Even major global powers won’t use hsr, China is failing


SOCIAL SERVICES TRADEOFF DA



Download 0.81 Mb.
Page26/31
Date18.10.2016
Size0.81 Mb.
#2773
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31

SOCIAL SERVICES TRADEOFF DA


Link

Transportation infrastructure spending trades off with other programs

LAO 2011, LAO (Legislative Analyst’s Office), Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor for the state of California, “Ten Year Perspective: California Infrastructure Spending,” DA: 7/22/12, http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/stadm/infrastructure/infrastructure_082511.aspx -- g.b.

Debt Service Involves Budgetary Trade-Offs. There is no one “right” level for the DSR. It simply provides an indication of the relative priority of debt service and infrastructure compared to other spending from the General Fund—a higher DSR would appear to indicate an increased preference for infrastructure spending relative to other programs. This is because the higher the DSR is and more rapidly it rises, the more debt-service expenses limit the use of revenues for other programs. That is, for any given level of state revenues, each new dollar of debt service comes at the expense of a dollar that could be allocated to another program area, whether education, health, social services, or tax relief. The trade-offs have become more acute due to the state’s ongoing budget shortfalls. In addition to these General Fund impacts, debt-service costs also limit revenues available for special fund programs. For example, the state’s trial courts have increased fees in recent years in order to raise revenue for debt service on new courthouse construction and the state uses vehicle weight fees to cover transportation debt service. Using these revenues for infrastructure debt service means that they are not available for other program purposes.
SS Spending 1st

Pennsylvania proves – social services spending at top of chopping block for GOP

Levy 6/20/2012, Marc Levy, Associated Press, “Corbett, GOP lawmakers in meetings, say agreement is at hand on a $27.7B spending plan,” DA: 7/22/2012, http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/4df0bf1286eb4b4fb10e7d6bc23b3c61/PA-XGR -- g.b

HARRISBURG, Pa. — An agreement on a nearly $27.7 billion budget deal announced Wednesday evening by Gov. Tom Corbett and top Republican lawmakers appears to be nearly identical to what lawmakers had proposed several weeks earlier, a plan that would cut taxes for businesses while squeezing programs for the poor and disabled. It also includes a meeting of the minds on legislation to create a tax credit sought by Corbett in his pursuit of bringing an integrated petrochemical industry to Pennsylvania, anchored by a multibillion-dollar refinery planned in the Pittsburgh area by a subsidiary of Netherlands-based oil and gas giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC. The agreement for the fiscal year beginning July 1 puts the state on course for a second straight on-time budget. It comes after two weeks of almost-daily talks behind closed doors and at a time when schools are making plans to lay off thousands of employees, in part because of deep cuts in state aid this year. Corbett, a Republican who took office last year after campaigning on a pledge not to raise taxes, and the others would not give details about their new agreement until rank-and-file lawmakers are briefed in the coming days. "We have agreement among ourselves on many, many areas," Corbett told reporters gathered in his Capitol conference room. "There are still some other areas we need to work out." Leaders of the House and Senate Republican majorities stood at Corbett's sides but largely stayed silent during the briefing. The budget, which typically involves the passage of a couple dozen pieces of legislation, will still require approval by the full House and Senate to go into effect. Democrats were not invited to the talks, and not one single Democratic lawmaker voted for the budget currently in force, which was Corbett's first as governor. The newly agreed-upon spending plan appears to be nearly identical to one put forth to Corbett by lawmakers. If so, it will include no new taxes while raising spending less than 2 percent and leaving about $267 million in reserve a year from now. Aid for public schools and 18 state-supported universities would remain flat, at least. Budget negotiators also discussed adding a $50 million zero-interest loan program for school districts nearing financial collapse and an additional $100 million in tax credits on business-sector donations to subsidize scholarships for low-income children in the state's worst-performing schools. But it was not clear whether money for those programs was included in the agreement. Meanwhile, the plan would cut business taxes by $275 million while slashing money for county-run social services by 10 percent, or $84 million, and eliminating a $150 million cash benefit called General Assistance for temporarily disabled adults who are out of work. The $200-a-month cash benefit, which dates back to the Great Depression, has been on Republicans' chopping block despite appeals from advocates for the poor and homeless, as well as the AARP, the United Way and religious groups representing Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarian Universalists and Jews. Corbett proposed a $27.1 billion hold-the-line plan in February that nonetheless included deep cuts in aid for education and social services while cutting business taxes and spending more on health care and public employee pension costs. But tax collections began to brighten after that, and Republican lawmakers used the newly available cash in their alternative plan to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the subsidies that Corbett had proposed for universities, public schools, county-run social services, the race horse industry, medical research, retailers and hospitals and nursing homes that care for the poor. The Democratic minority in the House of Representatives sought unsuccessfully earlier this month to win a vote for $300 million in additional spending that it insisted the state would collect in taxes and bashed the GOP agenda as needlessly painful for schools and people who depend on social services

SS Spending 1st
Social service spending GOP’s ideal choice for cuts when pressed with extra spending or unplanned reductions – they’ll do anything to save the military budget

Taylor 5/7/2012, Andrew Taylor, writer for the Associated Press, “House GOP Budget Plan Increases Military Spending And Cuts Social Services,” DA: 7/22/12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/house-gop-budget-cuts_n_1495426.html -- g.b.

WASHINGTON -- The Republicans who control the House are using cuts to food aid, health care and social services like Meals on Wheels to protect the Pentagon from a wave of budget cuts come January. The reductions, while controversial, are but a fraction of what Republicans called for in the broader, nonbinding budget plan they passed in March. Totaling a little more than $300 billion over a decade, the new cuts are aimed less at tackling $1 trillion-plus government deficits and more at preventing cuts to troop levels and military modernization. The House Budget Committee meets Monday to officially act on the measure, the product of six separate House panels. It faces a likely floor vote Thursday. The measure kicks off Congress' return to action after a weeklong recess. The House will also vote on a spending bill funding NASA and the Justice Department and on legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The Senate, meanwhile, has a test vote slated for Tuesday on a plan backed by President Barack Obama to prevent a doubling of college loan interest rates. Fully one-fourth of the House GOP spending cuts come from programs directly benefiting the poor, such as Medicaid, food stamps, the Social Services Block Grant, and a child tax credit claimed by working immigrants. Federal workers would have to contribute an additional 5 percent of their salaries toward their pensions, while people whose incomes rise after receiving coverage subsidies under the new health care law would lose some or all of their benefits. The budget-cutting drive is designed to head off a looming 10 percent, $55-billion budget cut set to strike the Pentagon on Jan. 1 because of the failure of last year's deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal. The Obama administration and lawmakers in both parties warn the reductions would harm readiness and weapons procurement, and reduce troop levels. The automatic spending cuts, known as a sequester, would strike domestic programs as well, including a 2 percentage point cut from Medicare payments to health care providers. The sequester required by the supercommittee's failure would abruptly wring about $110 billion in new spending from next year's budget, but the upcoming GOP measure is more gentle in the near term, cutting deficits this year and next by less than $20 billion – though the cuts add up to more than $300 billion over the coming decade. Some of the cuts may or not be realistic, though, despite the seal of approval of the respected Congressional Budget Office. Particularly dubious is $22.5 billion in savings claimed by repealing new "orderly liquidation" authority awarded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to prevent the failure of large financial firms from endangering the economy. Costs would be offset by assessments on other institutions over subsequent years. And $56 billion in savings over 10 years from Medicare and Medicaid as a result of curbing medical malpractice lawsuits is speculative, too, relying on a CBO estimate that assumes changes like capping punitive damages will produce a half-percentage-point cut in health care spending. The cuts will be dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate this year. But they're likely just a sample of what's in store next year from Republicans if Mitt Romney wins the White House and the GOP takes back the Senate. Romney promises much tougher cuts to domestic programs and an even bigger boost in the Pentagon's budget, while the House GOP budget promises sharp cuts to Medicaid and a dramatic overhaul of Medicare for future beneficiaries. Warring Democrats and Republicans hold sharply opposite views of the cuts. To GOP lawmakers, steps like blocking states from gaming food stamp eligibility rules to boost benefits or trying to stop undocumented immigrants from claiming tax refunds of up to $1,000 per child are simply no-brainers. And they won the 2010 midterm election after campaigning against Obama's health care law. But Democrats say Republicans are unfairly targeting the poor and vulnerable. They believe that legislation to prevent the Pentagon cuts should include tax increases that strike wealthier people. The proposed GOP cuts pale in comparison to the $5 trillion in cuts called for over the coming decade by the broader – but nonbinding – GOP blueprint, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who's often mentioned as a potential vice presidential choice. They're getting far less media attention as well. Stepping into the debate, however, has been the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who forcefully oppose cuts to programs that help the poor and vulnerable, singling out cuts to food stamps as "unjustified and wrong" and assailing the effort to deny the child tax credit to undocumented workers as sure to thrust vulnerable children into poverty. The vast majority of children who would be affected by the tax credit proposal are U.S. citizens. Republicans would also eliminate Social Services Block Grants, a $1.7 billion a year program that gives states money for Meals on Wheels, day care, adoption assistance, and transportation help for the elderly and disabled. Democrats noted that the program comes in the form of flexible block grants, an approach that Republicans advocated in the Ryan budget regarding Medicaid and food stamps. Republicans say the Social Service Block Grants program duplicates other efforts.

SS Spending 1st
GOP cuts from social services

AP 6/28/2012, “Democrats begin attack on GOP's spending plan,” DA: 7/22/12, http://www.indianagazette.com/b_news/article_48cec843-7d74-502e-aaf8-e3ae7e0a0833.html -- g.b.

HARRISBURG -- Democrats on Wednesday attacked a newly unveiled $27.7 billion state spending plan written by majority Republicans, calling it a gift to big business that will lock in this year's deep cuts in aid to public schools while forcing longer waits for people who need services such as treatment for mental illness or addiction. The legislation, made public just four days before the new fiscal year begins, passed the House Appropriations Committee on a party-line vote Wednesday morning after two hours of debate. The House adjourned Wednesday without action on the bill, and floor debate was expected to begin this morning. The plan will need Senate approval after that. Democrats were getting their first look at the document after having been excluded from private negotiations between Republican Gov. Tom Corbett and his fellow Republicans who control both chambers of the state Legislature. "I think this budget represents a woefully misplaced priority," Rep. Matthew Bradford, D-Montgomery, said during the committee meeting. With lawmakers hoping to wrap up work for the summer on Friday, Republicans still had a lot to do. They met privately for long periods Wednesday over various last-minute efforts to insert pet provisions into budget-related legislation. Among those was a Corbett administration attempt to win House support to absorb seven different pots of aid for county-administered services -- for the homeless, mentally ill and disabled, neglected or abused children and drug and alcohol addicts -- into one block grant program. "I would say that we have a reasonable amount of work to do," House Speaker Sam Smith, R-Jefferson, said after leaving one meeting. Many nonprofit groups that carry out much of the state's safety-net services oppose it for fear that mandated services, such as child-abuse investigations or court-ordered counseling, will drain much of the money. House Republicans sought to change the way gambling-financed grants for public construction projects are distributed, while Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Jake Corman, R-Centre, pressed for a provision to remove the state income tax deduction that Pennsylvania allows on contributions toward 529 college-savings plans operated by other states. Meanwhile, final legislation remained under wraps Wednesday for Corbett's top priority: a $1.7 billion tax break that he wants in an effort to lure a new petrochemical industry to Pennsylvania. The plan for the 2012-13 fiscal year that begins Sunday would increase spending by about 1.5 percent, largely for debt, pensions, health care for the poor and to help fill a shortfall in the almost-finished fiscal year. It also would cut taxes for businesses by almost $300 million and leave nearly $400 million in reserve from tax collections that are expected to rise by more than 3 percent. To save money, it would cut 10 percent from aid for many county-run social services and hundreds of millions of dollars from programs in the massive Department of Public Welfare budget that benefit poor, childless adults. Most public schools would get the same amount of aid after sustaining a cut of more than 10 percent this year, while an extra $50 million would be distributed to struggling school districts in an effort to avert a financial collapse. Regarding cuts to county-administered social services, Bradford said, "we don't even pretend to explain how they're going to make that 10 percent cut work." Republicans defended the need for the cuts, citing the increasingly expensive state share of public employee pension costs and arguing that helping businesses will enable them hire more people. "This is a sustainable budget," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Adolph, R-Delaware. Advocates for nonprofit social service providers say prevention programs, such as counselors in schools for children who are showing signs of trouble, could be first on the chopping block. Republicans were also advancing a proposal to require the welfare department to collect a broad range of financial information from nonprofit providers of state-funded social services, such as salaries, association dues, lobbying expenses, administrative expenses and the cost of delivering services. Bernadette Bianchi, the executive director of the Harrisburg-based nonprofit group Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth and Family Services, said that information is already public in the form of IRS reports and audits, and suggested that the service providers are being unfairly targeted.

