2004

Do big federal tax cuts

for the few

make $ense for our security?

·      Homeland Security assistance to local police, fire & other front-line staff is under-funded by $98 billion for the next 5 years ($98 billion is 4 times what Washington now spends). [1]

·       Poorly guarded nuclear bomb-making materials in the former Soviet Union will not be secured for another 13 years without more funding and leadership from Washington. [2]   

·       Since 9/11, Washington has come through with only $516 million (9%) of the $5.6 billion the Coast Guard needs to make U.S. seaports minimally secure. [3]

·       Many unguarded factories in the U.S. produce lethal chemicals in populated areas, but the current Administration has not requested funds to protect them. [4]   

Vote on Nov. 2.  Help get out the vote.  

www.nationalvoice.org, 1-866-428-7228;

www.nhcitizensalliance.org/UpcomingCanvasses.html.
 

·        The Administration opposed adding 80 new criminal financial investigators to disrupt the financing of terrorist groups (to save $12 million.) [5]

·        Although Washington has provided funds for our badly neglected state and local public health system to protect us from bioterrorism, it did very little to help states & municipalities through their general funding crisis of the past 4 years.  As a result, state and local funds for public health have been cut. [6] 

OUR ECONOMY

·        Despite the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the White House budget plans a 27% cut ($1.2 billion) by 2009 in energy programs (which include renewable energy source development). [7]  (With its other hand, the Administration slightly increased this year’s funding for “renewable” energy, i.e. hydrogen to be produced by coal and nuclear power.) [8]

·        Research, science and technology programs would be cut for the next 5 years to finance exploration of the moon and Mars. [9]  (Past successes of federally-financed research include the initial development of computers and the Internet.)

·        Funding for “No Child Left Behind” has totaled $32 billion (25%) below the levels authorized by Congress during the 4 year state fiscal crisis, despite the fact that school children in a significant number of other countries surpass the U.S. in science and math. [10] 

·        Long-term economic growth will probably not increase as a result of the 2001-2003 federal tax cuts, and may be reduced, according to a number of economic studies (even if the tax cuts are made permanent). [11]

OUR PEOPLE

·        One out of every three people under 65 had no health insurance for part or all of 2002-2003. [12]    

·        Two million long-term unemployed have gone without extended unemployment benefits. [13] 

·        “39 percent of student borrowers have unmanageable debt after they graduate [college]” (due to student loan payments over 8% of income). [14]

·        Unless taxes are raised, severe cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be necessary. [15]  

·        Federal tax cuts, “unfunded mandates” & other federal burdens cost the average state 8.4% of its “general fund” budget. (Wonder why local taxes are going up?) [16]  

·        In New England, the cost to Massachusetts will be $1.1 billion in 2005, Connecticut - $782 million, Maine - $222 million, New Hampshire - $145 million and Vermont - $126 million. [17] (See the data source for your state.)

·        “Cleveland has laid off 15 percent of its cops – 250 officers. Pittsburgh has lost a quarter of its officers, - - Los Angeles County - 1,200 deputies - ‘This is all compounded by - - less money coming in from Washington’ ”. [18] 

OUR ENVIRONMENT

·        For National Parks, since 2001, the White House has provided only $350 million (7%) of the $4.9 billion it promised to eliminate maintenance backlogs. [19]

·        By 2009, the Administration’s budget plans a 20% cut ($6.8 billion) in total funding for Natural Resources and the Environment. [20]

·        The 2005 White House budget cuts funds for water quality by 30% (from $2.6 billion to $1.8), despite $450 billion in needs identified by the EPA. [21]

These service cuts are caused primarily by tax cuts, not over-spending; “the large deficits - - are more a reflection of a historically low level of revenues, - - as a share of the economy, than of an unusually high level of federal spending.  In 2004, revenues will total 15.8% of [the economy] - - the lowest level since 1950.” [22] 

You may have trouble believing the previous paragraph because most of us now pay a higher share of the tax burden.  Why?  Corporate tax revenues today average only 10% of total federal tax revenues, compared with 28 percent in the 1950’s - -.  [23]  “the effective federal tax rate on the best-off 1 percent of Americans has dropped by 30 percent over the past quarter-century”. [24]     

We do have the resources we need for a decent future. [25]  If “the wealthy paid the same share of their income in taxes today as they did in 1977, annual revenues would jump by $200 billion.  Likewise if corporate income taxes were restored to the share of the economy that they averaged from 1950 to 2000, companies would pay $180 billion a year more.” [26]  Further, “tax avoidance among corporations & upper-income individuals is far outrunning the audit capacity of the IRS. There’s a $113 billion gap between what corporations should [and actually do pay].” [27]