As the Senate begins discussions over the American Health Care Act (AHCA), a key point in the negotiations is federal funding for the Medicaid program. The AHCA proposes subjecting Medicaid spending to per capita caps, limiting the number of dollars the federal government will provide to states for each enrollee. While per capita caps themselves are a major departure from how Medicaid has traditionally been funded, the exact effect of caps depends on unpredictable trends in state Medicaid spending and how the caps are indexed to grow over time…..
Source: Office of Management and Budget, May 2017
Greenstein: Trump Budget Proposes Path to a New Gilded Age
Source: Robert Greenstein, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, CBPP Statement, May 22, 2017
President Trump’s new budget should lay to rest any belief that he’s looking out for the millions of people the economy has left behind.
President Trump’s Budget Includes a $2 Trillion Math Mistake
Source: Ryan Teague Beckwith, Time, May 23, 2017
President Trump’s budget includes simple accounting error that adds up to a $2 trillion oversight.
Trump releases budget hitting his own voters hardest
Source: Andrew Restuccia , Matthew Nussbaum and Sarah Ferris, Politico, Updated: May 23, 2017
The president’s proposal for next year’s federal spending calls for more than $1 trillion in cuts to social programs, including farm aid.
What Trump’s budget cuts from the social safety net
Source: Denise Lu and Kim Soffen, Washington Post, Updated May 23, 2017
On Tuesday, President Trump released his 2018 budget proposal. It makes deep cuts across many anti-poverty programs, slashing food stamps by more than a quarter and children’s health insurance by 19 percent.
Trump budget slashes money for federal lands, needy and health care
Source: Thomas Burr, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 23 2017
President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 fiscal budget would hit Utah’s needy and disabled, cut block grants to communities, slash funding for public lands and public transit projects and could hurt rural airport services.
How the Trump Budget Undermines Economic Security for Working Families
Source: Rebecca Vallas, Harry Stein, Eliza Schultz, Neil Campbell, Kate Bahn, Regina Willensky, Kevin DeGood, Antoinette Flores, Ethan Gurwitz, Alexandra Thornton, and Angela Hanks, Center for American Progress, May 23, 2017
With an administration chock full of self-serving millionaires and billionaires, it comes as little surprise that President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would be an enormous windfall for the wealthiest Americans. But the degree to which it privileges the 1 percent at the expense of nearly everyone else—breaking Trump’s campaign promises to restore prosperity to everyday Americans—is staggering. Notably, by calling for cuts to Social Security, the budget violates one of Trump’s most significant promises.
Indeed, his proposed repeal of the estate tax alone—a tax that only affects the wealthiest 0.2 percent of estates—would cost the same as feeding more than 6 million seniors for a year through Meals on Wheels, a program facing deep cuts under the Trump budget.
And that is just one of several massive giveaways to the wealthy that President Trump calls for in this budget proposal while slashing critical investments in education, infrastructure, jobs, and more that make it possible for workers and families to get ahead. Here are seven ways that President Trump’s budget proposal threatens to do them serious damage.
Trump’s Budget Would Hit These States the Hardest
Source: Sam Petulla, NBC News, May 23, 2017
The Trump administration unveiled a budget for 2018 on Tuesday that seeks to overhaul many of the country’s safety-net programs for low-income and struggling Americans. Though these cuts are popular among Republican lawmakers, they affect programs that are actually more commonly used in Republican-leaning states than in Democratic ones, and that in many cases benefit white voters without college degrees — a demographic group that strongly supported President Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
The programs experiencing the deepest cuts provide assistance for health care services to children, the poor and disabled, and that supplement food and housing for those with low incomes. Most of the programs were created decades ago by Democratic presidents.
The president’s full budget includes reductions in income-support programs that core Republican voters rely on—more so than other groups do.
The bill that President Trump signed into law to fund the government for the rest of fiscal year 2017 has insufficient funding to renew all of the Housing Choice Vouchers in use last year, leaving a gap of roughly 60,000 vouchers. While some state and local housing agencies can use emergency reserves to close part of the gap, tens of thousands fewer low-income families will likely receive help this year, worsening the shortage of affordable housing. Already, 3 in 4 low-income families that struggle to pay rent receive no federal rental aid….
A visit to the library likely means checking out a book or movie. But the Denver Public Library says its central location has another job these days — it’s somewhat of a homeless shelter….. When the doors of the library open at 10 a.m. a mix of people usually wait outside to be let in. Some have materials to return or pickup, and others are seeking shelter…..
In recent years, a handful of states have missed out on millions in federal subsidies for child care.
From the abstract:
The past 25 years has seen substantial change in the social safety nets for families with children in the US and Canada. Both countries have moved away from cash welfare but the US has done so relying more exclusively on inwork benefits with work requirements. This paper examines this evolution across the two countries and examines the effects on employment and poverty. In particular, we focus on the two largest programs over this period: the U.S. EITC and the Canadian NCB/CCTB. In light of these policy changes, we examine trends in employment and poverty of the most affected families — single mothers with less than a college degree — across the two countries. We find that employment improved substantially in both countries, absolutely and relative to a control group of single women without children. The cross-country differences in relative trends are mainly explained by differences in the labor market conditions. Poverty rates for single mothers also declined in both countries with more of the decline coming through market income in the U.S. and benefit income in Canada.
The Obama administration rejected many conservative politicians’ attempts to alter the health-care program for the poor. With Trump in the White House, they may finally get their way.
From the abstract:
Child welfare workforce turnover remains a significant problem with dire consequences. Designed to assist in its retention efforts, an agency supported state-wide survey was employed to capture worker feedback and insight into turnover. This article examines the quantitative feedback from a Southern state’s frontline child welfare workforce (N = 511), examining worker intent to leave as those who intend to stay employed at the agency (Stayers), those who are undecided (Undecided), and those who intend to leave (Leavers). A series of One-Way ANOVAs revealed a stratified pattern of worker dissatisfaction, with stayers reporting highest satisfaction levels, followed by undecided workers, and then leavers in all areas (e.g., salary, workload, recognition, professional development, accomplishment, peer support, and supervision). A Multinomial Logistic Regression model revealed significant (and shared) predictors among leavers and undecided workers in comparison to stayers with respect to dissatisfaction with workload and professional development, and working in an urban area. Additionally, child welfare workers who intend to leave the agency in the next 12 months expressed significant dissatisfaction with supervision and accomplishment, and tended to be younger and professionals of color.
• Child welfare worker intent to leave is best examined through a continuum.
• A stratified pattern of dissatisfaction emerged when exploring this continuum.
• A multinomial logistic regression model revealed significant (and shared) predictors.
Source: Frontline and NPR, 2017
An investigation into the billions spent on housing low-income people, and why so few get the help they need. The film examines the politics, profits and problems of an affordable housing system in crisis.
Affordable Housing Program Costs More, Shelters Fewer
Source: Laura Sullivan, Meg Anderson, NPR, May 9, 2017
…..Thirty years ago, Eldridge was the type of person Congress sought to help when it created the low-income housing tax credit program, which is now the government’s primary program to build housing for the poor. But the tax-credit building that’s only a little more than 2 miles from Eldridge’s house, where she might pay as little as $200 or $300 in rent based on her income, has a waiting list up to four years long. In Dallas and nationwide, many of these buildings don’t have any vacancies. In a joint investigation, NPR — together with the PBS series Frontline — found that with little federal oversight, LIHTC has produced fewer units than it did 20 years ago, even though it’s costing taxpayers 66 percent more in tax credits. In 1997, the program produced more than 70,000 housing units. But in 2014, fewer than 59,000 units were built, according to data provided by the National Council of State Housing Agencies…..
In America’s Affordable Housing Crisis, More Demand but Less Supply
Source: Patrice Taddonio, Frontline, May 9, 2017
More and more Americans are struggling to make rent. Each year, an estimated 2.5 million people across the country are evicted. Today, in a joint investigation called Poverty, Politics and Profit, FRONTLINE and NPR join forces to examine the crisis in affordable housing, exploring why so few people are getting the help they need, and whether government programs designed to aid low-income Americans with rent are working as they should. One of those programs, called the low-income housing tax credit, relies on partnerships between the federal government and the private sector. The IRS gives billions in tax credits to the states, who then award the credits to developers. The developers sell them for cash to investors, mostly banks, and then use that money to help build apartment buildings. And because taxpayer money pays for most of it, they can charge the lower rents required…..