Analysis: Budget Proposals Vary in Addressing Americans' Spending Priorities

A new analysis from National Priorities Project examines how the competing federal budget proposals released by the President and Congress rate in responding to the stated policy priorities of the American people.

The Competing Visions report compares spending on top issues including jobs, education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, food assistance, and other domestic programs, war in Iraq and Syria, as well as proposed strategies for tax reform and deficit reduction.

"Our analysis shows that, in most spending categories, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the president would do the most to address the priorities voiced by the majority of Americans," said Jasmine Tucker, Research Analyst for National Priorities Project and author of the report. "In some areas, the House and Senate budget proposals completely miss the mark in responding to what Americans say they want."

"The differences between the four budget proposals are stark, and all signs indicate a difficult budget battle ahead as lawmakers try to resolve widely different approaches despite clear public opinion in favor of certain policies."

View the full analysis here.

Some key findings include:

On jobs:

• 67% of Americans say improving the job situation is a key priority.
• President Obama would invest $478 billion over six years into job creation initiatives.
• The House Budget includes no new funding for job creation.
• The Senate Budget includes no new funding for job creation.
• The Congressional Progressive Caucus would invest $1.3 trillion over 10 years in job creation initiatives.

On food assistance:

• 70% of Americans oppose cuts to SNAP (food stamps).
• President Obama would continue funding under current law.
• The House Budget would make deep cuts to SNAP funding and convert it to a block grant program administered by the states.
• The Senate Budget would cut a total of $4.3 trillion over 10 years in mandatory spending, which includes SNAP, but does not specify the impact on individual programs.
• The Congressional Progressive Caucus would invest an additional $21 billion in SNAP and child nutrition over 10 years.

On taxes:

• 91% of Americans think middle class households pay enough or too much in taxes; 79% think low-income households pay enough or too much in taxes.
• President Obama would expand the earned income tax credit (EITC) to low-income childless workers and triple the maximum child care tax credit (CTC) to $3,000 per child.
• The House Budget would allow the EITC and CTC to expire in 2017, raising taxes on more than 13 million working families.
• The Senate Budget would allow the EITC and CTC to expire in 2017, raising taxes on more than 13 million working families.
• The Congressional Progressive Caucus would expand the EITC to low-income childless workers and triple the maximum CTC to $3,000 per child.

On war:

• 85% of Americans are concerned that U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria will lead to a long and costly involvement.
• President Obama would spend $51 billion on war, including $5.3 billion specifically for the fight against ISIS.
• The House Budget would spend $90 billion on war.
• The Senate Budget would spend $58 billion on war.
• The Congressional Progressive Caucus would eliminate designated war funding after withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2016, and draw funds for future military action from the Pentagon's base budget.

The full Competing Visions analysis examines the four budget proposals across the following categories:

• Domestic Initiatives
• Job Creation
• Education
• Social Security
• Affordable Care Act
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• SNAP
• Pentagon
• War
• Corporate Taxes
• Individual TaxesDeficit Reduction
• Sequestration

Tucker added, "The federal budget is a document that should be a reflection of the common values held by the American people. Our president and Congress should agree on a budget that invests in the programs Americans care about the most."

View and download the Competing Visions report here.