, to 4 percent in FY 2014, and down to 1.7 percent of GDP in 2023.

Revenues.  The budget includes $583 billion in revenue increases over 10 years from limiting high-income deductions to 28 percent and from increasing taxes on millionaires.  It adds another $100 billion in revenues from the chained CPI proposal’s effects on tax payments, and adds $78 billion in tobacco taxes to pay for the early childhood initiative.  In a move disappointing to many human needs advocates, the President’s budget lists a large number of corporate tax loophole-closings, but holds them in reserve to pay for an unspecified reduction in corporate tax rates.  Advocates are seeking a net increase in revenues from any corporate tax reform agreement, but the President would make reform revenue-neutral.

Spending Overview:  The President’s budget would replace the multi-year cuts that started this year with sequestration with the new revenue, plus about $400 billion in health care savings (largely Medicare), $130 billion from spending cuts due to the chained CPI reduced inflation adjustment, another $200 billion in savings in other mandatory programs (such as farm subsidies), and $200 billion in appropriations cuts, split evenly between the Pentagon and other programs.  By reducing the deficit, interest payments will decline by $210 billion over the same 10-year period.  Together, the revenues and spending cuts will reduce the deficit by $1.8 trillion.  The Administration estimates prior deficit reduction at $2.5 trillion; adding in his new budget proposal, deficit reduction would total $4.3 trillion over 10 years.

Budget Comparisons:  The President’s budget raises less revenue than the Senate’s $975 billion from progressive sources over 10 years.  The President’s plan cuts mandatory spending more ($600 billion in health care and other savings); the Senate’s mandatory savings total $350 billion.  The President cuts discretionary spending (appropriations) less than the Senate.  The Senate cuts $240 billion from the Pentagon, compared with $100 billion in the President’s budget.  The Senate cuts domestic and international appropriations by $142 billion, compared with the President’s $100 billion.

The Administration’s and Senate’s plans both differ starkly from the House budget, which includes no net revenue increases, and cuts spending by about $5 trillion, plus another $700 billion in interest savings.  The Pentagon is not cut.  About two-thirds of the cuts affect low-income programs, including deep cuts in Medicaid and SNAP/food stamps.  (For more details about the House and Senate budgets see the March 18 Human Needs Report.)

Details on Low-Income Programs in the President’s Budget:

Early Childhood:   The $75 billion 10-year Preschool for All proposal to ensure that every low- and moderate-income four year old gets pre-kindergarten education is joined by $1.4 billion next year for Early Head Start and child care partnerships to increase high quality early learning programs for infants and toddlers through age three.  Further supporting young families, the budget would expand voluntary home visiting services for families with newborns, with $15 billion over ten years, starting in FY 2015.

Aid to Poor Communities:  The President’s budget attempts a comprehensive approach, putting together resources from multiple government agencies to attack both the causes and toxic by-products of poverty.  It would create 20 Promise Zones, coordinating housing, education, anti-violence, and other economic development initiatives.  The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative would provide $400 million to improve distressed HUD-assisted housing in very poor communities (up from $120 million this year).  Homelessness Assistance Grants are increased by about $350 million, not counting the extra across-the-board cuts now being made.  Apart from the early childhood education expansions, there are initiatives to improve high schools and to invest in community colleges, both targeted to low-income community needs.  Related to the Administration’s push to reduce gun violence, the budget includes $160 million in new funds for Project AWARE, providing for more trained mental health providers able to work with children and youth in school, as well as more public safety support in poor communities.

The budget repeats the President’s $12.5 billion Pathways Back to Work proposal, which would fund summer and year-round jobs and training for low-income youth and provide subsidized jobs and training for the long-term unemployed.  This initiative was part of the President’s unsuccessful American Jobs Act proposal last year.  In part, it builds on the success of subsidized jobs funded through a now-expired Temporary Assistance for Needy Families emergency fund, in which hundreds of thousands of temporary jobs were created.

There are broader job creation initiatives, with funding to rebuild infrastructure, invest in clean energy, and create manufacturing hubs.  These are not specially targeted to help the poor, but overall efforts to create jobs will be a help, especially if the Administration connects job training for low-income workers to these new plans.

Reverses SNAP Cuts:  Millions of poor people are now facing a reduction in SNAP/food stamp benefits scheduled to start in November.  The President’s budget would cancel that loss in food assistance, estimated to cost a family of three $20-$25 a month.  In another critical area where the budget at least partially reverses cuts to low-income programs, rental housing vouchers for low-income families are increased by more than $1 billion.  The automatic cuts now in effect could reduce the number of vouchers going to low-income families by 140,000, out of 2.2 million households now benefiting from this form of housing assistance.  The President’s budget would end these cuts.

Makes Low-Income Tax Credits Permanent:  While the last deficit reduction deal made the Bush tax cuts permanent for all but the richest 1 percent, the low-income tax credits were only extended for five years.  The Obama budget makes the current levels permanent for the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit (the latter for college students).  The Child Tax Credit and EITC lifted more than 9 million people out of poverty in 2011.  However, the chained CPI proposal will reduce the value of the Earned Income Tax Credit over time.

Protects Health Coverage:   The budget protects Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.  It continues implementation of the Affordable Care Act, showing states that they can count on the promised federal support for expanding their Medicaid programs.

Cuts to Low-Income Programs:  Unaccountably, despite the Administration’s emphasis on interconnected programs to maximize effectiveness, the budget repeats its proposal to slash the Community Services Block Grant to $350 million (down from $682 million this year, not counting the across-the-board cuts).  These funds support community action agencies nationwide, which administer Head Start, home energy assistance, emergency food, and local economic development and other anti-poverty initiatives.  These agencies leverage private dollars and do the kind of coordination of services the Administration is counting on.  The budget also cuts the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by more than $500 million, counting this year’s across-the-board cuts.

