SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
budget cuts
2024 House Appropriations Bills Slash Vital Programs
The House bills are highly partisan and deviate sharply from the levels set in the bipartisan agreement to raise the federal debt limit in May.
Nov 19, 2023
The fiscal year 2024 appropriations bills approved by the House Appropriations Committee make major cuts in a wide range of domestic priorities. Among those hardest hit are programs crucial to the well-being of families with low incomes and their children, to public health, to job training and protection of workers’ rights, to a clean environment, and to fair administration of tax laws. The House bills are highly partisan and deviate sharply from the levels set in the bipartisan agreement to raise the federal debt limit in May.
In contrast, the Senate-passed appropriations bills are lean but include substantially fewer cuts and rescissions (which take back already enacted funding), are largely consistent with agreed-on levels, and have strong bipartisan support. They offer a better path toward funding that meets national needs, although there are some programmatic areas where the Senate levels are too low to meet those needs, such as with WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) and housing assistance.
As part of the debt limit deal, the House, Senate, and Biden administration agreed on defense and non-defense appropriations totals for 2024, calling for regular 2024 non-defense appropriations to be held to the same dollar total as in 2023. Reaching the 2023 non-defense level in 2024 requires not only setting appropriations at the cap established in the debt limit legislation but also adhering to the agreements negotiators had signed off on that provide offsets to accommodate additional funding. Such a freeze at last year’s level is fairly austere. It requires any increases that are necessary to meet rising costs, increasing needs, or new situations to be offset by cuts in other areas.
This report describes some of the serious cuts and shortfalls in the House appropriations bills.
While the Senate’s 2024 appropriations bills generally adhere to that approach (with small deviations agreed to on a bipartisan basis), the House’s Republican majority began writing non-defense appropriations bills with severe cuts to vital programs, at a total that is roughly $153 billion lower than had been agreed on. In the bills drafted by the House Appropriations Committee, the House Republicans achieve those cuts in two basic ways: by reducing many 2024 appropriations by about $59 billion (7%) below the 2023 levels, and by rescinding $94 billion of already enacted funding, almost all from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
This report describes some of the serious cuts and shortfalls in the House appropriations bills, affecting areas such as education, child care, housing, job training, public health, medical research, nutrition assistance, environmental protection, renewable energy, enforcement of civil rights and worker protection laws, and operation of the Social Security system. It also describes the proposed rescissions of previously enacted funding, which include amounts that had been provided to fairly enforce tax laws and make sure that wealthy individuals and corporations pay their share, and to combat climate change, promote clean energy, and assist farmers.
Children and Families, Students, Education, and Housing
The House bills shortchange the needs of pregnant people and families with young children who need help affording healthy food, of school children in low-income communities, of families needing help with child care costs or an affordable place to live, and of college students seeking financial aid.
The House bills would:
Take away food assistance from hundreds of thousands of new parents and young children by underfunding WIC. This Agriculture Department program supports millions of people in low-income families in important life stages—during and after pregnancy, and from birth until a child’s fifth birthday—by providing nutritious foods, nutrition education, referrals to healthcare, and other services. The House Agriculture bill’s WIC funding is well below the level needed to serve all eligible families who wish to participate, and would result in an estimated 600,000 new parents, toddlers, and preschoolers being turned away. The House bill would also cut WIC’s science-based fruit and vegetable benefit by between 58% and 71% (depending on the recipient’s age) for 4.7 million of the remaining participants.
Cut more than $15.6 billion in funding that schools use to help students in low-income communities learn and to help students whose first language is not English. The bills:
- Cut the Title I Education for Disadvantaged Students program by 80%, or $14.7 billion. This Education Department program is the largest federal program supporting K-12 education. It makes grants to school districts serving communities experiencing high levels of poverty to help them provide additional services and supports to students from low-income households or disadvantaged backgrounds. This cut would greatly scale back the federal government’s commitment to improving equity for low-income communities in funding education and could remove support for more than 220,000 teachers and other staff.
- Eliminate the Education Department’s English Language Acquisition Program. These grants, funded at $890 million in 2023, help schools meet the needs of students learning English.
Make it harder for students to afford college by eliminating some forms of help, including federal work-study funding, and by freezing Pell Grants, which provide tuition assistance. The bills withdraw more than $2 billion in college assistance, straining families’ budgets and making it harder for many students to go to college. The bills:
- Eliminate the “campus-based” college student aid programs: Federal Work-Study and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOGs). This aid is distributed through qualifying colleges and universities to help cover unmet needs for financial assistance (through income from part-time employment in the case of work study). Work study was funded at $1.2 billion in 2023, with an estimated 660,000 recipients; SEOGs were funded at $910 million, with almost 1.7 million recipients.
- Freeze the maximum Pell Grant amount while college costs continue to rise. Pell Grants are the foundation of federal financial aid for college students of modest means, with more than 6 million undergraduate students receiving assistance. In the 2023-2024 school year, the maximum Pell Grant covered just 31% of the cost of attending a state university (tuition, fees, and room and board).
Make it harder for families to afford child care, reduce the number of children who can participate in Head Start, and cut funding that supports state efforts to improve preschool offerings. Compared to the Senate bills, the House bills provide some $2.0 billion less for three main early learning programs—child care, Head Start, and Preschool Development Grants—on top of cuts to Title I (described above), which also funds early learning. These cuts undercut support for the early learning and child care that families and children need, at a time when Covid-related funding has expired, which is also threatening the stability of many providers. The bills would:
- Freeze appropriations for child care assistance even as pandemic-related child care funding has also expired. These appropriations are the largest ongoing source of federal assistance to help working families with low incomes meet child care expenses, but the House bill provides no increase to help meet rising costs or aid additional families. Before the pandemic, federal child care programs were assisting only about 16% of eligible children, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) estimated. Without more funding, low levels are likely to return: Substantial Covid relief helped stabilize child care providers and meet more families’ needs, but that funding is expiring. The Biden administration has requested supplemental appropriations to help fill the gap in 2024, but ongoing funding is needed in this crucial area.
- Cut Head Start by $750 million, or 6%. Head Start supports comprehensive early learning and development services for economically disadvantaged children and families. House Appropriations Committee Democrats estimate that the proposed cuts will result in more than 50,000 children losing access to Head Start programs.
- Eliminate Preschool Development Grants. These grants, funded at $315 million in 2023, are designed to build state and local capacity to implement preschool for 4-year-old children from low- and moderate-income families.
Cut the number of households that receive rental assistance and make it harder for households struggling with the rising cost of rent. The bills would:
- Result in funding levels that would lead to 40,000 fewer families receiving help to afford stable homes through the Housing Choice Voucher program, we estimate. These vouchers are the country’s largest rental assistance program, helping households with low incomes afford a home of their choice in the private market. Rental assistance programs require additional funding each year because their costs are tied to rents, which rise every year and have increased greatly in recent years.
- Cut other affordable housing resources that communities need to maintain existing affordable housing and to develop additional housing, which is badly needed to address inadequate supply. The House bills also cut funding for other programs that help people afford quality housing. They would cut public housing by 2% ($151 million), continuing a long pattern of disinvestment in this important source of affordable housing and risking the loss of affordable units to disrepair; cut by 67% ($1 billion) the HOME Investment Partnerships program, which funds affordable housing development and rehabilitation; and eliminate the Choice Neighborhoods program, which helps revitalize public and affordable housing and the surrounding neighborhoods that have long been denied resources due to disinvestment and discriminatory housing and development policies.
Medical Research and Health
The House bills cut back federal support for public health workers who detect disease outbreaks, vaccinate people against dangerous diseases, and promote disease prevention. They also cut back funding for medical research into better treatment and cures for diseases, as well as support for family planning clinics and care for people with HIV, among other healthcare needs.
The House bills would:
Reduce the nation’s preparedness for disease outbreaks and cut disease prevention efforts through an 18% ($1.6 billion) cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC tracks and responds to disease outbreaks, fosters disease prevention, and supports the work of state and local public health agencies. Examples of cuts to CDC’s budget include a 16% reduction in funding for prevention of HIV, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections, and tuberculosis; a 21% cut in chronic disease prevention programs; and a 17% cut in public health preparedness.
Reduce the nation’s commitment to groundbreaking medical research by cutting funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by 8% ($3.8 billion). NIH is a major source of support for medical research, both conducting its own in-house research and funding the work of medical researchers throughout the country. The biggest dollar cut within this part of the legislation is a $1.5 billion (23%) reduction to the NIH institute that studies infectious diseases—this following a major pandemic with severe impacts on people’s health and the nation’s economy. The legislation also includes a two-thirds cut, from $1.5 billion to $500 million, to ARPA-H (Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health). ARPA-H’s purpose is to undertake long-shot but potentially high-reward projects not readily accomplished through traditional federal biomedical research, including participation in the Cancer Moonshot initiative seeking a cure for that disease.
Make it harder for people to access family planning services by eliminating funding for Title X grants to public and private nonprofit agencies that support family planning services for people with modest incomes. In 2021, this program provided contraceptive, infertility, and other family planning services to more than 1.6 million clients at more than 3,200 sites nationwide. Established 53 years ago, Title X received appropriations totaling $286 million in 2023. Fees are charged on a sliding scale based on clients’ ability to pay.
Cut care to people with HIV by reducing the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program by 9% ($239 million). This HHS program provides funding to state and local governments and local clinics and organizations to deliver care, treatment, and support to low-income people with HIV.
Workers and Jobs
The House bills sharply scale back funding for job training for people seeking to learn new skills and boost their employment prospects. They also make big cuts to agencies that protect workers’ rights, including rights to minimum wages and overtime pay, to safe workplaces, and to engage in union activity.
The House bills would:
Eliminate federal job training funding for adults and youth provided through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, a major source of job training funding. These programs received $1.8 billion in 2023, which is expected to support training for more than 420,000 adults and youth.
Leave workers less protected against illegal employer behavior by cutting efforts to enforce the right to unionize and basic health and safety standards. The bills would:
- Cut appropriations for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by 33% ($99 million). NLRB enforces federal law protecting the rights of workers to form unions and engage in union activity; it does so by investigating and adjudicating complaints about violations and conducting elections to determine if workers wish to be represented by a union.
- Cut appropriations for the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division by 29% ($75 million). This agency ensures adherence to minimum wage, overtime, child labor, and family and medical leave laws, among others.
- Cut appropriations for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) by 15% ($95 million) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by 16% ($63 million). Both agencies seek to prevent workplace injuries and illnesses by setting and enforcing standards and providing training and assistance.
- Cut appropriations for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) by 32% ($115 million). NIOSH studies occupational illnesses and injuries and ways to prevent them, including research and education on health and safety in disaster response. NIOSH is located within CDC, intentionally separate from the enforcement agencies to foster independence in research.
Environment, Climate, and Rural Communities
The House bills make big cuts to environmental protection, including enforcement of environmental laws, programs to clean up pollution, and investments in safe drinking water, wastewater treatment, and other infrastructure. The House bills also make big cuts and rescissions to programs that promote clean energy and otherwise address climate change.
The House bills would:
Leave communities and people more vulnerable to water and air pollution, unsafe drinking water, toxic wastes, hazardous chemicals, and other threats to human health by cutting funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 39% ($4.0 billion). This cut would bring EPA funding to the lowest level since 1991, before adjusting for inflation. Cuts include 26% in Environmental Programs and Management (which funds activities such as development and enforcement of environmental protection rules and standards), 30% in Science and Technology (which performs scientific research and laboratory analysis to inform EPA’s work), and 42% in State and Tribal Assistance Grants (which include funding for wastewater treatment and drinking water facilities, water pollution control, and other environmental grant programs).
Take less care of our national parks with a 13% ($436 million) cut to the National Park Service budget. This includes a 9% cut in funds for operating the national parks and a 52% cut in the national parks construction budget.
Reduce efforts to facilitate our transition to clean energy by cutting funding for the Energy Department’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs by 42% ($1.5 billion). This appropriations account supports research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies to enable transition to a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy. It gives special attention to the needs of workers and communities impacted by the energy transition and to those historically overburdened by pollution, who are disproportionately people of color due to policies like redlining that promoted exposure to industrial areas.
Shred multi-year efforts to promote clean energy and combat climate change by rescinding more than $29 billion in multi-year funding that had been provided in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to further those goals. The House bills would cut:
- $18.9 billion from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which makes grants to facilitate access to financing and technical assistance to support deployment of clean energy technologies, especially in low-income and disadvantaged communities.
- $4.4 billion from High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebates, which assist low- and moderate-income consumers in upgrading to high-efficiency electric systems and appliances.
- $3.2 billion from programs to convert federal buildings into high-performance green buildings.
- $1.4 billion from Environmental and Climate Justice Grants for environmental justice initiatives in disadvantaged communities, such as pollution prevention and remediation, investment in low- and zero-emission technologies, and climate resiliency and adaptation.
- $990 million from funding to encourage states and localities to adopt the latest building codes for energy efficiency.
- $190 million from grants to states to train contractors in installation of home energy efficiency improvements.
Scale back assistance to farmers and rural communities by rescinding approximately $5.8 billion in multi-year funding that had been provided in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act for those purposes. Included in the House bills’ cuts:
- Approximately $2.3 billion from Assistance to Underserved Farmers, Ranchers, and Foresters, which provides support to veterans and members of groups historically subjected to racial, ethnic, and gender discrimination, to help ensure that they can participate in Agriculture Department programs without facing discrimination or other barriers.
- Approximately $2 billion from Farm Loan Immediate Relief for Borrowers With At-Risk Agricultural Operations, which provides loans, loan modifications, or other financial assistance to farmers who have Agriculture Department direct and guaranteed loans and whose operations are at financial risk.
- $1 billion from assistance for rural electric cooperatives. This assistance helps improve the long-term resiliency, reliability, and affordability of rural electric systems by supporting deployment of renewable energy, zero-emissions, and carbon capture systems and by making energy efficiency improvements to generation and transmission systems.
- $500 million from the Rural Energy for America Program, which provides financial and technical assistance to aid farmers, ranchers, rural small businesses, and distressed communities in purchasing and installing renewable energy systems and in making energy efficiency improvements.
Transportation
The House bills make several cuts to transportation infrastructure, including funding for mass transit improvement projects, support for Amtrak, and grants to improve freight rail safety and reliability.
The House bills would:
Let bus, subway, and passenger rail service deteriorate by slashing federal support:
- Cut mass transit capital investment grants by 85% ($2.2 billion). These competitive grants support large- and small-scale construction and expansion of rail, bus, rapid transit, and ferry systems.
- Cut support for Amtrak by 65% ($1.6 billion). This funding goes to both capital and operating support in the Northeast Corridor and throughout the national rail network.
Do less to upgrade transportation infrastructure, including railroad safety:
- Eliminate the Transportation Department’s National Infrastructure Investment program, which received $800 million in 2023. This program makes competitive grants for large-scale highway, transit, and rail projects likely to generate regional or national benefits.
- Cut the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement program by 52% ($276 million). This program makes competitive grants to support freight and intercity passenger rail projects to improve safety, efficiency, and reliability.
Basic Government Functions
The House bills worsen the underfunding of agencies that directly serve the public in critical ways, including the IRS and the Social Security Administration (SSA), leading to longer waits to get questions answered or for decisions about benefits. This will also continue to leave the IRS short of the staffing and expertise it needs to audit complex tax returns and make sure that corporations and wealthy people are paying their fair share—reversing an agency rebuilding process that is already seeing improvements in customer service and in revenue collected in the face of tax avoidance by some wealthy taxpayers.
The House bills would:
Gut efforts to improve customer service at the IRS and ensure that high-income households and corporations pay the taxes they legally owe by rescinding the vast majority of the multi-year funding provided for the long-term rebuilding of IRS capacity to enforce tax laws and serve taxpayers, while also cutting regular annual IRS funding by 9% ($1.1 billion). The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided multi-year funding to counteract long-term underfunding that left the IRS with greatly diminished capacity to reduce tax cheating by properly auditing complex tax returns of wealthy taxpayers, or to respond to ordinary taxpayers’ questions. But of the $80 billion in ten-year funding that law provided, the House bills rescind $67 billion, devastating the rebuilding effort. The House bills compound this problem by cutting the regular annual IRS appropriation by $1.1 billion (or 9%), thus further reducing IRS capacity instead of rebuilding it.