"We're talking about kids that have already been abused and neglected. That's our target audience and somehow we're being identified as part of the problem instead of part of the solution," Bianchi said.

SS Spending 1st
GOP uses social service spending as a bargaining chip for deals like the debt ceiling

Creamer 5/4/2011, Roger Creamer, long-time political organizer, strategist, and author, “GOP Plans to Demand Mandatory Cuts in Social Security, Medicare as Price for Debt Ceiling,” DA: 7/22/12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/gop-plans-to-demand-manda_b_857326.html -- g.b.

It is increasingly clear that the Republicans will demand mandatory cuts in Social Security and Medicare as a price for increasing the debt ceiling later this spring. Of course they won't say they are demanding mandatory cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Over the Easter recess they've had a taste of just how strongly people feel about Medicare. Before they left the Capitol last month House Republicans voted -- almost unanimously -- for the Republican budget that ends Medicare and replaces it with a privatized system of partial support for private insurance premiums. They ran into a town hall buzz-saw of opposition in every corner of the country. The House Republican budget plan authored by Congressman Paul Ryan isn't going anywhere in the Senate. If the "gang of six" Senators come up with a deficit reduction plan that is acceptable to its three Democrats and three Republicans, that may attract brief interest among the elite media. But such a budget deal would have to involve substantial increases in revenue -- presumably from raising taxes on the wealthy -- and that has exactly zero chance of being approved by the Republican House. But the Republicans won't let the 70-plus percent opposition to cuts in Medicare and Social Security dissuade them. They've come up with a new plan that sugarcoats their attempts to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare. It's called a "mandatory global spending cap" and it's nothing more than the House Republican budget in disguise. The Republicans like this plan because, when you ask everyday voters if they support a "mandatory global spending cap" they think it sounds pretty good. What better way to force the government to "live within its means"? But support turns into solid opposition the moment people understand that the "mandatory global spending cap" would require mandatory cuts in Medicare and Social Security. In fact, this proposal isn't a way to make the government "live within its means" -- it's really a way to cut Medicare and Social Security in order to give more tax breaks to millionaires. It's a way to reduce the "means" that normal people live on, and hand them over to the Donald Trumps and Paris Hiltons of the world. Turns out that if you set a spending cap at a fixed level somewhere close to the average percentage of Gross Domestic Product that has gone to Federal outlays over the last couple of decades, it will inevitably force cuts in Medicare and Social Security. That's because the percentage of the population that is older and receiving Medicare and Social Security is going up. This will automatically increase the percentage of GDP going to Medicare and Social Security benefit -- which, of course, Americans have paid for their entire working lives. In fact, the "mandatory global spending cap" is a trick intended to sucker ordinary people into supporting a proposal to cut their own Social Security and Medicare benefits.



Download 0.81 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
washington post
environmental effects
glory days
european part