Scope:  By choosing to stick to the deficit reduction offer made and rejected last year, the budget cannot support enough job creation and economic development to meet the needs of the current weak economy.  There is no doubt that there is strong opposition to making the needed investments.  But just as President Obama’s leadership has maximized public support for gun legislation and helped to shape public support for immigration reform, his leadership in pressing for jobs and shared prosperity will matter.

The post CHN: The President’s FY 2014 Budget: Important Initiatives Face Uphill Battle appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The bill, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649), is sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), expands the national system of background checks for gun purchases, toughens penalties for buying guns on behalf of others who would not be eligible to buy them, and boosts authorized funding for school safety programs.

Many amendments will be offered, including some that would have the effect of loosening, not tightening, the rules around gun purchases.  But in addition to decisions about gun purchases, the Senate may take up legislation to improve mental health services, especially in schools, in the hope of preventing violence.

One bill to improve mental health services was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on April 11.  The bill, introduced by committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Ranking Member Lamar Alexander (R-TN), is called the Mental Health Awareness and Improvement Act (S. 689).  It would encourage the development of school-wide mental health programs and allow grant funding to promote partnerships between schools and clinical mental health services.  The bill also provides suicide prevention and mental health awareness training, for early intervention to help students with mental health or substance abuse problems.  In addition, there would be GAO reports commissioned to examine access to mental health and substance abuse treatment, to look at mental health specifically for children, and to assess whether federal regulations or laws are obstacles to states’ and local communities’  efforts to provide mental health services.

The Harkin-Alexander bill is prominently mentioned as one likely to be added to the package of gun-related provisions headed for votes in the Senate.  Other mental health pieces are being introduced:  Senator Stabenow (D-MI) has sponsored the Excellence in Mental Health Act (S. 264), which would provide for federal certification of community behavioral health centers and make them eligible for Medicaid funding.

Advocates for improved mental health services want to see greater access to services, without demonizing the mentally ill.  Many advocates see these bills as important expansions, and hope that additional funding will be appropriated so that the new services can actually be implemented.

The post CHN: Expanded Mental Health Services May be Included in Gun Legislation appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The House Goes Home for Christmas: Its Top Priorities: Slash Health Care, Nutrition, and Federal Pay, Raise Taxes on Working Families, Preserve Pentagon Spending, and No Fingerprints on Tax Increases Even for the Very Rich

If you are reading this, the world did not come to an end on December 21.  Congressional action did, though, at least through Christmas.  Despite predictions by Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Cantor (R-VA) that there would be enough Republican votes for Boehner’s plan to raise tax rates on income over $1 million, their caucus rebelled.  Without enough votes for passage, Speaker Boehner cancelled the vote, and the House went home.  They might come back before New Year’s, if a deal can be put together to avert the spending cuts, tax increases, and loss of unemployment benefits for 2 million long-term jobless people that will mark the start of 2013.

The House did cast votes on Thursday evening.  They re-adopted a bill they had passed last spring, which replaced the $110 billion in automatic spending cuts scheduled to start January 1 with a large number of domestic cuts.  That bill went nowhere last spring, and the President and Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) confirmed its fate will be the same now.  The new-old bill, The Spending Reduction Act of 2012 (H.R. 6684), passed 215-209, with no Democrats voting for it and 21 Republicans joining all 188 Democrats to oppose.

The bill was not originally part of Speaker Boehner’s plan for Thursday.  He had hoped there would be enough support to pass an amendment he called “Plan B”, continuing the current tax rates for everybody except millionaires, whose income tax rates would rise to where they were before the Bush tax cuts were enacted.  Because other favorable treatment for millionaires and multi-million dollar estates would remain, those with incomes over $1 million would still get tax cuts averaging $50,000 each.  Treatment of 25 million low-income working families with children was not so favorable – they would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,000 each.  (For more detail, see below.)  Even Grover Norquist, originator of the anti-tax pledge that has a stranglehold on most Republicans, said that passing Boehner’s “Plan B” would be okay, because it would be preventing a tax increase on everybody else.  But that wasn’t enough to gather the near-unanimity among Republicans necessary to pass Boehner’s bill with little or no Democratic support.

Republican House members either objected to raising any taxes on anyone, balked at passing something that did nothing to stop the looming Pentagon and domestic spending cuts, or both.  To mollify enough of them, the Speaker agreed to let the House vote again on the bill to replace the “sequester,” or automatic spending cuts.  In voting for this, the majority made its priorities clear.  The bill would eliminate all the $55 billion in Pentagon sequestration cuts in 2013 and would replace about $38.5 billion in across-the-board cuts to domestic appropriations, in part by substituting $19.1 billion in spending reductions to be achieved by lowering the total cap on appropriations for FY 2013.  Medicare cuts of about $16 billion that were originally included in sequestration would stay in place.   The money lost by stopping the Pentagon cuts and some of the domestic reductions would be made up (and then some) by more than $217 billion in cuts over 10 years  to SNAP/food stamps, Medicaid, premium subsidies and other funding for the new health care law, the Child Tax Credit, and several consumer protection measures.  It also raised nearly $88 billion in revenues over 10 years by requiring federal employees to pay more of their retirement costs.  (More details about these provisions below.)

But although the House passed these spending cuts, it did not win over enough Republicans to get a majority for the Plan B increase in millionaire tax rates.