Further erode customer service at the SSA by cutting the agency’s customer service budget by 2% ($250 million), when funding increases are needed to boost staffing and invest in IT as the number of beneficiaries grows. The House bills’ cuts would come on top of more than a decade of cuts that have forced the agency to face serving millions more beneficiaries at its lowest staffing level in over 25 years. Between 2010 and 2023, customer service funding at the SSA fell by 17% (adjusted for inflation), and the number of staff fell by 16%, while the number of beneficiaries rose by 22%. Wait times for disability decisions are at a record high, and hold times on the phone are now around 40 minutes. Flat funding under the current continuing resolution has led to a hiring freeze and suspension of IT investments.
Undermine enforcement of civil rights laws that ensure people can access public services without facing unlawful discrimination. The House bills cut funding for agency Offices of Civil Rights, which enforce civil rights requirements related to their agency’s mission and programs. Cuts include 39% at the Agriculture Department, 25% at the Education Department, and 20% at HHS.
Problematic, Controversial Riders
The bills produced by the House majority are also replete with partisan legislative provisions or “riders,” mostly pursuing what have become common targets of Republican culture wars.
Examples of such riders include provisions in multiple bills that would stymie racial equity initiatives, such as prohibiting the use of funds to carry out the president’s executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion or for agency offices dedicated to furthering those goals, and prohibiting the use of funds to promote or advance critical race theory.
Other riders include anti-LGBTQ policies that would prohibit the use of funds for surgical procedures or hormone therapy for purposes of gender-affirming care, prohibit implementation of an executive order on combatting discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, and prohibit flying LGBTQ pride flags at federal facilities.
The Republican bills also seek to further restrict abortion rights, including by overturning a decision by the Food and Drug Administration that facilitates access to the medication abortion drug mifepristone; blocking a Defense Department policy to cover travel costs of service members and members of their families to obtain abortions if they are stationed in states restricting abortion services; prohibiting clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood from receiving funds appropriated in the Labor-HHS-Education bill unless they stop performing legally permissible abortions; and blocking the use of funds in the bills to implement two executive orders related to access to reproductive healthcare services.
Keep ReadingShow Less
President Biden Has the Power to Transform the Social Security Debate; Here’s How
Biden should take the best ideas from all of the Democratic plans and introduce a unified Democratic Social Security plan on the White House lawn, then spend the next year campaigning on it.
Jul 14, 2023
This week, nearly 200 House Democrats, led by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), introduced Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust. The legislation would expand Social Security’s modest benefits, with no cuts, and keep the system strong for decades to come..
Senate Democrats are taking action to protect and expand Social Security, as well. On the same day that Rep. Larson introduced his legislation, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) held a Senate Budget Committee hearing on his legislation, the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act. The hearing on the Whitehouse legislation, which brings in enough revenue from the wealthiest among us to ensure that all benefits will be paid in full and on time for the next 75 years and beyond, was aptly named: “Protecting Social Security for All: Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share.”
Earlier this Congress, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced their own bill, the Social Security Expansion Act. Like the Whitehouse legislation, the Sanders-Warren bill ensures that all benefits can be paid for the next 75 years and beyond. Like the Larson bill, the Sanders-Warren bill expands Social Security’s modest benefits both across-the-board and in important targeted ways.
Republican politicians are so desperate to conceal their plans to slash Social Security because they know how unpopular these cuts are with even their own base.
These bills (and other Democratic plans) have a lot in common. They keep Social Security strong for the foreseeable future by requiring the wealthiest to pay their fair share. None of them cut benefits; most expand them. They are all extremely popular with Democratic, Republican, and independent voters—but not with Republican politicians. None of these bills have a single Republican co-sponsor.
Nor have Republicans introduced Social Security legislation of their own. The closest they’ve come to releasing a Social Security plan is the 2024 budget of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group that includes about 70% of House Republicans. The RSC budget includes large cuts to Social Security and Medicare, cloaked in nearly-inscrutable language.
