The House Appropriations Committee released the final 2011 continuing resolution text, which reflects the agreement between Congressional leaders and the President. You can view a summary of the CR and the list of final program cuts. Or, if you’re daring, you can read the full text.
First of all, there’s a 0.2% across-the-board cut to all agencies and accounts. That’s for starters. The Obama Administration did engage in some sleight-of-hand to get to the $38.5 billion in cuts, however.
The full details of Friday’s agreement weren’t being released until late Monday when it was officially submitted to the House. But the picture already emerging is of legislation financed with a lot of one-time savings and cuts that officially “score” as savings to pay for spending elsewhere, but that often have little to no actual impact on the deficit.
…the cuts that actually will make it into law are far tamer, including cuts to earmarks, unspent census money, leftover federal construction funding, and $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can’t be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation. Another $3.5 billion comes from unused spending authority from a program providing health care to children of lower-income families [...]
For instance, the spending measure reaps $350 million by cutting a one-year program enacted in 2009 for dairy farmers then suffering from low milk prices. Another $650 million comes by not repeating a one-time infusion into highway programs passed that same year. And just last Friday, Congress approved Obama’s $1 billion request for high-speed rail grants — crediting themselves with $1.5 billion in savings relative to last year.
Republicans also claimed $5 billion in savings by capping payments from a fund awarding compensation to crime victims. Under an arcane bookkeeping rule — used for years by appropriators — placing a cap on spending from the Justice Department crime victims fund allows lawmakers to claim the entire contents of the fund as budget savings. The savings are awarded year after year.
Now this all looks to be true, except for high speed rail, which really is a reduction and a painful one. But because the budget imposes a lot of cuts in a small area, you could also write a story that reads like this:
The spending bill would maintain the maximum Pell grant award for low-income students at $5,550. But it would end a new Pell grant program for summer school students, saving hundreds of millions of dollars.
President Obama successfully resisted Republican efforts to take all federal money from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. But the spending bill cuts money for the program that finances many family-planning services provided by Planned Parenthood and other organizations, Title X of the Public Health Service Act. The appropriation would be reduced to $300 million, from $317 million, Congressional aides said.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which has been in the cross hairs of the newly empowered House Republicans, took one of the largest hits, according the House appropriations documents.
The agency’s budget under the agreement is reduced by $1.6 billion, or 16 percent from last year’s level. Specifically, funding levels for Land and Water Conservation Fund programs were reduced 33 percent.
I’ll just add a bit to that. Food safety is cut 1% below the previous year’s level. The Labor Department program for green jobs has been cut. The Justice Department’s asset forfeiture fund, which helps fund its criminal investigations, got a $500 million hit. The Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) has been cut $500 million from 2010 levels. The total reduction in the Financial Services area, barely a year out from passing Dodd-Frank, approaches 10%. There’s a $942 million cut to the Community Development Fund program, which is nearly 1/4 of the total. And two programs in the health care law, Kent Conrad’s co-ops and Ron Wyden’s Free Choice voucher, have been eliminated. The latter is particularly distressing.
Under the new health law, Americans whose income falls below 400 percent of the federal poverty level and whose employer-sponsored health insurance premiums are between 8 and 9.8 percent of their total income will be exempt from having to purchase health coverage but will not be able to access the exchanges or qualify for government assistance to buy insurance.
If an employee’s share of their health insurance premiums rise to 9.9 percent of their total income, they would be allowed to shop for more affordable health insurance in the new health insurance exchanges, with a taxpayer-funded subsidy. But again, at 9.8 percent and below their only options will be to pay for their employer-sponsored coverage or to go without health insurance altogether.
Had Free Choice Vouchers survived, they would have given this group a third option: to take the tax free money that their employer would otherwise contribute to the cost of their health insurance and use it to buy a more affordable health insurance plan at the exchange. This provision would have meant that fewer Americans would have to go without health insurance and by leveraging private dollars versus relying solely on taxpayer funded subsidies, it would have ultimately saved money.
This was a stepping stone to prying open the exchanges and increasing the risk pool there, and decoupling health insurance and the workplace, a truly inefficient system that drives up costs.
I’m not saying that there weren’t some innovative solutions employed to get under the budget number. And even some reasonable moves – they finally canceled the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for example. Even the policy “victories” for the right are dubious – Hal Rogers brags about eliminating the “Health Care Czar,” the “Climate Change Czar,” the “Car Czar,” and the “Urban Affairs Czar,” when all four of those positions have already been eliminated.