So what’s next?  Despite repeated assertions on the House floor by House Budget Committee Chair Ryan (R-WI) and others that President Obama has not come out with specific spending cut proposals in his deficit reduction plan, the President has put forth several offers in his negotiations with Speaker Boehner.  The President’s most recent proposal includes tax cuts for everyone, but reduces the tax breaks at the top, for a new revenue total of $1.2 trillion over ten years, and cuts spending by $930 billion, plus another $290 billion in debt interest savings.  Some of the savings are highly controversial among Democrats (see below).  If a solution is to be found, either before or soon after the beginning of the new year, it appears less likely to be achieved by legislation that can draw majority Republican support in the House.  Another option – passing a plan in the House with bipartisan support (lots of Democrats and some Republicans.  It remains to be seen whether Speaker Boehner will exercise leadership in pressing for that, or leave it to others to work around him.  In announcing the House’s departure, the Speaker did not seem to be signing up for a renewed battle to win over his caucus.  Instead, he said “Now it is up to the president to work with Sen. Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff.”

Taxes

Taxes were a major issue during the Presidential campaign with a focus on the ’01 and ’03 Bush-era income tax rates set to expire at the end of this year.  On November 14, newly off an election victory where he campaigned for higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 and with opinion polls solidly favoring his position, the President at his first post-election news conference reiterated his position on income tax rates and pressed for $1.6 trillion in revenue as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction deal.  Democrats were buoyed by the President’s approach.  Republicans had strongly resisted any increase in personal income tax rates but some conceded that the election results would likely mean rates for high-income taxpayers would go up.  Others pressed for no rate increases and instead talked in vague terms about tax reform that included closing unspecified tax loopholes and ending some tax deductions.  In return they also wanted deep cuts in spending.

The President presented a more detailed deficit reduction plan on November 29, outlining nearly $1.6 trillion in addition tax revenue over 10 years.   Tax rates for income of less than $250,000 would remain the same while the two top rates of 33 and 35 percent would revert back to 36 and 39.6 percent; the rate on capital gains would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent and dividends from 15 percent to the ordinary income tax rate; the maximum value of tax deductions would be lowered to 28 percent (someone in the 35 percent tax bracket can currently deduct up to 35 cents for every dollar in deductions) and additional limits would be placed on itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers; and the estate tax would revert back from its current $5 million exemption level and maximum rate of 35 percent to its 2009 exemption level of $3.5 million and 45 percent maximum rate .  The tax package would also continue the expansions made in the 2009 economic recovery act to the refundable Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income working families; extend for one year the 2 percent payroll tax cut for individuals; provide a one-year fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM), keeping new taxpayers from being hit with an average income tax increase of $2,250 according to the Tax Policy Center; and extend a number of business tax breaks.

In response to the President’s plan Speaker Boehner, the Republicans’ lead negotiator in deficit reduction talks with the President, offered $800 billion in revenue through limiting tax expenditures in tax reform that would occur next year.  His plan did not specify which tax expenditures would be limited.  Many of the most costly expenditures in terms of lost revenue are very popular and have powerful lobby shops supporting them, for example the home mortgage interest deduction, making them politically difficult to reduce significantly.

Under earlier House Republican tax proposals and plans proposed by Speaker Boehner, the 2009 improvements in the Child Tax Credit and EITC would be allowed to expire.  This means that 12 million families benefiting from the Child Tax Credit would see their taxes go up by $800, on average.  Six million families would pay an average $500 tax increase because of cuts to the EITC.

In early December deficit reduction talks between Speaker Boehner and the President continued.  On December 17, the President presented a new proposal containing both new savings on the spending side and a reduction in revenue.  The proposal reduced revenue by increasing from $250,000 to $400,000 the income threshold at which the lower tax rates would be extended.   The 33 percent income tax rate would be extended rather than reverting back to 36 percent.

Speaker Boehner seemed to be making a significant move toward the President on revenue when he indicated that he would let tax rates on income over $1 million expire.  However, coupled with extending the Bush-era tax rates on income up to $1 million, extending limits on certain tax deductions set to end on January 1, taxing dividends at 20 percent rather than at the rate of regular income, and continuing the current generous estate tax provisions, people with incomes of over $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $108,500 according to the Tax Policy Center.

In a high-risk strategy Speaker Boehner decided to take this so-called “Plan B” to floor of the House for a vote on December 20.  When conservative Republicans revolted, Speaker Boehner pulled the bill knowing that it would not pass.  It is not yet clear what the impact of his failure to pass the bill will have on future talks with the President.  Democrats and the White House are urging him to return to the negotiating table with the President.

See Citizens for Tax Justice report from December 20 comparing Speaker Boehner’s “Plan B” and the President’s original and December 17 proposals at: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/latestfiscalcliff.pdf.

The Real Cliff:  Unemployment Insurance About to Expire, Leaving 2 Million With No Help

The House spectacle before the abrupt departure was remarkable both in showing what the majority wanted to do and what it didn’t care to tackle.  Although 4 in 10 of the unemployed today have been out of work for more than six months (most for more than a year), and have run out of state unemployment benefits, the House took no action to continue the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program for the long-term jobless.  It will expire at the end of December.  Two million will be denied unemployment benefits right away, followed by another million by the end of the March in 2013.  The proportion of the long-term unemployed has risen dramatically over the years.  After the 1980’s recession, 26 percent of the unemployed were out of work six months or more.  The President’s plan includes the extension of unemployment benefits for a year, at a cost of $33 billion.

Shrinking the Adjustment for Inflation:  “The Chained CPI”

One of the most controversial provisions in President Obama’s deficit reduction package is a change in the way the Consumer Price Index (CPI) would be calculated for purposes of calculating benefits for Social Security, and also affecting many other low-income programs that rely on annual inflation adjustments for eligibility or benefit levels.  In what ultimately turned out to be abortive negotiations with Speaker Boehner, the President responded to the demand that benefits to entitlement programs be cut by agreeing to this change, which is called the “chained CPI.”  It reduces the inflation rate by assuming that when certain prices go up, consumers are likely to switch to other comparable but cheaper products.  Some research questions whether the elderly, or low-income people generally are able to make such substitutions as easily as the population as a whole.  According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, after 10 years, the Chained CPI would result in a 3 percent cut in Social Security benefits, about 6 percent after 20 years, and nearly 9 percent after 30 years.  For an average worker retiring at 65, this reduced measure of inflation would result in benefits being cut $1,130 a year at age 85.  Women would be disproportionately affected, because they live longer and are more likely to be poor.  The Administration’s Chained CPI proposal, which is estimated to save $130 billion over 10 years, does provide exemptions for low-income elderly and disabled making use of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), but that alone does not offer adequate protection to low-income people.  If the revised calculation is applied to the federal poverty guidelines, it will lower the annual increases in the poverty line, which would be likely to reduce benefits or shrink eligibility for means-tested programs.  Many progressive groups, including labor, have strenuously opposed making use of the Chained CPI.

SNAP in Farm Bill and House Bill 

Prospects for a 5-year reauthorization of a farm bill including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) before this Congress ends on January 2 has all but disappeared. There is not time for action on a separate bill and prospects for attaching it to the elusive larger deficit reduction package are fading.  The full Senate passed a 5- year farm bill extension in June with $23 billion in savings over 10 years, including $4.5 billion in cuts to SNAP.  In July the House Agriculture Committee approved bipartisan farm bill legislation with $35 billion in savings over 10 years, including $16 billion in cuts to SNAP.  The House Republican leadership has refused to allow a floor vote to happen because some Republicans want deeper cuts to SNAP while many Democrats do not support any cuts to the program.  The commodities provisions in the two bills that subsidize farmers also split members, more along geographic than party lines.  The Senate bill tends to favor northern commodities like corn and soybeans and the House bill rice, peanuts and wheat grown in the southern states.

Absent a full reauthorization, there is faint hope that a shorter-term extension of the current farm bill might pass.  The SNAP program will continue to operate uninterrupted without an extension of the full bill because the rules governing the program will not expire and funding was included in the continuing resolution through March 2013.  However, some programs would be affected.  Dairy subsidies would revert back to a 1949 law, likely doubling milk prices.  Dairy products are a large portion of the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) federally-funded nutrition program, and the price increase would lessen the buying power of WIC recipients.

The Spending Reduction Act passed by the House on Thursday night included $32.3 billion in cuts to SNAP/food stamps.  The House majority would return SNAP benefits to their old level of about $1.30 per meal, an amount judged by nutrition experts to be inadequate.  While current law would have started that reduction in November of 2013, this bill moves it up to February.  Recent analysis estimates that this cut will result in a loss of $8 – $10 per person per month.  The House will also deny SNAP to 2 million people who now get benefits because their low incomes qualify them for programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.  This change will also result in 280,000 low-income children losing free school meals.  In addition, the House agreed to make it harder to streamline eligibility for SNAP benefits, which now can be received without additional documentation if certain households already qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (expected to cut assistance to 1.8 million individuals).  This change will also result in 280,000 low-income children losing free school meals.  These restrictions were estimated last spring to save $11.7 billion over 10 years.  Further, this bill would reduce SNAP benefits to people who now receive a small benefit from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, said last spring to reduce SNAP spending by over $14 billion.  Despite this time of high unemployment, the House would drop certain federal spending for SNAP employment and training programs (saving about $3.1 billion over 10 years) and would end federal bonus payments to states to encourage good performance in administering SNAP.

Health Care Spending Reductions

The President’s most recent offer calls for $400 billion in savings in health care programs over 10 years, said to come mainly from Medicare, with relatively little from Medicaid (although details were not available).  The House Spending Reduction Act keeps the $16 billion in Medicare cuts scheduled to take place as part of the automatic FY 2013 cuts imposed by the Budget Control Act ( 2011 legislation that set up the “sequestration” cuts to start in January 2013 if Congress could not agree on a deficit reduction plan).  In addition, the House bill slashes health care premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act for 350,000 people, and cut Medicaid funding to Puerto Rico and other territories even though Puerto Rico, despite its disproportionate poverty, receives far lower federal Medicaid payments than any state (a high of 35 percent in 2010; states receive no less than 50 percent of Medicaid costs).  The amendment also allows states to make cuts in their Medicaid programs below the levels in place when the Affordable Care Act passed, which could reduce eligibility or benefits for millions of people.  Further, it includes a number of funding cuts aimed at undermining the Affordable Care Act (the major new health care legislation now being implemented).  These savings are estimated at $47.3 billion over ten years by the Congressional Budget Office.

The President’s plan is said to assume at least one-year funding for continued higher payment levels to physicians under Medicare.  Their payments were supposed to be cut by Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) reductions passed by Congress some years ago, but Congress has not been willing to implement these cuts.

Debt Ceiling

President Obama has been emphatic in not wanting to undergo another crisis negotiation in which Republicans insist on spending reductions commensurate with increases in the debt ceiling.  The debt ceiling is expected to be reached within the next month or two.  If Congress does not authorize continued borrowing, the crisis would stall spending, spook federal bond-holders, with threats of catastrophe for our economy, according to people like Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke.  Holding spending on domestic priorities hostage to deeper and deeper cuts to get the debt ceiling increased would be very dangerous to human needs programs.  Obama’s position initially would have reduced Congress’ role in debt ceiling increases permanently; more recent proposals have called for a two-year debt ceiling increase.

Appropriations

The President’s most recent offer called for cuts of $100 billion to defense and $100 billion to non-defense appropriations over 10 years, beyond the $1.5 trillion in cuts to these programs already set in motion over the next decade.  These cuts are much lower than the approximately $1 trillion in additional Pentagon, domestic, and international program cuts that are now scheduled to start in January and continue over 10 years.  Still, domestic appropriations are being cut deeply already, affecting education, housing, child care, WIC, Head Start, home energy assistance, and much more, and many groups oppose any further cuts.  On the other hand, many military spending experts believe that much more could be cut from military spending than the $100 billion called for in the President’s plan.

As noted above, the House spending reduction bill cuts appropriations by another $19.1 billion in FY 2013 by lowering the appropriations cap by that amount.  The bill also prohibits further military cuts.

The post CHN: The House Goes Home for Christmas appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

On June 28, the Supreme Court made an historic decision: they upheld the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. This news came with a bitter pill for low-income advocates, however – that states now have the option to refuse to expand Medicaid to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, choosing to forego federal funds provided to them for this purpose.

The Medicaid expansion is fully funded by ACA for its first three years (after which the federal match phases down to 90 percent by 2020). If a state chooses not to expand Medicaid however, many low-income people will remain uninsured. The Affordable Care Act was designed assuming that those individuals with incomes below the poverty line would be covered by Medicaid. Based on this assumption, Congress set the income eligibility range for subsidies aimed at helping people purchase coverage in insurance exchanges at 100 to 400 percent of the poverty line. If a state does not accept the Medicaid expansion, individuals living below the poverty line who are not now covered by their state’s Medicaid program will not be eligible for premium subsidies either.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that because some states will refuse to expand Medicaid, 6 million people will not receive health coverage through that program.  Of these, CBO expects 3 million with incomes from 100 – 133 percent of the poverty line will get subsidized coverage through their state’s insurance exchange.  The remaining 3 million will fall into the “coverage gap” – left without any coverage at all. For further details, see this piece from Robert Greenstein at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and this blog post from the Center.

The expansion is a very favorable deal for states, and not only because it is almost fully federally funded. Hospitals also benefit from the expansion because they are ensured Medicaid payment for services that are not currently reimbursed. Essentially, for a small cost to states that would be partly offset by savings in uncompensated care, CBO had estimated that the Medicaid expansion with all states participating would cover an additional 17 million low-income people.

So why are so many states threatening not to take the Medicaid expansion? Governor Rick Perry of Texas, along with Republican governors from at least 10 other states, has announced that he will not expand Medicaid. Many advocates believe their opposition is based on partisan politics or ideology, although these governors claim that states would bear a financial burden by expanding Medicaid (see this color-coded map from ThinkProgress to see which way states are leaning).  The small proportion states would pay is expected to amount to a 2.8 percent increase over their Medicaid costs without the expansion, less the savings from reducing uncompensated care payments to hospitals (because more patients would have insurance).  To most anti-poverty advocates, accepting the expansion seems like a no-brainer for states because of the benefits it provides and the fact that is almost fully funded by the federal government. Health care providers who expected more insured patients through the ACA are already starting to exert pressure on states to accept the option.  How many states will refuse the expansion money is yet to be seen – while they decide, the coverage of millions of low-income Americans hangs in the balance.

The Supreme Court’s validation of most of the health care law does not change the fierce opposition to it among right-wing members of Congress.  The House of Representatives has taken more than 30 votes to repeal the law, all of which have been rebuffed by the Senate.  The House has also attempted to deny the funding required to implement the law, most recently by cutting about $8 billion from the Department of Health and Human Services in the appropriations bill that was approved by a House subcommittee (see Appropriations article, this issue).  The Senate and the President will prevent the law from being de-funded, but the partisan attacks on the law can be expected to continue.

The post CHN: Medicaid Expansion Favorable for States, Yet Some Still Refuse to Cooperate appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

H.R. 5652 combined the recommendations for cuts required of six different committees under the House-passed budget resolution.  There were no revenue increases and no tapping of farm subsidies, both strategies to share deficit reduction among people with high-incomes.  Instead, millions of low-income people would lose some or all of their SNAP/food stamp benefits, Medicaid coverage, Child Tax Credit, and/or social services.  In addition, 350,000 low- and middle-income people would go without health insurance because of restrictions placed on the new health care reform law.  Federal workers, already subject to two years of frozen pay, would see their earnings cut further by requiring them to pay a greater share of their retirement benefits.  (For a full description of low-income cuts in the bill, see the April 30 Human Needs Report).

The Sequester Replacement Act stops the military and other appropriations cuts scheduled for 2013, but allows the automatic cuts to Medicare to go forward.  It does not replace the remaining nine years of cuts required by the Budget Control Act.  The bill replaces an estimated $98 billion in FY 2013 cuts, but its reductions would total between $310 billion and $315 billion over ten years, depending on whether the legislation is assumed to be enacted in July or October of this year.  (See CBO estimate here). The bill passed the House on party lines, 218 – 199, with 1 voting present and 13 not voting (read more here).  No Democrats voted in favor; 16 Republicans voted no.

Democrats attempted to offer a substitute bill, but were rebuffed in the Rules Committee, which adopted a closed rule (no amendments or substitutes allowed on the floor).  Their alternative also only replaced one year of cuts (but replaced the Medicare and other mandatory cuts as well as the cuts to appropriations), and proposed revenue increases and an end to certain farm subsidies instead.  Revenue increases would come from limiting tax breaks for oil and gas companies ($38 billion over ten years) and applying a minimum tax on annual income over $1 million ($47 billion over ten years).  Ending direct payments to farms was estimated to produce a net $26.5 billion in savings over the next decade.  (For the CBO analysis of the Democratic substitute, click here).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was firm in announcing that he would allow the across-the-board cuts to take effect rather than adopt the House alternative.  That suggests, as many observers have surmised for some time, that replacing the Budget Control Act’s version of deficit reduction will be delayed, most likely until after the election.

The post CHN: House Votes to Replace 2013 Across-the-Board Cuts With Deep Slashes at Low-Income Programs appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

VAWA provides grants and programs that address the needs of victims of violence including specific population groups: women in the military, elderly women, women with disabilities, women of color, women living in rural communities, those on college campuses, runaway and homeless youth, and children who witness violence.  VAWA programs give police, prosecutors, and judges the tools they need to hold accountable perpetrators of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.  It makes services available through grants to battered women’s shelters, rape crisis centers, community centers, transitional housing programs and services on tribal reservations.  VAWA funds provide mental health and legal services, job training for survivors, intervention, prevention, and recovery programs, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Subsequent reauthorizations of VAWA strengthened protections.  In 2000 the main improvements related to law enforcement responses to domestic violence, enhanced education and training on issues related to violence against women, and services for certain populations of victims.  It also defined and addressed dating violence.  VAWA reauthorization in 2005 focused on victim assistance, especially the needs of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The Senate’s Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 1925) provides additional protection for three vulnerable groups who, according to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, are currently underserved by the law: immigrants, Native Americans, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.

Abuse among immigrants often goes unreported due to fear of deportation, lack of understanding of the laws and legal system and visa dependence on the status of a spouse.  Immigrants married to a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident often have their immigration status used as a tool by their abusers who either fail to file the necessary paperwork or threaten to withdraw their status.  “Self-petitioning” was created in the 1994 legislation so that immigrant victims could confidentially report crimes without fear of deportation.  In 2000 U-visas were created to provide special protections for undocumented immigrant victims of violence.  If victims cooperated with law enforcement on the prosecution of their perpetrator, they could apply for a U-visa allowing them to remain in the United Sates without depending on their spouse or partner to sponsor them.  Annually 10,000 U-visas may be granted.  Since 2007, a total of 5,000 U-visas went unused.  S. 1925 allows these to be used in upcoming years along with the annual allocation. The Senate bill also affirms that children of U-visa holders receive the same benefits as their parents.

Violence against Native American women has reached epidemic proportions and, according to the Census Bureau, 50 percent of all Native American married women have non-Indian husbands.  Federal law requires tribes to rely on federal or state officials to investigate cases involving domestic violence against a non-Indian perpetrator on tribal land; and in many cases, there is no investigation.  S. 1925 gives American Indian authorities limited power to prosecute non-Indians accused of abusing Indian women for crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders.  The defendant must reside or be employed in the Indian country or be the spouse or intimate partner of a member of the prosecuting tribe.

The Senate bill earmarks funds for community organizations that serve LGBT victims, prohibits discrimination against them by law enforcement and domestic violence shelters, and explicitly allows states to use federal money to help them.  VAWA protects victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking from eviction or denial of a housing benefit based on their status as victims or the actions of their perpetrators.  S. 1925 requires owners, managers and public housing authorities to relay these rights when serving eviction notices.

Previous authorizations of VAWA bills have been bi-partisan and most recently the 2005 reauthorization bill was unanimously supported.  This year however, some Republicans objected to the expansion of protections for LGBT victims, opposed granting more U-visas, and resisted giving Indian authorities the power to prosecute non-Indian abusers.  The Senate turned back a broad substitute amendment (37-62) sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) that included new mandatory minimum sentences for sex crimes. After much partisan wrangling in the Senate, 15 Republicans joined all Democrats in supporting the bill passing it 61-38.

On May 8 the House Judiciary Committee marked up its bill, H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012.  Advocates for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have many concerns about the House bill. It eliminates confidentiality protections for victims that self-petition by requiring notification to the alleged abuser that his/her spouse has applied for a U-visa; it fails to recognize the authority of tribal courts to hold non-Indian perpetrators accountable; it has weak provisions that do not address the issues of the LGBT community; and it does not require owners, managers and public housing authorities to notify potential victims of their rights to avoid unlawful eviction. Furthermore, H.R. 4970 would require more VAWA resources to be diverted to pay for costly new audit requirements.

A number of Democratic amendments failed during committee consideration.  Among them, the committee rejected Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-TX) amendment that would have dropped language blocking U-visa recipients from gaining permanent residence.  It also turned back Delegate Pedro Pierluisi’s (D-P.R.) amendment adding 5,000 U-visas per year to the current 10,000 total.  The committee rejected Representative Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) amendment to replace the House bill immigrant language with that from the Senate bill.  The committee also rejected amendments to better serve the LGBT community and to strike the bill’s mandatory prison sentences for aggravated sexual assault convictions.  The bill passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 17-15 with Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) joining all Democrats in opposing it. The House bill is expected to be considered on the floor soon.

S. 1925 set an annual funding authorization level for VAWA programs of $659.5 million, a drop of $136.5 million from VAWA authorization in the 2005 bill.  However, appropriators have not provided full funding for VAWA; in fact, funds have steadily decreased over recent years.

The post CHN: Senate Passes Strong Violence Against Women Act; Weak Bill Advances in the House appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The Medicaid program is a critical source of health care coverage for low-income children, some of their parents, seniors, and people with disabilities.  An estimated one in five Americans enrolled in the Medicaid program in 2011.  Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) which provides health care to children in families with slightly higher incomes, covered 31 million low-income children, 11 million non-elderly low-income parents and pregnant women, 8.8 million non-elderly individuals with disabilities, 4.6 million low-income seniors and 3.7 million seniors with disabilities.  But people who do not fit the above categories have not qualified for Medicaid, no matter how poor they are.  The Affordable Care Act will change that, allowing all whose incomes are low enough to receive health care through Medicaid.

Under the ACA, the federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost of expanding Medicaid for the first three years and 90 percent or more of the cost thereafter.  The states who are plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case are calling the Medicaid expansion coercive.  That was met with some skepticism during oral arguments.  Justice Kagan asked what was coercive about states receiving a “boatload” of federal dollars to implement the expansion.  There is plenty of precedent for Medicaid expansions that have required states to share the costs.  States always have the option to drop out of the program; they have not because Medicaid provides vital services with the federal government paying a generous share of the cost.  If the Medicaid expansion in the ACA is declared unconstitutional it would have alarming implications for all of Medicaid, not just the new provisions, and could throw into question other programs in which states are required to pony up funds as a condition of receiving federal funds.  For more information on Medicaid’s role under health care reform see this Kaiser Family Foundation issue brief .

The Court is expected to make its ruling on the constitutionality of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act in late June when the session ends.

The post CHN: Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher for Low-Income Uninsured appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

S. 1813 was a magnet for controversial amendments unrelated to the bill.  An amendment offered by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO)) would have given employers or plan sponsors under the Affordable Care Act the flexibility to limit health care coverage for medical procedures based on their religious beliefs or moral misgivings. The vote to kill the Blunt Amendment passed 51-49 with Senator Snowe (R-ME) joining Democrats in opposition to the amendment and Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Ben Nelson (R-NE) voting with Republicans who supported it. An array of environmental amendments to the bill were rejected including one to approve construction of the Alaskan Keystone XL pipeline stretching from Canada to Texas, and others that would have weaken Environmental Protection Agency rules, extended tax credits for alternative energy sources, and expanded oil and gas drilling. Amendments that passed included one by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-C) that expresses the sense of the Senate that environmental reviews should be completed in a timely manner.  The Senate also adopted an amendment sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to keep toll roads leased by states to private operators from receiving federal highway funding.

On March 4 the Senate passed the 2-year $109 billion surface transportation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (S. 1813), by a vote of 74-22 with 22 Republicans joining all Democrats in supporting the bill.  S. 1813 maintains funding for most programs at current levels adjusted for inflation. According to Democratic leaders, the bill sustains 1.9 million jobs and creates up to an additional 1 million jobs.

Attention now moves back to the House where earlier Speaker Boehner was forced to scuttle a 5-year $260 billion transportation bill (H.R. 7) over concerns about the cost and substance of the bill. A bi-partisan group of members from urban and suburban districts objected to eliminating funding for mass transit in the bill.  The House may now take the Senate bill to the floor and add amendments or it may try to restart H.R. 7.  Time is running out. If a surface transportation reauthorization bill is not signed into law by March 31, a short-term extension of the programs will be necessary to keep funding flowing to projects that have already started.

The post CHN: Attempt to Lower Tight Budget Caps Fails appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Most budget-watchers believe the answer to the first question is “no” – House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) is expected to unveil his proposal at a speech before the American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday, with Committee action expected the next day.  As for the second question, while the full House would be expected to pass the budget in a party-line vote, Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has already announced the Senate will not vote on a budget resolution.  So there is no chance that the Ryan budget will be adopted by Congress.

Still, elements of Chairman Ryan’s proposal may prove influential.  In order to accommodate the House’s restive right wing, it is likely that the House budget will call for FY 2013 appropriations levels set lower than the caps already agreed to by Congress in the Budget Control Act.  That deficit reduction law limited FY 2013 appropriations to $1.047 trillion.  Some of the more right-wing members want the total reduced to $1.028 trillion.  Others, in the more extreme Republican Study Committee, have proposed slashing FY 2013 spending to $931 billion, or $116 billion less than the level Congress previously approved.   Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee, however, would prefer to stick with the cap already enacted.  Washington’s best guessers are expecting the Ryan budget to wind up at the $1.028 trillion level.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-ND) plans to adhere to the $1.047 trillion spending limit.  If the House goes $19 billion or more below the enacted levels, the House and Senate will eventually have to negotiate the difference in the appropriations bills that must pass by September 30 (or be temporarily extended at that time).

The House Budget Resolution will do more than set appropriations totals.  It will also make other sweeping recommendations for cuts in mandatory programs such as Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps).  Last year, the Ryan budget proposed turning these two basic entitlements into block grants with fixed funding levels.  The Medicaid cut alone would be $1.4 trillion over 10 years.  The commonplace wisdom is that this year’s budget will repeat these proposals.

Last year’s House budget also made substantial reductions and structural changes in Medicare.  The new budget is expected to propose major changes to Medicare once again, but the proposal may be different.  Chairman Ryan has recently teamed up with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) to recommend a new system of “premium supports” that would subsidize insurance costs, allowing Medicare beneficiaries to opt for the current fee for service approach or other private insurance coverage.  Last year’s version did not allow beneficiaries to continue in the current program.  However, analysts are skeptical about whether the subsidies provided will really be enough to allow retirees to afford the current program, thereby forcing them into more limited insurance packages while also increasing their costs.  Last year’s plan would have doubled the individual’s costs (from $6,150 in 2022 under current law to $12,500 under the proposed plan).  The shifting of costs from the federal government to individuals in Medicare will be something to watch for in the new version of Medicare in this year’s House budget plan.  Last year’s plan featured such a shift, with modest federal savings (federal costs would be $8,000 for a 65-year old entering Medicare in 2022 under the new plan versus $8,600 under current law) but dramatically higher total costs ($20,500 in the new proposal as compared to $14,750 under current law) because of the reliance on more expensive private insurance.

With automatic across-the-board cuts in annually appropriated programs scheduled to begin in January 2013 unless Congress acts to reduce the deficit by other means, the expected massive cuts in the Ryan budget (last year totaling $4.3 trillion over ten years) would serve as one blueprint for avoiding the across-the-board cuts.  Two elements likely to be missing from any Ryan plan are a revenue increase and increased military savings.  While the President’s budget also seeks to replace the automatic January 2013 cuts with other forms of deficit reduction, his plan includes $1.5 trillion in revenue increases and nearly $500 billion in defense cuts over the next ten years.  Such a balanced package makes it possible to minimize the cuts to human needs programs.  The Ryan budget, if it lacks such balance, will inflict deep cuts in needed services.

