NPP In Action
"USAction and our state affiliates depend on NPP's cost of war analysis to tell a compelling story about how our government's investment priorities impact Americans every day."
- Maude Bauschard, Program Manager
Click here
to send us your story. Click Here |
The President's Budget Fiscal Year 2009: Impact on the States
The administration released its fiscal year 2009 $3 trillion budget request on Monday, February 5. An overview of the budget proposal along with state-level breakdowns on selected programs are available. Budget Cuts Continue in 2009
Domestic programs intended for needy communities and families suffer the biggest cuts under the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2009, including Low-income Home Energy War Spending Continues to Increase Meanwhile, the President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposes an additional $70 billion in war-related spending, on top of the $102.4 billion the Administration continues to pursue for fiscal year 2008. The amount requested for fiscal year 2009 is merely a placeholder for the first few months of next fiscal year, vastly underestimating what would be required to continue the war in Iraq at the current level of involvement. The administration plans to seek additional funding for fiscal year 2009 in the Spring. The Iraq war has thus far cost $522 billion. In addition to proposed war funding, the non-war military budget will increase by nearly 5% over that of fiscal year 2008 under this proposal, reaching $541 billion in fiscal year 2009. This includes funding for nuclear weapons under the Department of Energy budget. Tax Cuts for Wealthy Made Permanent The budget request makes permanent the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the benefits of which will accrue to the wealthy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the wealthiest 1 percent would receive 31 percent of the windfall over the next 10 years, the top 20 percent would receive 74 percent, and those in the lowest 60 percent of households would receive only 12 percent. Large Deficits Continue The combination of increases in military spending and tax cuts will contribute to deficits of $407 billion in 2009, and $410 billion in fiscal year 2008. State-Level Tables The tables below show the real cuts to each state for selected programs. The consumer price index (urban) as published in U.S. Budget of the Government, Analytical Perspectives, FY2009, Table 12-1, has been used to adjust the 2008 amount for inflation so that the dollar amounts are in 2009 dollars.
( categories: )
|
Search ContentFeatured News
NPP Quoted by Barack Obama
|
Comments
Making Our Government a Democracy
When our Constitution was written there were no such things as; text messaging, telephone, e-mail, not even telegraph. If a person wanted to communicate with another person that was farther away than hollering distance the fastest way to do so was to get on a horse and go see that person. At that point in our history having representatives was probably the most practical form of government. We had and still have a republic.
In my opinion the time has come for us to bring democracy to our government. We have instant communication and the best transportation money can buy. We no longer need all those representatives. If each state had one representative that would be all we need. California has 53 representatives out of 435. The federal government has no business being so involved in a state's business that it should take more than one rep per state to take care of that business. There should be one from each state to help draft legislation and then it should be the citizens of this country that vote on the legislation. That would make us a true democratic republic. Personally, if a law is going to affect me I want to have a say in whether or not it passes. We could vote with a touch-tone phone. It seems to work for American Idol. I like the idea of not having the people who are actually supposed to be working for us voting on their own pay raises. They work for us, we should be the ones deciding what they should be paid.
Having 535 members of the House and Senate gathered up in one place creates a market place for the special interest lobbyist. If the citizens of the country were the ones to pass legislation the lobbyist would have very little influence on us.
Put two people in a car and decide where to go eat. One person will say that it makes no difference to them that is until the other person suggest a place. More often than not the first person will not want to go there. It seems to be human nature. So putting 435 people together to make decisions is not something that is going to work well. There are essential committees that create somewhat essential legislation. Trying to find work for 435 people makes it necessary to make up work, most of which is nonessential and not the constitutional business of the federal government. Ever wonder where all the pork comes in? For a person working in an essential committee to get a persons vote who works in an unessential committee just about means that he is going to have to tack on some noessential crap to his bill. That practice makes for unreadable bills that end up costing the taxpayers of this country a lot of money. We need to downsize the federal government and have them do only what the Constitution allows them to do. We could keep a lot of that tax money in the states so the states could take care of their own business in a much more efficient manner. The federal government could help support it's self by nationalizing natural resources on federal land. Personally I would rather buy my gas at a government gas station than pay income tax. Just a few thoughts from a man form Tennessee trying to get elected to the US House to try to downsize that house.
Aaaanndd GDP seems to be ...
Aaaanndd GDP seems to be ... ???
history
look at the roman empire,
the american empire runs about parallel
to that.
looking at the future of this country
one republican " Me" thinks ,
history repeats itself.
BUsh and History
I do not say this pejoratively ( for dittoheads that means with malice) but I believe with evry fiber of my being that voting for Bush in 2004 knowing what we already knew was the equivalent of a German voting for Hitler during world war 2 . Both mass murderers , both lied to begin war , both destroyed their nations economy to fight in a war, both cowards
Bush vs Hitler
I was born and raised in Germany, lived in the U.S. for half my life now, and your comments about Bush are right on!!! Shame on the American people who kept Bush in the White House in 2004 - we are now ALL paying the price.
Bush vs Hitler
Bush STOLE the election. The majority of Americans voted for Gore. Bush's people did everything in their power to obstruct the fair re-counting of votes when the antiquated punch card system failed. Large blocks of voters were disenfranchised. What took place in Florida was absolutely shameful. We were screwed.
Bush and History
I cannot think of a president who took more action against the wishes of his constituency and his supposed part principles. Speaking as someone who did vote for him, I only did because there was absolutely no shred of a plan or choice from the other party! I regret having cast my vote for this arrogant, maniacal man but in hind-sight, I shouldn't have voted at all (vs. voting for Kerry)!
The past 15 years have shown how flawed this system can be and how it’s never our guy fault but the other guy's guy that's the problem. We have bombed, killed, sent troops, should our economy down the river, racked up debt etc, but it’s always the other guy.
We really need to wake up and look at persons who have been in power for 30 years making 5 times as much as us with tremendous health benefits and pension plans and perks. This power, this life style has corrupted them all!
The vast majority of these people supported going originally and now state they were miss-lead. Were they miss-lead or did they just not do there jobs?
Everyone should read "Free
Everyone should read "Free Lunch" by David C. Johnston. It shows how the federal and state governments are giving out corporate welfare in the name of subsidies and "deregulation" that are anything but free market capitalism. This isn't a partisan issue, although our current administration and his texan goons are guilty of numerous acts against the common man. End the War and End Corporate Welfare destroying the middle class!
Its the government!
We spend a lot time arguing about Republicans and Democrats. The biggest problem for working families is the government. We tax hard working young families and self employed people to pay for hundreds of government agencies that serve no one but themselves. We have regulated jobs overseas and spent and borrowed until our dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value. You may notice that while crude oil is up nearly 400% in dollars its only up around 50% in Euros. Congress keeps having hearings to blame big evil corporations but if you are middle class and actually work for a living the major barrier to your success is the government, especially the income tax code. We have had nearly fifty years of subsidizing laziness while operating a tax code that actively penalizes people who try to succeed and pay their own way.
Umtil we returm to some semblance of economic liberty for middle class individuals we will continue to decline. The weight of these massive bloated lazy self serving local, state and federal governments is too much to bear for the shrinking private sector. Governments by their nature will become bigger , more selfserving and tyrannical over time unless actively held in check. In the area of controlling the growth of government and preserving individual economic liberty, both the current parties are total failures. If you work in the private sector and believe in paying your own way, you are completely without representation and viewed as just another chump to take money from so congress can create another dependent to vote for them.
right on
very well put
War Costs
Taxpayer's army is being used to gain physical control of petroleum and gas reserves so that multinational US energy companies can continue making their record profits. I understand that some, maybe all these US energy companies have established their incorpartions in foriegn countries to avoid paying US income taxes - thus they rely on our army to gain access to their product, but they are not pitching in on the cost to field the army, what a deal! Meanwhile, the FY 2009 budget has anemic funding for renewable and other energy alternatives to fossil fuels. The often cited claim is that technology for renewable energy remains too expensive, not competitive with fossil energy. But this comparison never includes the billions we expend on military force to acquire and protect these fossil resources! A full accounting of cost of petroleum would be much higher than $100 barrel and gas much higher than $3 a gallon. Solar, wind, geothermal, bio, hydro, etc along with new, modern, more conductive efficient electricity grid across the nation, could greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, reduce impact on environment. Am i to believe we can crate war machines that boggle the imagination in sophistication - stealth air craft, subs capable of destoying earth many times yet undectable, but we cannot create a low cost, safe, super fuel efficient vehicle for commuting to and from work ...60 miles to gallon is best we can do? Give me a much needed break...
You are correct sir. And we
You are correct sir. And we are all part of the problem too! Everyday I get on the expressway and see hundreds of thousands of 1 occupant cars, a lot of trucks, SUVs, sedans etc. There have been prototype hydrogen cars for over 10 years... Once we make the change to Hydrogen, then water will be the disappearing resource. Its about using less and most of us are not willing to do so. We are not willing to sacrifice. If you drink diet Coke or bottled water, remember, plastic is patroleum product, the process to make it uses patroleum, the traspertaion of it uses patroleum etc. etc. We have been taught to live beyond our means, live excessively and nothing will change until we change our whole mentality.
Budget Surplus
Clinton did not, again did not, leave a budget surplus. Clinton and Gore claimed to have balanced the budget but they did not actually do this. Their claim was for the future eight years after they left office. Only if the economy continued to increase at the same pace that it had during their administration. Clinton and Gore had nothing to do with how the economy ran during their administration. Presidents only take credit for the economy, there is not much that a President can do to affect an economy for any nation.
Clinton budget surplus
I have no idea what you are talking about when you state, without any explanation, that Clinton did not leave a surplus. He certainly did. If you consider future obligations such as Social Security and Medicare, you couldn't consider it a long-term surplus. However, recognition of those future obligations was THE reason for creating the surplus that Bush has now given away to the top 1% of taxpayers--those who need it least. (By the way, I am in that 1%, and I'd much rather have left my tax cuts in the system to shore up Social Security and Medicare.
non-surplus
So what you're saying is... It makes sense to barrow from Social Security to pay today's budget and create a surplus for future obligations of SS and Medicaid? It doesn't make sense! We will have to fund the obligations somewhere down the line. It was about 6 trillion when Clinton left, now its 10 trillion, when do you/we stop defending these goofs?
debt-surplus
You are correct, there was no surplus. It was trickeration. The money was barrowed from Social Security, debts we have to pay back to ourselves are not considered in the deficit and therefore were considered surplus by that administration (as all). The Debt has gone up every year since Eisenhower. Wake up people! Thinking one guy or party is/was better than the next is what keeps this mess going. I have not heard any plan by any current candidate as to how they will eliminate the deficit and debt. Our children are being screwed!
budget surplus
No, the money was not "borrowed from Social Security" and "debts we have to pay back to ourselves" doesn't exist. The US Treasury acts much like a bank: when you make a deposit to your bank, it doesn't sit there in your account waiting for you to make a withdrawal. It is loaned out or used to give someone else cash when they go to the ATM. But the bank knows what is in your account, and when you go to the ATM, if you have enough money in your account to allow the withdrawal, you get whatever it is you have requested in cash. Your contributions to Social Security are much like having an account at the bank. Your Federal Income Taxes are used for day-to-day operating expenses of the Federal Government, but Treasury knows what you have in your account and makes your monthly benefits payments from the tax receipts from other taxpayers.
During the Clinton Administration, there was a concerted effort to build a surplus to cover Social Security obligations. When Clinton left office, there was sufficient surplus to cover Social Security obligations through 2040. In 2 terms, George Bush has managed to give away all that surplus and add to the national debt. I wouldn't mind this too much if he had spent the money on something worthwhile, but he spent it on a war that should never have been started and gave it away to the top 1% of taxpayers who had absolutely no need for it. THIS IS TOTALLY UNFORGIVEABLE!
(By the way, I worked for 22 years in the US Senate for a former Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, so I'm not just spouting this off the top of my head.)
non-surplus
You can call a bus a marshmellow until it hits you. 4.4 trillion of debt in 1993, 5.7 at the end of 2000 (the current numbskull has increased it to 10). A surplus means you are taking in more than is going out, obviously this wasn't the case.
You can also call a
You can also call a marshmallow a bus! By your rather marshmallow-type definition, there definitely was a surplus in 2000: receipts in that fiscal year were 2,025.5, outlays were 1,789.2, resulting in a surplus of 236.2. There certainly was not enough surplus from 1990 to 2000 to erase all the accumulated Federal debt, but the actual dollar amount of the debt steadily declined during that period. If you want to define "debt" as all accumulated past debt plus all statuatory obligations into infinitey, there will never be a balance. Note that the Federal Budget does not take into account any offsetting Federal assets so you are not looking at a standard balance sheet here.
You may be interested the following excerpt from Wikepedia.
In the initial PAYGO regimen, enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA '90), by statutory requirement, any increases in the deficit were to be offset by an across the board "sequestration" of programs. This means an automatic cut in non-exempt mandatory spending programs -- this was calculated by the Office of Management and Budget at the end of the year.
These rules were in effect from FY1991-FY2002 [2] and are widely seen as having assisted the US Congress in maintaining budget discipline. In FY 1991 the Federal deficit was 4.5% of GDP, by FY 2000 the Federal surplus was 2.4%. [3] Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each and every year from FY1991 through FY 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%. [4]
In 1998, in response to the first federal budget surplus since 1969, Congress started increasing discretionary spending above the statutory limit using creative means such as advance appropriations, delays in making obligations and payments, emergency designations, and specific directives. [5] While staying within the technical definition of the law, this allowed "emergency" spending that otherwise would not be allowed. The result was emergency spending of $34 billion in 1999 and $44 billion in 2000. In 2001 that amount jumped to $700 billion, most of which came from the 2001 tax cut (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001). [6] In 2001 Congress began removing discretionary spending by statute from the PAYGO scorecard. Those amounts were $90 billion in 2001, $65 billion in 2002, $127 billion in 2003, $150 billion in 2004, $142 billion in 2005, and $144 billion in 2006. [7]
The PAYGO rules were allowed to lapse in the House and watered down in the Senate, which made it easier for lawmakers to approve President George W. Bush's tax cuts and a Medicare prescription drug plan. The White House admitted that the Medicare prescription drug plan would not meet the PAYGO requirements:
We are going to have to
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I guess since LBJ began including SS in the budget the calculation has provided for balanced budgets in the Johnson and Clinton administrations.
if SS uses all surplus to purchase non-marketable securities of the government and create revenue for the the treasury to spend, then I guess it would be balanced.
One simple fact remains, the securities will have to be purchased back eventually, and at the rate we are going the money will not be there and balanced budget or not, the overall debt went up and has every year since the 50!
Budget
It may well be a matter of semantics rather than real disagreement. The following is excerpts from a Congressional Research Service Report to Congress that clarifies the matter. To view the entire article, see http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-781:1
Beginning in the 1970s, financial problems plaguing Social Security and concern over the program's growing costs gave impetus to measures to curtail benefits. Social Security cutbacks were included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts of 1980 and 1981 and the Social Security Amendments of 1983. However, despite passage of these measures, resolution of the program's financial problems, and the buildup of surpluses in the trust funds, interest in curbing Social Security expenditures continued because of the large federal budget deficits that arose in the 1980s.
(Note: Federal Budget deficits, Social Security SURPLUS)
... measures were enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987
explicitly stating that it was not to be included in the budget, making it a separate part of congressional budget resolutions, and imposing potential procedural hurdles for budgetary bills containing Social Security changes.
Then, in 1990, reacting to criticism that surplus Social Security taxes were masking the size of budget deficits, Congress enacted further measures to separate Social Security from formulation of the budget and from procedures designed to discourage tax reductions or spending increases that would increase the size of the deficits.
For federal budget purposes, Social Security is now considered to be "off budget." If loosely defined, one could say that Social Security has been removed from the federal budget at least three times since the early 1980s, as part of:
1. the Social Security Amendments of 1983;
2. the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget act changes in 1985; and
3. the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
While the meaning of Social Security being "off budget" might seem obvious -- that it is not to be considered as part of the federal budget -- many people are perplexed by the continued use of aggregate budget figures that count the program's receipts and expenditures.
...Those who are interested in the aggregate financial flows of the Treasury and the impact those flows have on the economy -- particularly the extent to which the government is borrowing money from the financial markets or paying off publicly-held debt it has incurred in the past --continue to view the financial affairs of the government on a unified budget basis, which means they count Social Security in computing revenue and spending totals. It is the difference between the government's total receipts and total spending, including Social Security's, that determines how much the government needs to borrow from the markets or can repay. CBO states it this way:
Social Security benefits alone account for more than one-fifth of federal spending, and its payroll taxes account for about one-fourth of government revenues. Therefore, most economists, credit market participants, and policymakers, when they seek to gauge the government's role in the economy and its drain on the credit markets, look at the total budget figures -- including Social Security.2
OMB also takes the position that the additional budget displays its documents provide -- that show Social Security and the postal service separately and what the rest of the budget looks like without them -- satisfy the legal requirements enacted in the 1983 to 1990 period that Social Security be treated off budget. Hence, while Social Security is legally and officially considered off budget and does have certain procedural protections in the congressional budget process, in practice and largely because it is a federally-operated and financed program, it is considered as part of the federal budget for economic purposes.
Taking Social Security off budget has changed the way the budget is presented to a limited extent....annual budget summaries of CBO and OMB highlight what the overall budget looks like with Social Security. Their documents show (1) unified budget totals which display the financial flows of the entire federal government as a single entity, and (2) "on budget" totals which exclude Social Security and the postal service. They also frequently show "off budget" totals which count only the operations of Social Security and the postal service. A major effect of this has been to highlight that the Social Security system is running a surplus and the rest of the government is running a deficit (the postal service has a very minor effect on the "off budget" surplus).
lies, deceits and deficits!
The nearly half a trillion dollar deficit in the forcast year is adding insult to injury. Where i come from in Auckland, New Zealand the government pursues a fiscal surplus and has done for the past 14 years under law. Clinton left the US with a surplus and now your Bush has left you with nothing to show for it. A war you cant get out of, islamic jihad run away causing yet more heartache for the world and more than 50 million americans in poverty, not to mention no universal health care and tax cuts for the rich. The united states must be the worst western country to live in on earth right now. Most of the comments made here are valid, express your views and vote for change! You should be ashamed of your self Bush/ Bush administration and the people who voted for you! Your economy is 100 times bigger than ours yet ours has had the longest period of sustained growth since 1945 with record unemployment and increase prosperity! New Zealand is the place to be and i am proud i'm a new zealander!
Hmmm, What strikes me
Hmmm, What strikes me immediatly is how Clinton left the office with a balanced budget and a surplus, then this "enter explicative" walks in and leaves us with a 4 hundred some odd BILLON deficit and 9 trillon dollar debt!
All I can do is just shake my head when I see the "W 2004" stickers still affixed to people's bumpers in parking lots! I mean... everyone makes a mistake: the elections in 2000, But c'mon, making the same mistake twice?
My biggest question? The republican extremists love to criticize Hillary and Obama, BUT why do the Republicans not take responsability for Bush's actions? He was THEIR nomination for president both elections! Yet the democrats are the ones with the problem?
Wait, I understand their logic... just ignore the past 7 years and assume that America is doing just fine... or, they can do as I do and OPEN THEIR EYES to the truth!
I'm with you, Brian. Why do
I'm with you, Brian. Why do we let them get away with this nonsense?
support
i support it but
NO WAR JUST ZAP
Brutal Budgets
I live in the state of California where state and local government is looking to make massive cuts to school, public healthcare, and environmental funding due to a lack of tax money availiable for these programs that enhance and improve the lives of ordinary people.
Yet we pay high taxes which go to the Bush government that squanders our public money on unnecessary wars and wars we know were based on lies.
I beleive our country is rich enough to support a first class education for every child and adult, to support an environmental revolution that produces an economy that does not destroy the Earth, and Universal health care that is second to none for everyone if we just stop wasting our talent and wealth on Idiot wars.
Does anyone know why the
Does anyone know why the **** we don't have a say in the federal budget? Or do we? It's our money, why can't we march on the capitol and kick *** until he starts putting our money where it belongs BACK INTO THE HANDS OF OUR WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, the ones paying all the taxes.
Federal budget
We defintely DO HAVE A SAY in the Federal budget. The problem is that most people don't know much about the budget and don't participate. When I went to Washington in 1974 and went to work for a US Senator who very soon thereafter became Chairman of the Senate Budget Committtee, I was absolutely blown away by how much we ordinary American citizens have a say in how our Federal Government works. About 6 months after starting the job, I came home to South Carolina and met friends at the beach; after 2 days of watching me sit on the beach reading the Federal Register and frequently quoting to them various proposed regulations, I was told to throw the **** things away and act like a human being. Educating the public about effective participation is very difficult. I spent 22 years doing this and still am very much interested in trying, but it is extremely hard, down-in-the-trenches work. Most people want to complain but not do the research necessary to make a meaningful impact. If you are sincere and not afraid of hard work, let me know and I'll do whatever I can to help.
So much for system of checks and balances
"In addition to proposed war funding, the non-war military budget will increase by nearly 5%...This includes funding for nuclear weapons under the Department of Energy budget."
First off, how is this legal? This money should be going towards research in alternative energy sources to ensure a better, cleaner future, instead of creating WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
GET OUT
WE need to get out of the war we are spending billion of dollars and all were doing is risking lives. BACK OUT!!! WE
are making family's fall apart.
Peace not war
The money proposed for the new military budget should be going for ways to bring peace to the world.
jtracy
Adding insult to injury
The Republican fleecing of America. Mr. Bush is shamefully shameless. The only protection Americans really need are protection from Bush and Cheney. Of course Bush want's to give all our money to the defense industry, he and Cheney own it all. Hence the lies for war so they could rob us blind. Every day the Bush regime avoid jail is another day of injustice for all Americans. It is hard to find words that express the frustration and contempt I have for this Federal government. Any man that can take from children and the elderly to pad his pockets is the lowest of low soul's.
Bush
bush has the money but he is not showing it. He is saving it for himself.