But you’d have to consider Dan Inouye to be a blithering idiot to suggest that he wouldn’t have cut orphaned earmarks, or funding appropriated to the Census in 2010 that wasn’t needed in 2011. Every year there’s a certain amount of budget cleanup that needs to be done. The difference is that Inouye and Dave Obey would have put that money to use. That would have been part of the 2011 budget process. Which Democrats neglected to even attempt when they had huge majorities, because some Blue Dogs didn’t want to vote for a budget with a big deficit. A lot of good that did them. And a lot of good that did the country – even if the budget were set at what was then thought to be “austere” McCaskill-Sessions levels, it would have been $58 billion higher than what we see now. The economy loses in that trade.
…There’s also the incredibly fiscally responsible provision of keeping the grey wolf off the endangered species list so hunters can shoot them. This will save a resounding $0.00.
UPDATE: I didn’t initially notice this:
Community healthcare centers lose $600 million in funds while HIV and other disease prevention funds are cut by $1 billion.
Community health centers comprised the best spending in the health care law. Their caseload is expected to double over the next four years. And now their funding is getting slowly clawed back. And the HIV and disease prevention funding cut, I barely know what to say. There’s also a cut to FEMA first responders of $786 million.




71 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
They cut Title X anyway:
Title X Family Planning:
-$17 off FY2010
-$27 off FY2011 request
I guess lines in the sand were meant to be washed away.
And now the President’s baseline for deficit reduction is Bowles-Simpson? Ugh!!
Oh, I also liked all that cheering for the poll(from CNN, I think) about people approving the compromise. When no one knew what was in it yet!!
The Culture of Life. Feed the embryo, starve the child.
The good news is that the federal budget problem hasn’t stopped the U.S. government from hiring, big-time. There are over a thousand job openings in Washington alone. Here are some paying over a hundred grand a year, taken fron the first fifty listings:
Supervisory Auditor $123K
Senior Deputy Director, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion $183K
Office Director $119K
Supervisory IT Specialist $123K
Professor of Practice (Director, Communications and Community Affairs) $107K
Director of Human Resources Management $119K
Program Manager $105K
Program Analyst $105K
Supervisory Industrial Engineer $123K
Director of Human Resources Management
http://jobsearch.usajobs.gov/search.aspx?q=&where=washington+dc&x=96&y=10&brd=3876&vw=b&FedEmp=N&FedPub=Y
Again, a shell game played against Americans.
I’ve heard all I need to hear for a lifetime about how the rich need tax cuts and subsidies from us to create jobs and make America better.
It is a Lie! How many years since Georgie starting reducing their taxes and increasing their giveaways and still no jobs or economic growth!
For those who are not in the mood for wearing latex gloves, I found the link to the President’s capitulation to Bowles-Simpson’s deficit cuts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-turns-to-his-bipartisan-deficit-commissions-blueprint-for-reducing-debt/2011/04/11/AF7azCND_story.html
Who needs those stinkin’ criminal investigations anyway?
lol
What was the CNN poll about?
It does not look like anything in this budget deal does anything good for the economy? so it was a waste of time
Obama better focus on the Economy! and nothing else
The GOP will be turning out and droves to beat OBAMA, because of the “birther ie race issue” so the more OBAMA tries to become Clarence Thomas the less progressives votes he will receive.
Do real progressives vote for Clarence Thomas type of candidate? no
Obama better end all of the deficit talk quickly and focus on the only issue in the USA the Economy.
Exactly! Look at Holder, he is not the head of DOJ but the head of the Department of Jokes on American Laws.
That will be the left side.
So what we will get is going to be somewhere between Ryan’s made up numbers and Bowles-Simpson’s made up numbers.
President Hope then Change. What a guy!!
Can’t feed the embryo if the mother is hungry.
It’s all just flapping jaws to get the US citizen as poor as they can make us
I can think of only three reasons for this madness:
1. He’s paying back corporate donations.
2. He’s really a Republican imposter.
3. He’s scared to death of China and knows something we don’t know.
Well, you see, they WOULD have created jobs here if there weren’t all those onerous regulations on their poisons and if Americans worked as cheaply as Asians.
So, see, now we will……..
And this is just the beginning. I can’t wait for Obama’s “scalpel” for Medicare and Medicaid
#3- He’s a MOTU or completely in their power
I get that you folks don’t see any connection between reducing the tax burden and the deficit, on the one hand, and economic growth and job production, on the other. But do you get that most Americans don’t see it your way? You’re looking for ulterior motives, when in fact the political argument is going against you because people disagree with you about how the economy works.
The economy does not work your way. You people don’t get it, and you are not the majority of Americans.
I notice that only so called Democratic priorities were cut while non Republican priorities were. This was a capitulation on the magnitude of ceding Czechoslovakia or Vichy France.
People were wondering why Ryan’s plan didn’t address SS?
He knew it was Obama’s pet project to gut it.
Good one.
Taxes haven’t been lower than they are right now for several generations. Please point to the economic growth and the job production. I’ll wait. In the meanwhile, I’ll let you muse on this: It was W and the Republican Congress who created this deficit. Solely. For some reason it wasn’t such a threat then.
Do not feed.
It’s W…hahaha
GEe you’re fucking wrong , wrong, wrong,wrong.
And idiots don’t know squat about how the economy works.
The French rid themselves of the cancer selfishness for quite a while.
We don’t need the rich to fuck us anymore.
You may be proved right on the merits someday, though of course I disagree. But I wasn’t talking about the merits, but about the views of voting Americans. Well over a majority clearly believe huge deficits are hurting the economy. It’s not enough to be right; you’ll have to find a way to change their minds about that. You won’t do it by accusing them of being motivated by a hatred or poor people, or by racism.
See! lol
No I do not see any connection, because there is none.
Companies are sitting on record amounts of cash, no growth, no new jobs.
Reducing their tax burden, giving them more cash, will not change anything.
Most racists don’t self identify but they are still racist pigs.
Mr. President,
Seriously, who in their right mind is going to want to donate, phone bank and volunteer for your re election campaign? I see no difference between the republicans and pres. Obama. My God! FDR and LBJ must be spinning in their graves.
OK, well at least that comment sticks to the economics and might sway someone. Basically your idea would be that the feds would do more to create jobs if they had access to that money than the businesses are doing, because they’re just sitting on the money. For me, the critical question is what the conditions are that are causing the businesses to hunker down instead of expanding.
And it isn’t their tax burden. Again, that’s the lowest it’s been in decades and they are still sitting on it. You have yet to address that point.
That same huge majority believe the deficits should be fixed by raising taxes on the rich; that SS, Medicaid, and Medicare should be left alone.
The large wealthy corporations are holding back as are the banks. Small businesses are struggling to survive. They can’t get credit…thanks to the stupid, irresponsible, non-regulation, and vast corruption that has infected this country and seems hellbent on destroying its very fabric. Not to mention that voters supporting the corruption are uninformed enough to vote against their own interests…often focusing their anger toward the poor of all races.
Lack of demand, why would you expand when you have excess capacity?
PS. The so-called lower “class” is now the majority.
@Margaret: It’s a good question. We conservative types believe companies are hunkering down in fear of a number of things, including the overall depression of the economy, but notably including the fear of greater taxes and regulation — a fear that will not be entirely assuaged as long as Democrats control the Senate and the White House. But even I (a staunch conservative) would not claim to be sure about the cause and effect there.
@Surtt: You’re right there. That’s my political problem: how to persuade voters that they should not try to solve the problem by increasing taxes on the rich, and that SS, Medicaid, and Medicare must be altered. I can’t do it by railing at them and calling them names.
@Surtt — but why is demand depressed? Can we really increase it by moving money from the private sector into the public sector? It strikes me that that’s the big divide: between people who think that wealth produces better results in private hands and those who think it produces better results in public hands.
And what delusions are those fears based on? When are conservatives and Obama apologists going to join us in Realityland? I call bullshit. What you cite isn’t a reason, it’s an excuse.
Let’s git rid of those stupid regulations on Nukes, they bring good things to life and FREE electric.
Why would anybody in their right mind oppose more regulations on the Nuclear industry, therefore holding them back.
SCREAMING NOW
UNDER BUSH THE DEBT CEILING WAS RAISED 6 TIMES
rant off
I’ll answer that. Unemployment. You see, you still buy that supply side garbage. Commerce really is demand driven. When people do not have money, there is no demand. If you don’t have customers you don’t have any reason to expand your business. Cutting government spending and reducing employment further is only going to make that worse.
Think of it as priming the pump.
There is another reason for government spending. And that is the public good. Sometimes there is not enough of an economic reason for a business to do something because there is no profit in it for THEM, but there is a very good reason for the government to do it. Think the expansion of electricity to rural areas, real sewage treatment, railroads, public transportation. All of these things are too expensive for individual businesses although many of them are enriched by them. But this can help public health, unemployment, etc that does actually benefit society. Same for public education. I would also say that government health services by taking the profit driven middleman of insurance out of the picture would benefit other businesses, actual health care costs, and by freeing the citizenry to change jobs and start their own businesses the overall economy.
All of which is a good use of taxes. By expanding the economic base in America, America wins. Our real drop has occurred because the economic base in America has been contracting since the kneecapping of Unions and Reagan’s morning in America. And much of that has been because our tax structure no longer rewards economic development and labor, instead valuing financial transactions and speculation.
A woman was just pronounced guilty of murdering her son by withholding medical treatment from her son.
Isn’t that the same thing as withholding medical treatment from the sick and the old all over this country…because they can’t afford it and the government has taken away their safety net that they paid for? That is what we are up against.
please write a diary….fabulous point pal
in legal terms a precedent has been set…oh goody
What lines in the sand?!
@Thurbers: That a tax system can get into trouble by valuing financial transactions and speculation over economic development and labor is an idea I can entertain seriously. Blaming economic woes on the waning power of unions? — I’m less convinced.
@sadlyyes: I agree it was not a good idea for Congress to raise the debt ceiling even under Bush. I’d have liked to see him use his veto power more often. He was not very conservative fiscally.
@tjbs: Not all regulations are equal, and the fact that some level of regulation is appropriate doesn’t remove the dangerous effects of bad regulation.
@Margaret: If you can’t see what worries people about over-regulation, you’ll never succeed in reaching most voters long enough to have a chance of persuading them to your position. You can attribute ugly motives to everyone who disagrees with you, but you’re not likely to persuade them to vote with you that way.
Next to the worst Republican president ever!!!
I assume you have heard of the Great Recession?
Yes, public spending is priming the pump, getting money circulating.
No the big divide is the class warfare that has broken out. Do you really think we would be better off with 1% super wealthy and 99% poor?
@thurber: You say “Cutting government spending and reducing employment further is only going to make that worse.” Isn’t that the crux, right there? Why do you believe that cutting government spending will reduce employment? I see that idea here a lot, stated as an obvious given, but it’s not at all obvious to me, or to many voters.
@Surtt: Calling it the Great Recession gives it a name but doesn’t explain how demand came to be depressed. “Priming the pump” is a metaphor, not an explanation for which there is any evidence. And I don’t see the connection you seem to be drawing between believing that wealth produces better results in private hands, and believing that we should have 1% super-wealthy and 99% poor.
“dangerous effects of bad regulation.”
Nice false framing there.
Sounds like ” most people” refers to fellow conservatives that don’t mingle or need the little people.
Does your gut tell you what “most people want” or do you offer facts instead of talking points ?
Most people , by polls, want to raise the taxes on the thieves at the top.
Like putting old people on an iceberg and letting them drift out to sea.
Duh reply button is the format here but whatever.
Had a poll been conducted 150 years ago today a majority would likely have said they support the institution of slavery. Would they have been right?
Just because you don’t understand, doesn’t mean it’s not understandable:
Emphasis added.
And Lobster posted this gem this morning in the Fukushima thread:
In a remarkable show of ostrichicity, Republicans and Democrats come together to cut key nuclear safety programs in the no-shutdown budget deal. We are ruled by fools.
Relevant cuts compared to FY10 enacted:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: -$16M
Nuclear Waste Disposal: -$101M
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination Fund: -$75M
FEMA National Predisaster Mitigation Fund: -$50M
FEMA First Responder Grants: -$786M
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal: -$98M
Energy Information Administration: -$15M (where we get data to make decisions)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: -$438M
Meanwhile, relative to Obama’s proposed budget, there is a put-back of $860M for “Innovative Loan Guarantees” in the area of energy.
Obviously there are other priorities expressed in this new bill which are terribly unfair and out of whack, but I thought it would be interesting to lay out the ones related to the events unfolding in Japan. I’m surprised they didn’t defund radiation detection systems.
under clinton we had a SURPLUS (you know what that means correct?)
WHERE THE HELL IS IT
it was spent on wars ,and lies of wars to enrich the MIC…about 500 families of the world richest elite
your pocket has been picked and you dont even know it……bwahhahahahahahaha
they are not fools,they are saving money
TEPCO didn’t bother developing robots b/c cheap expendable workers were available
Apparently you CAN put a price on human life, if you’re a TEPCO executive.
http://www.slate.com/id/2290932 /
Of course the fact that many people may support something doesn’t make it right! I’m not telling you that your ideas are wrong because many people disagree with them. I’m suggesting that you won’t persuade the many people who disagree with you by reviling their presumed motives. It can’t be news to you that lots of people disagree with you; if that were not so, the policies that end up getting enacted wouldn’t infuriate you so much. I have the same problem: a majority of voters often elects politicians who enact policies I detest.
So demand collapsed because a bubble burst. So far I basically agree with you. I’d say, though, that the problem was the creation of bubble, not its bursting, which was inevitable. I’d also say that the bubble was created by writing unrealistic mortgages on the assumption that the feds would bail out the lenders. I don’t understand the leap to the conclusion that only the government can step in to replace the illusory demand once we quit kidding ourselves about how much houses were worth and how able their owners were to pay for them. Bursting bubbles of this kind is extremely painful and disruptive, I agree, but why is it helpful for the government to siphon even more money out of the private sector to create more illusory “demand”? If the demand isn’t coming from real people, how is it helping? The money has to come from somewhere — otherwise more federal spending is just inflating the currency.
The rest of that excerpt just seems like double-talk to me.
SO, Why doesn’t FDL come out & say it? Why won’t FDL stop whining, lead the way, and clearly argue how Obama has failed and why he should NOT be the Dem. Party’s choice for President in 2012?
1.) When federal, state, local governments shed hundreds and thousands of jobs that raises unemployment. Unemployed people do not spend as much money as employed people do. Demand drops.
2.) When government builds or repairs less roads, the contractors buy less materials. Demand drops. Now make that about buildings, space shuttles, hell even Medicare and medicaid.
Must I continue, or can you see that your premise that government spending does not affect demand is ludicrous on its face. Why anyone thinks that when a major purchaser of goods and services and a major employer stops a large portion of its business and sheds jobs it won’t affect demand because it is not a business but is government is beyond me.
Oh, and nearly every state government has announced that they are having to eliminate teachers – that is job losses. The federal government has announced that it is cutting its workforce. And many of those governments also have furlough days, which is nice way of saying a X% pay cut for people with X determined by how many furlough days are demanded. IOW, take your head out of the fantasyland and actually look at what gets cut when spending gets cut, sometimes it only takes reading the details but that is where the devil is.
Yep, Paul Ryan introduces his wacko budget plan now the Bowles Simpson plan looks reasonable. I guess Obama thinks we are stupid.
The people from whom the government took the money to pay the workers and build the roads had their own plans for how to spend it. Why does it not create at least as much demand to let them keep it and spend it according to their own views? Why does giving it to the government to spend give better results?
Obama is playing a really clever con game.
He didn’t capitulate. He got the cuts he really wanted because he really, really is a defacto rethuglican.
As some indication of his real politics, he never seems to have the courage to diss blue dogs and rethuglicans; the only time he shows any sign of having any balls is when he’s dissing lefties.
Also the corrupt jerks he appointed as his financial advisors is a really good indication of his rethuglicanism.
Further, the mean old congress didn’t force him to create the cat food comission, he did it to give himself cover to attack Social Security and Medicare.
Kock and the rest of the pricks that stole our government through “campaign contributions”and ruined the economy . Do you think those hoarders can spend $45 billion in their life time because they worked their asses off stealing from us .
That’s your alternative.
Because thirty years of data tells me that is a pipe dream. Real economic investment (business expansion and upkeep) in this country has decreased even as the tax rate has been lowered to historic levels over the last thirty years. You can trace it, the numbers are there. Their plan is to invest in the stock market or the derivatives market which creates little or nothing except speculators. When the rich were taxed at higher rates, it encouraged leaving those funds in the business expanding it and the employment base, our current tax system encourages investment in their stock portfolio. Real employment has fallen, real wages have fallen, manufacturing down, the only real increase in employment has been in the service industry with little or no chance of long term advancement. Higher taxation would 1.)lower that deficit that no one is really worried about, 2.) actually encourage economic investment, 3.) allow the government to tackle a few projects that are too expensive for any one business but actually expand opportunities or infrastructure for private businesses outside of war. Hell it would allow us to go whole hog getting America off oil, which would be the best thing we could do to increase our long term security.
But hey you can continue to try to make up down and down up. Taking two eggs from the dozen leaves you with ten not a dozen. Cutting government spending decreases demand. And demand drives the economy not supply.
Where are the cuts in the goddamn military budget????
Much more productive [in terms of recapturing $$$$] and much better [in terms of cutting shit instead of real, working programs].
Where’s the Democratic President we elected?