Category Archives: Budget – United States

The Labor – H.H.S. – Education Veto In Context

Source: Richard Kogan, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 24, 2007

President Bush has said he will veto the appropriations bill that funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for the coming fiscal year if Congress sends the bill to him with funding at the level either the House or Senate has approved. The Administration says the funding provided in the House- and Senate-passed bills is “excessive” and “irresponsible” and has sought to portray them as part of a congressional plan that would constitute “runaway spending.” This short analysis finds these claims to be misleading or inaccurate.

Related:
Sign AFSCME’s petition asking Congress to vote YES for the final bill.

Historical Averages Not A Meaningful Benchmark For Future Revenues

Source: Matt Fiedler and Richard Kogan, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 22, 2007

The “Mid-Session Review” that the Office of Management and Budget issued last month projects that revenues will be slightly above their 30-year average in 2007, measured as a share of the economy. The Administration and many of its supporters have cited this fact as evidence that current tax policies are generating an appropriate level of revenue and the Administration’s tax cuts therefore should be made permanent without the costs being offset. Similarly, Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has cited this fact as a reason for repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax without offsetting the large costs involved.

The simple fact that the government collected a particular level of revenue in the past says little, however, about what level of revenues is appropriate today, will be appropriate or necessary in the future, or even was appropriate in the past.

America’s Economy: Headed for Crisis: Realistic Approaches Are Essential

Source: Warren B. Rudman, J. Robert Kerrey, Peter G. Peterson, and Robert Bixby, The Brookings Institution, Opportunity 08: A Project of the Brookings Institution America’s Economy: Headed for Crisis 2, August 2007

From the summary:

An honest assessment of the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook almost makes one wonder why, in 2008, so many people are interested in being elected President. And why so little attention is being paid to a problem that budget analysts of diverse perspectives routinely describe as “unsustainable.”

One thing is clear: the status quo is not acceptable. The next President will inherit a fiscally lethal combination of changing demographics, rising heath care costs, and falling national savings. The public should take care not to buy the proposals of Presidential candidates that either ignore the magnitude of the long-term fiscal challenge or lock candidates into positions that make the problems insoluble. Improving the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook will require hard choices on spending and tax policy. Presidential candidates and their consultants might shy away from endorsing such choices on the campaign trail, but they should not rule them out.

The next administration must enter office with a mandate to act on this problem. Doing so will likely require a mix of options arrived at through bipartisan negotiations. The more options taken off the table through ironclad campaign promises, the more difficult it will be to find meaningful solutions once the campaigns are over and the time for governing begins. Candidates must acknowledge the magnitude of the problem, the need for trade-offs and the necessity for prompt action. Vague promises of “fiscal responsibility” give the public insufficient insight into how well candidates understand the task at hand.

Comprehensive solutions may take considerable time to develop, and once implemented, should be subject to periodic review. However, as a framework for action the next President should:

● Commit to a balanced budget

● Take every reasonable step to constrain the rising cost of heath care and retirement programs — Social Security and, most especially, Medicare

● Make clear to Americans that taxes cannot be cut over the long-term unless programs are cut commensurately, and

● Prevent total spending, taxes, or debt from reaching levels that could reduce economic growth and future standards of living.

President’s Budget Calls for Deep Cuts in a Wide Range of Domestic Programs: Cuts Start in 2008 and Grow Deeper Over Time

Source: Sharon Parrott and Matt Fiedler, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 8, 2007

Under the Administration’s budget, domestic discretionary programs — the programs that are funded each year through the annual appropriations process, other than defense and international programs — are slated for sizable reductions over the next five years. The budget calls for these cuts to start in 2008, when domestic discretionary programs as a whole would be funded below a freeze of the levels provided for 2007 in the full-year continuing resolution now moving through Congress.[i] The cuts would then grow deeper each year after 2008, and would come from almost every part of the domestic budget. The largest cuts would come in 2012, when domestic programs would be cut $34 billion, or 7.6 percent, relative to the 2007 funding level, adjusted for inflation.

Federal Grants To States And Localities Cut Deeply In Fiscal Year 2008 Federal Budget

Source: Iris J. Law, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 6, 2007

Grants to state and local governments have long been an important way in which the federal government supports and administers programs efficiently. The new budget, however, continues to significantly erode those grants. This leaves states and localities the option of either curtailing services or increasing their own taxes to compensate for declining federal funds.