The post CHN: Federal Budget Next Steps: House Budget Resolution Expected This Week appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The House passed a bill Tuesday, December 13, extending the current payroll tax cut for a year, continuing unemployment insurance (UI) but cutting it back by 40 weeks and making other restrictive changes, and preventing the drop in Medicare physician payments.  The House bill (H.R. 3630) passed 234-193, with 14 Republicans voting no and 10 Democrats voting yes.  It was opposed by most Democrats because it offset the bill’s costs in part by cutting funding under the new health care law and freezing federal worker pay for another year, and also because of environmental concerns over building the Keystone oil pipeline and reducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority.  Many Democrats also opposed the substantial reductions in unemployment insurance called for in the bill.

The President and many Democrats had favored paying for expanded payroll tax cuts and continued unemployment insurance by increasing taxes on incomes over a million dollars.  That was a non-starter for Republicans, who also favored continuing the existing payroll tax cut for workers but did not want to expand it.

A year-long payroll tax cut and UI extension, plus the Medicare “doc fix” and preventing some business tax cuts from expiring would cost over $210 billion; a temporary 2-month bill would cost $40 billion.  It seems likely at this writing that Congress will take the short-term option if all the differences cannot be resolved in time.

The Senate has scheduled a vote on the House bill on Saturday, December 17, the earliest possible time under Senate rules without bipartisan agreement to speed things up.  If that vote is held, it will fail.  At that point, some negotiated alternative is expected to emerge that will prevent a sudden loss of tax cuts, unemployment benefits, or Medicare payments to doctors.

House makes many UI cuts.  It was not clear how many of the unemployment insurance provisions in the House bill would make it into a final deal.   H.R. 3630 slashed the maximum number of weeks of UI by 40 (instead of a maximum 99 weeks of state and federal benefits, the jobless would not receive assistance for more than 59 weeks; in states with unemployment rates less than 6 percent the total would be smaller ), with states with the highest unemployment rates hit the hardest.  In addition, the House bill included many other restrictive measures.  It would allow states to require drug testing of every UI applicant, even though most states do not approve payment of benefits for workers let go because of drug use on the job.  The bill requires high school completion (or participation in a GED program) as a condition of receiving benefits, even though there is a nationwide waiting list of about 160,000 to get into GED programs.   H.R. 3630 gives states the authority to divert federal UI funds to pay for employment counselors or other employment programs, even though the clear mission of the federal UI program is to provide cash benefits while jobless individuals are looking for work.  The bill even charges UI recipients $5 a week (out of their meager UI benefits, which average $300 a week) to pay for reemployment services, whether or not the recipient is actually receiving these services.  In another attack on benefit levels, the bill removes the current prohibition against reducing the size of state benefits as a condition of states’ utilizing federal UI payments.  (For more information about the House UI provisions, see analyses by the National Employment Law Project and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

The National Employment Law Project had estimated that if UI were allowed to expire, nearly 2 million of the unemployed would lose benefits in January alone, with more left out in each succeeding month.  UI has multiple good outcomes.  The spending by families who have assistance creates about $2 of economic activity for every dollar spent.  Failure to continue federal benefits would pull $22 billion out of the economy, costing 140,000 jobs.  Unemployment compensation also lifted nearly 8 million people out of poverty between 2007 and 2010, of whom more than 2.3 million were children.  (See National Employment Law Project analysis).

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) was quoted in CQ.com as saying that some of the House UI provisions were “off the table” as the final deal-making progressed.  Allowing states to divert UI money away from financial assistance was on that list; so was drug-testing.  But Harkin pointedly did not reject the notion of reducing the number of weeks of benefits.  However, a final agreement might include waivers to allow the 10 states with unemployment rates currently above 10 percent to have more weeks of benefits than other states.

No millionaires’ surtax; tapping the poorest children instead.  It is highly unlikely that a surtax on income above $1 million will be used as a source of funds to pay for extending the payroll tax cut, UI, or the Medicare “doc fix,” since most Republicans remain intransigently opposed.  (One exception is Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who has co-sponsored legislation that would include such a surtax.)  A partial replacement of that income put forward by the House bill would restrict payment of the Child Tax Credit only to families in which a working parent supplies a Social Security Number, rather than an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).  Immigrant families make use of the ITIN.  Children of immigrants now make up one-quarter of all U.S. children; nearly 30 percent of children with foreign born parents are poor.  Eliminating ITIN eligibility for the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit would take an average of $1,800 from very low-income working families, according to the U.S. Treasury.  Denying this income to low-income children in immigrant families would save $9.4 billion.

Other ways to pay for the package.  While the House bill included $31 billion in cuts to health care reform provisions to offset some of the costs, Democrats are unlikely to agree.  They are also expected to remain opposed to another year of frozen salaries for federal workers, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office as saving $1.8 billion in the House bill.  Other funding sources more likely to be agreed to include $16.5 billion from the auction and use of broadband spectrum and $35.7 billion in guarantee fees from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Those are not enough to pay for a full year of the spending and tax cut provisions.  There were reports that the negotiators may tap other sources of savings identified by the deficit reduction “super committee” to get the rest of the way.  If the package once again pays for its provisions with other spending cuts and no fair tax increases, human needs advocates will wonder under what circumstances the Administration and Senate leadership will ever be able to negotiate a deal that increases revenues.

The post CHN: Congress Not Anxious to Raise Working Families’ Taxes in January appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.