The text of the RSC budget calls for “modest adjustments to the retirement age” but doesn’t specify what those “adjustments” are. Only when a reporter asked did RSC leadership admit they plan to raise the retirement age to 69 for everyone who is currently 59 or younger. Because of the way that Social Security benefits are calculated, raising the statutory full retirement age two years is mathematically indistinguishable from a 13% across-the-board benefit cut. The budget would also “make modest changes to the primary insurance amount (PIA) benefit formula,” which is D.C. insider speak for decimating middle-class Social Security benefits.
Revealingly, most of the RSC budget’s Social Security section doesn’t focus on specific policies at all. Instead, the RSC spends paragraph after paragraph demanding “bipartisanship” on Social Security. Ironically, they castigate President Joe Biden and Democrats for allegedly supporting a 23% benefit cut in the next decade, which is what will happen if Congress does nothing to address Social Security’s modest funding shortfall.
A trained psychologist might explain that the accusation is political projection, given that Democrats have (as described above) introduced a number of bills to eliminate the shortfall, while also expanding benefits. Republicans are the ones who haven’t introduced any legislation, or any plans beyond the heavily concealed benefit cuts in the RSC budget, to address the shortfall.
Tellingly, when Biden made the completely true comment that Republican politicians favor benefit cuts, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was caught on camera screaming that this truthful statement was a lie! Republican politicians are so desperate to conceal their plans to slash Social Security because they know how unpopular these cuts are with even their own base. Recent polling from Data for Progress shows that only 3% of voters, and 2% of Republicans, support reducing Social Security benefits.
House Republicans are not quick to call for bipartisan action on other major issues. They do so on Social Security because they want political cover for their unpopular benefit cuts. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is enabling Republican efforts to avoid political accountability.
The media refuses to take Democratic plans to protect and expand Social Security seriously, and fails to call out Republicans for their unwillingness to state what they are for, not just what they are against.
Instead of reporting about Democratic plans to protect and expand Social Security, the media largely ignores them. Reporters are implicitly dismissing these bills because they cannot pass the House and Senate without Republican support. Instead of pressuring Congressional Republicans to introduce their own legislation, the mainstream media provides the Republicans with the cover they seek by claiming that both parties are avoiding action on Social Security.
As a result of this failure by the Fourth Estate, too many voters don’t know how far apart the parties are on Social Security. That’s because the media refuses to take Democratic plans to protect and expand Social Security seriously, and fails to call out Republicans for their unwillingness to state what they are for, not just what they are against.
In furtherance of this false narrative, Republicans and their allies in the media insist that the only solution is to go behind closed doors and emerge with a “balanced package” that includes benefit cuts. This ignores the multiple Democratic plans that both strengthen solvency and expand benefits, and pay for it entirely by requiring the wealthiest among us to contribute their fair share. There’s no need to cut benefits for anyone!
One man has the power to change the media failure: President Biden. Earlier this year, Biden showcased the power of the presidential bully pulpit when he used the State of the Union address to call out Republicans for their plans to cut Social Security and Medicare—and take the programs off the table for debt ceiling negotiations.
Now, it’s time for Biden to take the next step. Opposing Republican plans to cut benefits is important, but not enough. Biden should take the best ideas from all of the Democratic plans and introduce a unified Democratic Social Security plan on the White House lawn, then spend the next year campaigning on it.
If Biden champions a plan that expands benefits with no cuts, while requiring those earning over $400,000 to pay more, the mainstream media will be unable to ignore it.
To truly draw a contrast, Democrats must line up behind a presidential Social Security plan that expands benefits while requiring millionaires and billionaires to pay more. After all, Donald Trump, the leading contender to be the Republican standard bearer, has announced that he is against cuts too. His history belies this claim, but the media are not likely to challenge him on this point. Even Trump, though, does not support increasing Social Security benefits, nor requiring billionaires like himself to pay more into the system.
If Biden champions a plan that expands benefits with no cuts, while requiring those earning over $400,000 to pay more, the mainstream media will be unable to ignore it. Though it won’t become law this Congress, it will become an issue in the 2024 election. If Republicans insist on benefit cuts either explicitly or implicitly by refusing to offer an alternative, voters will know.
If that happens, the future of Social Security will become a key election issue—particularly among older and rural voters who tend to vote Republican. The question of whether to cut Social Security or expand benefits is a matter of values. That is what elections are supposed to be about.
If Democrats retain the White House and the Senate, while taking back the House, at least partly on the strength of the Social Security issue, they will be ready in 2025 to force Congressional votes on their plan. If Republicans don’t want to keep losing elections, they will have no choice but to get on board.
That is the way to resolve this issue. Another commission is certain to fail, just as the Bowles-Simpson Commission and other closed-door efforts have. It is time to chart a winning path—one that openly discusses expanding Social Security, an institution so vital to the middle class, while requiring millionaires and billionaires to finally begin to pay their fair share.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Three Things the Media Misses When Discussing the Debt Ceiling
Spending cuts aren’t minor, caps ignore inflation, and President Biden isn’t helpless.
May 27, 2023
As President Joe Biden seemingly prepares to sell his soul to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, it’s important to take a step back and look at exactly what the terms of the deal with the devil mean—something the ongoing debate in the media has been remarkably bad at. In our view, there are broadly three points that have been neglected in most of the ongoing discourse that need to be reckoned with: what spending caps and modest cuts actually look like, the role of inflation and other outside factors in determining what allocations are needed, and, finally, the perception that McCarthy has the White House backed into a corner.
The framing of spending caps and allegedly minor cuts to existing funding has been grossly misleading. To start, there has not been nearly enough recognition of the fact that agencies across the federal executive have been hollowed out by forty years of disinvestment since the Reagan Revolution. From the Environmental Protection Agency to the Federal Trade Commission to the Federal Aviation Administration, key parts of the government have languished for decades even as their responsibilities have grown.
The programs that will be subject to cuts (non-defense discretionary spending) are the same ones that ensure Americans have drinkable water, protect consumers from fraud, and save lives by ensuring safety standards are in place. Spending caps will make people less safe, more impoverished, and less healthy. (On the upside, if you’re a rapacious and amoral corporate executive, these cuts will allow you to demonstrate creative destruction at its most profitable!)
Spending caps will make people less safe, more impoverished, and less healthy.
The focus on limiting spending also eclipses increased revenue generation by putting it into a vacuum where only spending impacts government funding. By setting spending in stone, the only thing left to do with additional revenue is to use it for tax breaks, which always go straight to the top.
Similarly, it’s imperative to recognize that funding levels for fiscal year (FY) 2023 were set without knowing the economic context of future years. Capping the funding for FY 2025 at FY 2023 levels turns a blind eye to the fact that the 2025 budget will be operating in a very different environment. To start, it doesn’t account for inflation, which means that a cap is functionally a cut and a small cut is actually a much larger cut. If Biden agrees to cut, say, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families budget by 1% and inflation this year is 3%, that’s really a 4% cut. Similarly, both the population and economy are expected to continue to grow, which will saddle a similarly (at best) funded government with more workload that it wasn’t given any money for.
The cherry on top of all of this is the representation of Democrats (and the White House) as being stuck with a losing hand without the agency to really fight House Republicans. This is patently untrue. In reality, there are multiple avenues that could be pursued to unilaterally circumvent McCarthy. There’s the option of minting a trillion dollar platinum coin. Premium bonds are also an option. Besides those, there are also multiple legal arguments for why the most legal option for Biden, in the event we hit the debt limit, is to continue issuing debt anyway. Both the trilemma and 14th Amendment approaches also make the case that adhering to the debt ceiling would require violating the Constitution, the latest omnibus spending package, or other legal obligations held by the government.
BIden himself has expressed interest on the 14th Amendment route, but he and the media seem to be totally preoccupied with the possibility of getting sued over it. That’s odd, given that he is already being sued over the issue. If he simply offers no defense in the case brought by the National Association of Government Employees, the Federal District Court for Massachusetts could issue injunctive relief forcing the President to continue spending even past the debt ceiling.
All of these points are things that should be at least mentioned in nearly all coverage of the debt ceiling. And yet, they are largely absent. The country is careening towards a fiscal policy cliff; refusing to talk about the height of the drop-off and the available off-ramps only keeps us barreling to the edge.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular