Analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
As the economy gains strength, job training programs need to be as efficient and effective as possible. Department of Education. The Departments of Labor and Education jointly will oversee this fund, which will utilize competitive grants to support innovative, systemic and evidence-based reforms in the workforce system. The Labor Department's FY budget request reflects many difficult choices and strategic consolidations.
The budget discontinues the Women in Apprenticeship in Non-Traditional Occupations program and the Veterans Workforce Investment Program, but bolsters other veteran-focused activities, expands Registered Apprenticeships and improves service delivery innovation for all employment training programs through the Workforce Innovation Fund.
The budget request also seeks to improve program outcomes and strengthen accountability for Job Corps through a thoughtful and transparent program assessment. To further enhance efficiency while still providing funding for department priorities, the budget request proposes the strategic consolidation of several regional offices.
The budget request reflects the department's continued commitment to enhancing worker health and safety. To highlight the importance of not enacting policies that may slow the rate of economic growth in the near term, note that the improved rate of employment growth experienced over the last three months an average of , jobs added per month would have to continue for another five years before the economy would return to pre-recession unemployment rates Shierholz In their January Budget and Economic Outlook CBO b , the CBO projected continued slow recovery over the next two years due to the lingering effects of the financial crisis and the recession, as well as the fiscal drag spending cuts and tax increases scheduled under current law.
Beyond near-term economic and labor market distress, ample evidence exists that there is a large longer-run deficit in needed physical infrastructure investments in the U. Even stronger evidence exists arguing that human capital investments, like universal high-quality pre-kindergarten educational programs, would yield enormous returns that would make the overall economy richer. Lastly, the looming threat of global climate change argues for significant resources to be spent mitigating greenhouse gases GHGs and putting the economy on a low-GHG track in the decades to come.
In short, we would argue that any federal budget proposal that does not include measures to meet these pressing priorities priorities that are, in fact, at least as pressing as the need to simply close long-run budget gaps between spending and revenue should be judged as sorely lacking. Furthermore, the more front-loaded these investment efforts are, the better it is for an American economy that will likely be contending with high unemployment for years to come.
Debt-financed public investments in the next few years would greatly help efforts to drive down joblessness, and the cost of this debt—measured by the long-term costs of borrowing—is historically low. Not only can we afford to front-load public investments today rather than tomorrow, but it also makes economic sense to do so. Roughly half of these investments are frontloaded over FY—14 to address the ongoing jobs crisis, but other investments to create jobs, as well as investments in transportation and revitalizing U. These are investments that will boost economic activity and employment in the near and long term, particularly in industries suffering from protracted unemployment.
The last time the United States faced un- and under-employment as widespread and prolonged as what has been experienced in the last four years, the federal government successfully put millions of Americans back to work through the Civilian Conservation Corps, Public Works Administration, and Works Progress Administration. It would fund the jobs necessary for large-scale school rehabilitation projects as well as restoration and rehabilitation of parks and public lands; create part-time work-study jobs for hundreds of thousands of eligible college students; fund the hiring and rehiring of teachers, police officers, and firefighters; fund grants to hire health care providers; create a community corps of citizens to do much-needed work on the local level, including energy audits, addressing blight, rural conservation work, housing rehabilitation, and recycling and reclamation of reusable materials; and would create jobs in early childhood care and education by providing additional funding for Early Head Start.
The Budget for All would both reinstate the Making Work Pay MWP tax credit and finance a number of business tax credits aimed at expanding manufacturing and insourcing jobs to the United States.
Analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
The credit replaced 6. Other job creation tax policies in the Budget for All include a temporary 10 percent tax credit for new jobs and wage increases; a new manufacturing communities tax credit; additional tax credits for investment in qualified property used in qualified advanced energy manufacturing projects; a tax credit for the production of advanced technology vehicles; a tax credit for medium- and heavy-duty alternative-fuel commercial vehicles; and doubling the amount of expensed start-up expenditures.
In addition to these targeted job creation measures, transportation investments, and tax credits,. These public investments are again front-loaded in the Budget for All to support economic activity as well as to sustain essential government investments and services during the continuing economic weakness projected over the near term. These front-loaded investments will complement targeted job creation measures and sustained transportation investments in accelerating a return to an economy operating nearer its potential. It should be noted that the NDD BCA cuts removed by the Budget for All have not been apportioned by budget function, but all of these functional increases would be larger relative to current law.
Over the last three years, a rare consensus has emerged among a wide range of Washington policymakers: Any credible, balanced deficit reduction plan must tackle spending by the Department of Defense. Other proposals have stressed that OCOs should be placed on budget or financed by a war tax. The BCA included reductions to spending by the Department of Defense, but much of this reduction—particularly from the automatic sequester—is not expected to materialize, as reflected in the current policy baseline.
Under the automatic enforcement mechanism, Department of Defense budget authority reductions are roughly held constant in nominal dollars instead of being gradually phased in, which is problematic for two reasons. First, the reduction in budget authority falls from 0. Second, spending and acquisition reforms are more feasibly implemented on a gradual basis.
As noted above, the Budget for All removes these effects of the ill-conceived BCA in its baseline policy adjustments, and all policies are scored relative to this CPC adjusted baseline. The Budget for All provides a reasonable defense spending trajectory consistent with a sustained but on-time reduction of military operations in Afghanistan and other overseas contingency operations. The Budget for All would gradually reduce active duty military personnel strength through attrition; sharply reduce private contracting; and overhaul weapons acquisitions, modernization, and strategic capabilities.
No savings are assumed from military personnel wages, pensions, or TRICARE, the military health care program for active duty personnel, military retirees, and their dependents. Access to quality, affordable health care is a key component of rebuilding a strong middle class. Spiraling health care costs have strained the budgets of families in recent decades, as growth in the cost of health benefits has contributed to real wage and salary stagnation.
Health care excess cost growth—the growth in per capita national health care expenditure exceeding per capita GDP growth—poses a grave challenge for families, businesses, state and local governments, and the federal government.
Paul Ryan’s Fiscal Year Budget: The Details | Bipartisan Policy Center
Further, policies that merely shift costs from the federal budget to consumers, businesses, and state and local budgets are not, we would argue, responsible solutions, but are instead myopic attempts to fix an accounting problem while leaving the underlying economic problem unresolved. The Budget for All would adopt policies that build on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of ACA to ensure access to affordable, quality care and expand coverage to millions of Americans.
The Budget for All thus does not rely on benefit cuts or reducing beneficiary rolls to find budgetary savings. The approach to health care policy taken in this budget is diametrically opposed to the approach taken by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan R-Wis. The CBO notes that under this plan, average real spending for new enrollees in Medicare would be significantly less than under either current law or current policy baseline scenarios.
The CBO recently estimated that Medicare is currently 11 percent cheaper than an equivalent private insurance plan—an efficiency premium that compounds over time but that the Ryan budget would forsake CBO e. While CBO notes that the exact implications of reduced spending are difficult to project, they could very likely include higher costs faced by beneficiaries, reduced access to health care, diminished quality of care, and less investment in new, high-cost technologies.
In regards to Medicaid, CHIP, and the ACA health insurance exchange subsidies, the Ryan budget would halve spending in those areas between now and while under current law, spending in those areas would double, due simply to population and health care cost growth. The Budget for All would take a decidedly different approach.
The Budget for All would begin building on the efficiencies already enacted in the ACA by implementing a public insurance option to compete with private insurance plans. Beginning in , the ACA will establish health insurance exchanges, through which individuals and families may purchase private coverage. With the addition of a public option, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services would administer a public health insurance plan to be offered alongside private plans through the exchanges. The public plan would exploit economies of scale to negotiate payment rates for prescription drugs, would pay physicians roughly 5 percent more than Medicare reimbursement rates, and would pay hospitals and providers comparable rates as paid under Medicare.
Based on the potential for administrative and other savings, the CBO estimates that insurance premiums for the public plan would be roughly 5—7 percent lower than those of private plans offered in the insurance exchanges CBO b. Under current law, drug dispensers pay specified rebates for drugs consumed by Medicaid beneficiaries, while Medicare Part D the prescription drug benefit plan sponsors negotiate drug prices with manufacturers at unspecified levels. When enacted, Medicare Part D failed to harness the purchasing power of the federal government to negotiate wholesale prices for pharmaceutical drugs.
There are substantial differences in the rebate amounts and net prices for brand-name drugs; Medicare receives lower rebates and pays higher prices than Medicaid OMB a. This proposal would allow Medicare to receive the same rebates that Medicaid receives for brand-name and generic drugs provided to low-income beneficiaries. The high cost of prescription drugs causes hardship for many Americans and can result in people forgoing medications or skipping doses.
Reducing this period would increase availability and encourage faster development of generic biologics.
- Publisher Description.
- Office of Budget.
- Congressional Justification by Fiscal Year (FY):?
- View Profile.
- Archived: President's FY Budget Request for the U.S. Department of Education?
- Fiscal Year 2013!
- Tennessee Frontiers: Three Regions in Transition (A History of the Trans-Appalachian Frontier).
The Budget for All is committed to reducing waste, fraud, and abuse where possible, and would pursue responsible Medicaid savings by enacting the following policies previously outlined by the administration OMB a :. Medicare HI payroll taxes are assessed on all wages and salaries, either 1. To promote public health and achieve budgetary savings, the Budget for All would enact H. The JCT estimated that H. The Budget for All would pursue other policy changes to strengthen democracy and reform government programs that are of broader scope than defense, health, Social Security, or tax proposals.
- Transportation Appropriations.
- Event Marketing - Möglichkeiten, Chancen, Risiken (German Edition).
- Small Animal Toxicology - E-Book!
- Symphony No. 1, Movement 1;
- ASA Statement on President’s Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2013!
- Genetic Models of Schizophrenia: 179 (Progress in Brain Research)?
These include public financing of elections, comprehensive immigration reform, reducing agriculture subsidies, and restoring solvency to the unemployment insurance system, which has been greatly strained by the recession. The Budget for All is dedicated to leveling the playing field and reducing the influence of money in politics and campaigns.
Dick Durbin D-Ill. John Larson D-Conn.
About Our Members
Additionally, the Fair Elections Now Act would free politicians from constant fundraising obligations, allowing them to focus more time on constituents and policymaking. After meeting the small contributions qualifications, candidates would receive Fair Elections funding in the primary and the general election. The primary-general election funding split would be the same as for House races.
Qualified candidates could also receive additional matching Fair Elections funds if they continued to raise small donations from their constituents. Additionally, Fair Elections would help to offset the excessive cost of purchasing media coverage. Participating candidates would receive a 20 percent reduction from the lowest broadcast rates, could receive media vouchers, and would have the opportunity to exchange those vouchers for cash with their national political party committee.
The Budget for All would enact comprehensive immigration reform, establishing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Comprehensive immigration reform would result in more taxpayers paying income and payroll taxes and would also qualify residents for child, tuition, and other tax credits as well as benefits earned by social insurance contributions. On-budget mandatory outlays i. Unemployment insurance UI is a critical component of the social safety net; it kept 3.
Virgin Islands Department of Labor The Budget for All would enact Sen. Finally, it would reduce the net FUTA rate from 0.
- The President's Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2013.
- Archive Sections!
- As in Heaven, Also on the Earth.
- Key Fiscal Metrics in the President's Budget.
- NOAA Budget Office.
- You are here.
Related The Presidents Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved