|
|
The most essential facts.
|
|
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]
[1] Includes only the “emergency
responders” portion of homeland security - “Emergency Responders: Drastically
Under-funded, Dangerously Under-Prepared”, Council on Foreign Relations, 7/29/03, p. 2, www.cfr.org/pdf/Responders_TF.pdf. [7] “President’s Budget
Contains Large Cuts in Domestic Discretionary Programs”, Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, Richard Kogan & David Kamin, 2/27/04, p. 7, http://www.cbpp.org/2-27-04bud2.pdf. [9] “President’s
Budget Contains Large Cuts in Domestic Discretionary Programs”, ibid. p. 8. [10] “Passing Down the Deficit: Federal
Policies Contribute to - - the State Fiscal Crisis”, ibid., p.9. [13] “Despite Job Growth,
A Record 2 Million Unemployed Have Gone Without Benefits”, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Isaac Shapiro, 6/28/04, p. 1, www.cbpp.org/6-28-4ui.pdf. [15] “Dooh Nibor Economics”, New
York Times, Paul Krugman, 6/1/04, p. A19. Also see “Effects of Recent Fiscal Policies on Today’s Children and Future Generations”, iid., p. 16. [16] “Passing Down the Deficit - - “,
ibid., pp. 1, 24. [17] Specific data for each state is available
in “Passing Down the Deficit - - “, ibid, pp. 1,24. Also see data for individual states from National Priorities Project
at www.nationalpriorities.org. [18] “A War Against the Cities”,
New York Times, Bob Herbert, 7/30/04, p. A15. [19] “The Bush Administration’s FY2005 Budget for
the Environment” ibid. p.5. [20] “President’s
Budget Contains Large Cuts in Domestic Discretionary Programs”, ibid., p. 7. [21] “The Bush Administration’s
FY2005 Budget for the Environment, ibid., p. 3. [22] “Deficit Picture Grimmer Than CBO’s
March Projections Suggest”, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, David Kamin and Richard Kogan, 6/4/04, p. 2, http://www.cbpp.org/6-4-04bud.pdf. [25] “Effects of Recent Fiscal Policies
on Today’s Children and Future Generations”, ibid, p. 18. [26] “The Taxonomist: Loophole Consolidation
Program”, ibid. [27] Perfectly Legal, David Kay; cited
in “Economic Viewpoint”, Business Week, Robert Kuttner, 1/24/03, p. 26.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|