March, 20 2015, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jasmine Tucker, jtucker@nationalpriorities.org, 240-529-4158 (c)
Lindsay Koshgarian, lkoshgarian@nationalpriorities.org, 571-318-9114 (c)
Analysis: Budget Proposals Vary in Addressing Americans' Spending Priorities
New Report Compares Polling on What Americans Want to Proposals from President Obama, the House Budget Committee, the Senate Budget Committee, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus
WASHINGTON
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."
The National Priorities Project (NPP) is a 501(c)(3) research organization that analyzes and clarifies federal data so that people can understand and influence how their tax dollars are spent. Located in Northampton, MA, since 1983, NPP focuses on the impact of federal spending and other policies at the national, state, congressional district and local levels. For more information, go to https://nationalpriorities.org.
LATEST NEWS
Aid Coalition Says Gaza Cease-Fire Needed to Avert 'Catastrophic' Middle East War
"To avoid the security situation spiraling out of control, all efforts must be made to ensure de-escalation through political and diplomatic means alone."
Apr 16, 2024
A coalition of more than a dozen humanitarian groups on Tuesday stressed the need for an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip following Iran's retaliatory attack on Israel, which has been waging a devastating war on the Palestinian enclave for more than six months.
The humanitarian groups—including International Rescue Committee, Norwegian Refugee Council, Save the Children, and ActionAid—said in a joint statement that "recent escalations in the Middle East are unprecedented and risk regional conflagration, threatening the lives of millions of civilians."
"To avoid the security situation spiraling out of control, all efforts must be made to ensure de-escalation through political and diplomatic means alone," the statement reads. "A regional conflict would be catastrophic for the Middle East, where millions are already affected by existing crises due to conflict, displacement, poverty, and climate change."
The groups argued that escalating tensions between Israel and Iran "are closely linked to the ongoing conflict in Gaza," underscoring the need for "an immediate and permanent cease-fire" to "prevent further human suffering and to de-escalate tensions in the region."
"This latest round of violence was predictably fueled by decades of impunity for state violations of a most fundamental global rule: the prohibition on the use of force."
The statement comes days after Iran launched hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel over the weekend in response to the Israeli military's bombing of Tehran's consulate in the capital of Syria earlier this month—an attack that killed diplomats and a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander.
United Nations experts said Tuesday that both Israel's consulate attack and Iran's retaliation violated international law. The experts also said an Israeli military response to Iran's missile and drone attack would be illegal.
"This latest round of violence was predictably fueled by decades of impunity for state violations of a most fundamental global rule: the prohibition on the use of force," the experts said.
The broader Middle East conflict stemming from Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip now involves at least 16 countries, and Iran's retaliation against Israel led war hawks in the U.S. to call for further escalation—including a direct U.S. attack on Iran.
Israel, for its part, has pledged to "exact a price from Iran" in response to the firing of missiles and drones, most of which were intercepted with U.S. help.
The humanitarian coalition warned Tuesday that any further military exchanges would risk disaster and implored all parties involved to "immediately work towards de-escalation."
"Drawing on our extensive collective experience in the region, we understand that crises in the Middle East often have far-reaching consequences beyond its borders," the groups said. "A regional conflict would likely result in significant global ramifications, including forced displacement and migration, disruptions to global supply chains, and impacts on energy supplies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Should Be a Global Wake-Up Call': Coral Reefs Suffer Fourth Mass Bleaching Event
"The announcement of the fourth global bleaching event is an urgent call to do two things: reduce greenhouse gas emissions and work together to prioritize resilient coral reefs for conservation."
Apr 16, 2024
Scientists said Monday that the world's coral reefs are facing a fourth global bleaching event as the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency pushes ocean temperatures to record highs, imperiling the critical underwater ecosystems that sustain thousands of species.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI)—which NOAA co-chairs—said they documented coral bleaching in the northern and southern hemispheres of every major ocean basin on Earth between February 2023 and April of this year. It could be the worst global bleaching event on record.
"Since early 2023, mass bleaching of coral reefs has been confirmed throughout the tropics including Florida in the U.S.; the Caribbean; Brazil; the eastern Tropical Pacific (including Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia); Australia's Great Barrier Reef; large areas of the South Pacific (including Fiji, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Samoas, and French Polynesia); the Red Sea (including the Gulf of Aqaba); the Persian Gulf; and the Gulf of Aden," the organizations said in a statement.
"NOAA has received confirmation of widespread bleaching across other parts of the Indian Ocean basin as well, including in Tanzania, Kenya, Mauritius, the Seychelles, Tromelin, Mayotte, and off the western coast of Indonesia," they added.
"More than half the reefs on the planet have basically experienced bleaching-level heat stress in the last year."
Derek Manzello, coordinator of NOAA's Coral Reef Watch, said that "as the world's oceans continue to warm, coral bleaching is becoming more frequent."
Excessively warm water causes corals to expel algae from their tissues, causing the organisms to turn white. While they can recover, such bleaching is evidence that corals are under significant stress and at risk of death.
The latest global bleaching event is the second in the last 10 years and "should be a global wake-up call," Manzello toldThe Washington Post.
"More than half the reefs on the planet have basically experienced bleaching-level heat stress in the last year," said Manzello.
NOAA and ICRI's statement comes as scientists around the world are voicing growing alarm over high ocean temperatures. Research released last month showed that global ocean surface temperatures had broken records every day of the year up to that point, underscoring the need to aggressively rein in fossil fuel production and use.
"Temperatures are off the charts," Emily Darling, director of coral reefs at the Wildlife Conservation Society, said Monday. "While many corals are suffering from extreme heat stress and bleaching, some locations and species show different types of natural resilience. Finding and conserving these priority coral reefs are critical to any global strategy to safeguard the planet's oceans and blue economies."
"The announcement of the fourth global bleaching event is an urgent call to do two things: reduce greenhouse gas emissions and work together to prioritize resilient coral reefs for conservation," Darling added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Group Slams EPA Failure to Curb 'Dangerous Levels of Air Pollution'
"Air pollution standards must protect endangered plants and wildlife, but the agency failed to follow the law, or the science, to fully address this toxic air pollution's harms to the environment," said one attorney.
Apr 15, 2024
The Center for Biological Diversity on Monday lamented what it called the Biden administration's failure to improve "outdated" limits on nitrogen and soot air pollution.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed keeping existing secondary national ambient air quality standards for sulfur and nitrogen oxides after estimating that new benchmarks previously put forth would result in reduced pollution from sources including coal-fired power plants.
However, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) staff attorney Ryan Maher argued that "the EPA failed to seize this important opportunity to better protect plants and animals from these toxic pollutants."
"Since the EPA's last review of these pollution standards, the science showing the ecological harm from soot, sulfur, and nitrogen air pollution has become more certain."
"Since the EPA's last review of these pollution standards, the science showing the ecological harm from soot, sulfur, and nitrogen air pollution has become more certain," Maher added. "Rather than aligning its standards with this new research, the EPA has chosen to perpetuate dangerous levels of air pollution."
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set primary, or health-based, and secondary, or welfare-based, "national ambient air quality standards" for pollutants including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter—better known as soot. However, the EPA has failed to update the secondary standards for nitrogen and sulfur air pollution for more than half a century. Key portions of the EPA's secondary soot standards also haven't been updated in decades.
According to the CBD:
The agency published today's proposal under an agreement that resulted from a 2022 lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health. That agreement requires the agency to finalize its decision on the air quality standards no later than December 10, 2024.
The agency will hold a virtual public hearing on the proposed rule on May 8.
Critics have also called out the EPA for not completing a mandatory Endangered Species Act consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Services about how pollution levels allowed under the proposed standards could harm endangered plants and animals.
"Air pollution standards must protect endangered plants and wildlife, but the agency failed to follow the law, or the science, to fully address this toxic air pollution's harms to the environment," Maher noted.
Separately, green groups including Earthjustice, Sierra Club, California Communities Against Toxins, and Southwestern Environmental Law Center on Monday welcomed the EPA's decision to deny an industry petition to delist energy turbines as a major source of air pollution.
"Today's decision upholds critical environmental protections that are essential for safeguarding public health, particularly in communities that have historically borne the brunt of industrial pollution," Earthjustice director of federal clean air practice James Pew said in a statement.
"Keeping pollution control requirements in place is not just a matter of regulatory compliance; it's a fundamental environmental justice issue," Pew added. "EPA did the right thing by rejecting industry's attempt to dodge these requirements and get a free pass to pollute."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular