Social Services Trade-Off Disadvantage - SpeechWire



Social Services Trade-Off Disadvantage TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Social Services Trade-Off Disadvantage PAGEREF _Toc391046049 \h 1Summary/Glossary PAGEREF _Toc391046050 \h 31NC (1/3) PAGEREF _Toc391046051 \h 4-7Uniqueness – Social Services Spending Now PAGEREF _Toc391046054 \h 7Uniqueness – Fights Over Budget Coming PAGEREF _Toc391046055 \h 8Uniqueness – Answers to “Ocean Funding Increasing” PAGEREF _Toc391046056 \h 10-1Link – Spending Causes Trade-Off PAGEREF _Toc391046058 \h 12-4Link – Ocean Exploration PAGEREF _Toc391046061 \h 15-6Internal Link – Trade-Off with Social Programs PAGEREF _Toc391046063 \h 17Impact – Economy PAGEREF _Toc391046064 \h 18Impact – Poverty PAGEREF _Toc391046065 \h 19-20Impact – Moral Obligation PAGEREF _Toc391046067 \h 21Impact – Racism PAGEREF _Toc391046068 \h 22Impact – Answers to “Social Services Fail” PAGEREF _Toc391046069 \h 23AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERSNon-Unique – Ocean Funding Increasing PAGEREF _Toc391046070 \h 24No Link – No Trade-Off PAGEREF _Toc391046071 \h 25-7No Impact – Social Services Fail PAGEREF _Toc391046074 \h 28-30Answers to: Poverty Impact PAGEREF _Toc391046077 \h 31Answers to: Economy Impact PAGEREF _Toc391046078 \h 32Summary/GlossarySummary:Currently, the federal government is providing a sufficient amount of funding for crucial social service programs which are targeted at reducing poverty and improving the overall state of the economy. There are fights over the new budget coming which will force Congress to make hard choices over what to provide funding for. The affirmative plan, which increases funding for ocean exploration or development would force Congress to cut money from other programs to pay for them, specifically social service programs like housing vouchers, education programs, food stamps, unemployment, and job training programs, which are necessary to build up the U.S. economy from recession.Key Terms:Appropriation – How much money is mandated for a specific program or agencyDeficit – Deficits occur when the amount of government spending is greater than the amount of revenue it brings inFY 2013 – FY refers for fiscal year or a year as reckoned for taxing or accounting purposes. It may not align with the actual calendar year. For example, your local school board would think of this school year as FY2015 even though it will take place in both 2014 and 2015.NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is the agency that does most ocean exploration and developmentPAYGO and CUTGO – PAYGO was the previous rule used by Congress to mandate that new expenditures should be paid for in some way rather than adding to the deficit, CUTGO refers to the new rule that mandates that new spending should be accompanied by cuts in the budgetSequestration – a program enacted by the United States federal government in 2013 that mandated across-the-board spending cuts for most government agenciesSocial Services/Social Programs/Social Safety Net – Services provided to citizens (primarily citizens in poverty in the United States) by the government1NC (1/3)1. Domestic social programs like education are slowly receiving increased fundingHuman Needs Report, a report for the Coalition on Human Needs, 2014(Coalition on Human Needs, The Coalition on Human Needs (CHN) is an alliance of national organizations working together to promote public policies which address the needs of low-income and other vulnerable populations. “CHN: Congress Approves Spending for FY 2014: Sequester Cuts Partly Replaced, but Many Programs Still Below Their FY 2010 Levels” JANUARY 24, 2014. )Compared to the cuts imposed by sequestration in FY 2013, domestic spending mostly did better. For example, spending in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education rose from $149.6 billion to $156.8 billion. However, the longer-term trajectory in these areas is down. Even without adjusting for inflation, FY 2014 spending for Labor-HHS-Education ($156.77 billion) is $6.8 billion less than funding in FY 2010. After counting inflation, spending is down roughly $20 billion over the same period. Similarly, Agriculture spending ($20.88 billion) is up $1.3 billion compared to FY 2013 (including sequestration), but down $2.4 billion from FY 2010 (or down just under $4.5 billion, counting inflation). Transportation-Housing and Urban Development ($50.86 billion) rises $2.4 billion over FY 2013, but is $17 billion less than in FY 2010 (or $23 billion less, adjusting for inflation). Human needs programs made important gains over FY 2013 in reversing some of the harsh cuts caused by sequestration. For instance, the number of children participating in Head Start/Early Head Start declined by 57,000 last year, but in FY 2014, 90,000 children will be added, including 40,000 in Early Head Start, an increase of more than one-third. Rental housing vouchers were also significantly cut in FY 2013, both by reducing the number of vouchers available by about 50,000 and by increasing the rents of low-income tenants. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, most but probably not all of those vouchers should be able to be restored with the $19.177 billion funding approved for FY 2014. Some additional funding specifics: Job Training: Adult Training through the Workforce Investment Act rises to $766 million, up from the post-sequester FY 2013 level of only $730.6 million. But funding is $95.4 million less it was in FY 2010 (or more than $170 million down, counting inflation). WIA Youth Training receives $820.4 million in FY 2014, about $39 million more than last year’s post-sequester level. Here too, spending is way below the FY 2010 level of $924 million. That pattern persists in other job training programs, including Youthbuild and Job Corps, both up slightly compared to FY 2013, but well below FY 2010 levels. (For more job training funding detail, see table prepared by the National Skills Coalition.) 1NC (2/3)2. New spending like the plan necessitates a trade-off of fundingSange, National Association of Community Health Centers, 2011(Alexandra, Legislative Assistant to the Federal Affairs Department, National Association of Community Health Centers, January 18, 2011 )Changing Pay-go to Cut-go. The new rules replace the previous ‘pay-as-you-go’ or PAYGO requirement with a ‘cut-as-you-go’ or cut-go requirement. Cut-go prohibits the House from considering any bill that produces a net increase in mandatory spending within the 1-year, 5-year and 10-year budget windows, as opposed to PAYGO’s ten-year window. If a bill increases mandatory spending by any amount, the bill must cut the budget somewhere by that same amount. Under PAYGO, spending cuts could serve as offsets to spending increases, however, revenue increases could also serve as offsets. Under the ‘cut-go’ rule increases in revenue cannot be used to offset increases in mandatory spending.3. New deficit increases will result in GOP demands for cuts in social servicesMcAuliff, Huffington Post, 2014(Michael, a senior congressional correspondent and blogger for the Huffington Post. “GOP Accuses Democrats Of Fiscal Irresponsibility While Passing Deficit-Hiking Tax Breaks” June 12, 2014. )Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy, pointing out that a few months ago when the House passed a budget, the GOP declared that the deficit was one of the greatest threats facing the nation. “What happened to all the rhetoric about fiscal discipline, about getting our deficits in order? Out the window,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. Democrats also suggested that the evolving bid to make permanent all the temporary breaks currently on the books amounted to a ruse to make cuts to social programs later on. Rep. Sander Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, noted that Republicans on his panel had already approved permanent tax cuts -- including the two passed by the House on Thursday -- that would add $614 billion to the deficit over 10 years. And if all the temporary breaks currently on the books were included, Levin said, it would tack $1 trillion onto the nation’s credit card. “The Republicans are going to come back here and say, ‘Wow, look at how much the deficit has increased,’ so you now need to cut these critical programs relating to the lifeline of all of the people in this country, the middle class and all who need some help,” Levin said. 1NC (3/3)4. Social services are vital to economic growth – they create jobs and increase economic activity and help those most in need pay for essentials like food, housing and medical care.CWDA and CSAC, County Welfare Directors Association of California and California State Association of Counties, 2009 (“HUMAN SERVICES IN A TIME OF ECONOMIC CRISIS: An examination of California’s safety-net programs and related economic benefits for communities.” April 2009. )In their January 9 analysis of the President’s proposed economic recovery plan, economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein concluded that temporary programs to protect people who are the most vulnerable in a deep recession will “have the largest job bang for the buck.” Compared to the spending rate of other stimulus proposals, funds to protect the vulnerable are spent very quickly. Their analysis also projected that temporary increases in Food Stamps and unemployment benefits in the stimulus package would contribute more than one-fifth of all the jobs the package would generate in 2009.33 Mark Zandi, writing in Moody’s “Dismal Scientist,” states that “Increasing food stamp payments by $1 boosts [national] GDP by $1.73,” and notes that it is an effective way to prime the economic pump because people who receive the benefits will spend them within weeks.34 By the same token, any form of cash aid to hard-pressed families will go immediately back into the economy for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and other basic necessities, and stimulate demand for additional goods and services. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also supports temporary assistance measures and posits that they can have a direct effect on jobs by retaining workers who might otherwise be laid off without the increased demand for goods and services created by stimulated spending.35 Beacon Economics reports human services provide 32 percent boost to economy. The above findings were echoed in a recent study completed by Beacon Economics, which evaluated the economic impact of spending on human services programs in California.36 The study concludes that, as a whole, human services expenditures generate 1.32 dollars of economic activity for every dollar spent, meaning that output and employment resulting from program expenditures are greater than the expenditures alone would suggest. Beacon estimates the total economic impact of human services programs at $25 billion in 2007-08, creating 132,000 jobs, and generating $467 million in sales tax revenues. Moreover, the report uses a more conservative approach than other models, such as those developed by the US Department of Agriculture. As a result, the economic impact of spending on these programs may be even higher than the estimates described in Beacon’s report. Uniqueness – Social Services Spending Now(__) Funding for crucial social service programs is either staying level or increasing right nowHuman Needs Report, a report for the Coalition on Human Needs, 2014(Coalition on Human Needs, The Coalition on Human Needs (CHN) is an alliance of national organizations working together to promote public policies which address the needs of low-income and other vulnerable populations. “CHN: Congress Approves Spending for FY 2014: Sequester Cuts Partly Replaced, but Many Programs Still Below Their FY 2010 Levels” JANUARY 24, 2014. )Housing: In addition to restoring most of the rental housing vouchers lost last year, the extra $1 billion over sequestration levels prevents the loss of an estimated 100,000 vouchers this year. New vouchers for 10,000 homeless veterans are provided, through a program that has reduced homelessness among veterans by 24 percent since 2010. The Public Housing Operating Fund is funded at $4.4 billion, up $346 million from last year’s sequestration levels, and the Public Housing Capital Fund receives a small $98 million increase over last year’s $1.78 billion. These funding levels will not be enough to address a significant backlog of repair needs, likely leading to a reduction in the number of available units. Homelessness assistance rises to $2.105 billion, up $172 million over sequestration levels. (For a full listing of housing and homelessness funding levels, see the table prepared by the National Low Income Housing Coalition.) Community Services: The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) rises to $3.4 billion in FY 2014, up $169 million over last year’s funding, including the sequester cuts. Sequestration denied LIHEAP heating or cooling assistance to 300,000 households last year. Since 2010, when LIHEAP was funded at $5.1 billion, cuts have been severe. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, the number of households served declined from 8.1 million in 2010 to 6.7 million in FY 2013, and the value of benefits declined from 52.5 percent to 44 percent of home heating costs. This winter, the cost of home heating has been projected to rise from an average $922 to $977 (such estimates were made before the especially frigid temperatures hit). The increase over sequestration levels will allow LIHEAP to restore some of last year’s cuts, but will still leave the program well behind its reach in 2010. The Community Services Block Grant, which funds community action agencies nationwide, receives $710 million, up from $700 million in FY 2010 (but well down from FY 2010 funding levels after taking inflation into account). Senior Nutrition programs are funded at $815 million, up $46 million from the FY 2013 sequestration levels, enough to restore the substantial sequestration cuts to senior meals in 2013 and to prevent another round of cuts. The Social Services Block Grant is funded at $1.7 billion, the same base funding as in FY 2013 and many previous years. However, SSBG was subject to sequestration last year (cut down to about $1.61b), and unlike many other programs, would continue to face sequestration cuts in FY 2014, likely keeping it at the same level as in FY 2013. Uniqueness – Fights Over Budget Coming(__) Upcoming fights over budget make a trade-off more likelyShaw, MNI News, 2014(John, Staff writer for MNI News. “US Budget Week: FY2015 Spending Bills Struggle Out of The Gate” MAY 23, 2014 )WASHINGTON (MNI) - Of the many things for which Congress is frequently rebuked, critics often seize on its persistent lack of consistency and of proportion. Both of those deficiencies were on full display this week as Congress struggled to deal with fiscal year 2015 spending bills and an $85 billion tax extenders package. The Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday approved, on a 16-to-14 party-line vote, allocations for the 12 individual spending bills for FY2015. These allocations include $521 billion for defense programs and $492 billion non-defense programs. All Democrats supported the allocations and all Republicans opposed them. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski said the 12 bills will allocate $1.014 trillion "which is the precise level agreed to in the Murray/Ryan Bipartisan Act with a bipartisan vote last December." She was referring to the budget agreement crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray. The Murray-Ryan agreement set discretionary spending levels for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The FY2015 discretionary spending level is $1.014 trillion. Under the Murray-Ryan agreement for FY2015, $521.3 billion is allocated for defense programs and $492.4 billion is allocated for non-defense discretionary programs. During the Appropriations Committee meeting, Mikulski acknowledged there was "some small disagreement" between Democrats and Republicans on specific allocations in several of the bills and even the overall number. But she said she's hopeful this year's appropriations process will unfold smoothly. Republicans on the Appropriations Committee accused Mikulski of using an assortment of budget gimmicks to report the 12 bills in a way that they do not cumulatively exceed the $1.104 trillion ceiling. "Under these allocations, specific bills would circumvent, we believe, the caps while relying on budgetary mechanisms that would, in effect, allow for additional spending beyond the Murray-Ryan limits," Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations panel, said Thursday. Republicans cited three budget maneuvers that they said violated the "spirit" of the Ryan-Murray accord and allowed for about $4 billion in additional spending for FY2015. One would be to use some unneeded funds from the Afghanistan war for domestic purposes. "That looks like we're trying to avoid marking up to the number we agreed to," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican member of the committee, referring to the budget gimmicks. While budget experts believe the GOP senators made good points about Mikulski's aggressive use of budget maneuvers to come in at the discretionary spending ceiling, they also point out that both Democratic and Republican senators were at that exact same time supporting an $85 billion tax extenders package that was not offset - and Republicans are also backing an amendment that would suspend the medical device tax which would cost the federal budget $30 billion over a decade. Uniqueness – Answers to “Ocean Funding Increasing” (1/2)(__) Ocean budgets are declining now – fiscal conflicts, political concernsGagosian, the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 2014 (Robert B. Gagosian, President and CEO of The Consortium for Ocean Leadership, “New Paradigm Needed for Federal Research Funding”, February 4, 2014. )What can you say about the nation’s capital when Congress has the lowest approval ratings recorded in Gallup polling history and the president’s approval rating has sunk to the lowest of his presidency? – We appear to be in a perpetual stalemate with fiscal brinksmanship becoming the new normal. The government recently shut down for the first time in 17 years, and you have to ask: what did we get for paying hundreds of thousands of federal workers to stay home? Only the promise of more fiscal showdowns on the horizon—first in January when another budget sequester is scheduled to go into effect and then in February when the debt limit needs to be extended again, putting in jeopardy the full faith and credit of the United States government. These kinds of activities are having a continuing deleterious effect on the budgets for scientific research as they continue to get tighter and tighter. Budget Crisis The Consortium for Ocean Leadership is a leading voice for the ocean science community with the mission to advance research, education and sound ocean policy. While disasters named Sandy, Katrina, Haiyan, Deepwater Horizon and Fukushima have made the need for observing, understanding and forecasting ocean processes and conditions more imperative, the political morass in Washington is making our job more difficult than ever. As an eternal optimist, I must admit that even I am beginning to have my doubts on whether our nation can remain the world leader in innovation if we continue attempting to balance the budget on the back of discretionary programs, including science. The Department of Defense is scheduled to take the brunt of the next budget sequester in January, and I suspect that research and development programs will share the pain. We have partnered with the University Corp. for Atmospheric Research to reach out to the members of the Congressional budget conference, encouraging them to find a compromise to replace the sequester and restore funding for research programs and science agencies critical to the economy. If cooler minds do not prevail, then I suspect we will continue to see erosion in federal science programs, in critical infrastructure and eventually human capital. How can we expect to recruit and sustain the next generation of scientists if they have a less than one in 10 chance of having their grants funded? Why would the best minds that come to America to be trained want to stay here and contribute to our nation during such a dire fiscal environment? I am concerned that this could lead to our best and brightest looking for opportunities in other countries. Uniqueness – Answers to “Ocean Funding Increasing” (2/2)(__) Funding staying level for ocean research and development now – no increasesPekow, DC Outdoor Recreation Examiner 2014 (Charles, an award winning journalist, outdoors enthusiast. “House committee offers tight NOAA budget for 2015” May 17, 2014. )Federal help for fishermen may get reduced next year. The House Appropriations Committee approved a Commerce, Justice, Science & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 4660) that would slightly increase the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) discretionary funds budget. But the bill would keep it below what the Obama Administration had requested. And it would cut the budget for fishing and related programs.? The Republican-dominated committee reported a bill that would give NOAA's discretionary accounts $5.32512 billion, an increase of only $10.514 million, not enough to keep up with inflation. The administration had requested an increase of $163.615 million.Link – Spending Causes Trade-Off (1/3)(__) New Congressional rules require cuts for all new spendingMain Street Insiders, News blog covering Congressional issues, 2011 (“S02E02: Budget Provisions of New House Rules,” January 17, 2011 )While in the House majority, the Democrats had in place a “pay-as-you-go” budget rule, requiring that any tax cut or increase in mandatory (entitlement) spending must be offset by cuts in other mandatory spending or increases in other taxes, in order to avoid increasing the deficit. They also barred use of budget reconciliation on any measure that would increase the deficit, as was the case in the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the law that established Medicare Part D. While the incoming Republican majority professes strong support for fiscal responsibility, it is more deeply committed to low taxes and less spending. The changes to PAYGO in their rules package reflect those priorities. Summay: The new rules include a number of provisions intended to lock in the Republicans’ budget principles for the 112th Congress. Specifically, they: ?Replace “pay-go” with “cut-go”, a new system that requires all new mandatory spending to offset by other mandatory spending cuts. Tax increases are no longer allowed to act as offsets; ?No longer require tax cuts to be budget-neutral; ?Grant the Budget Committee Chairman complete authority to set aggregate spending limits for FY11, limits usually set through a budget resolution; ?Overtly exempt the repeal of health care reform and the extended Bush tax cuts from requiring budgetary offsets; ?Allow deficit-increasing tax cut measures to be passed through budget reconciliation, but bar its use for measures that would increase net spending; ?Extend “cut-go” to bar measures that increase spending by over $5B in any ten years within a 40-year window; ?Eliminate the “Gephardt Rule” that had allowed the House to avoid stand-alone votes to raise the debt ceiling; ?Require each committee to formulate proposals to cut or eliminate programs that are inefficient, duplicative, outdated, or more appropriately administered by State or local governments. It should be noted that the Senate has no obligation to concur with these rules, and likely will engage in a bitter fight with the House majority on budgetary issues. Nevertheless, the rules are deliberately designed to virtually guarantee that mandatory spending will not increase, and likely will decrease, during the 112th Congress. Supporters: most Republicans, Tea Party and small government advocates ?Supporters applaud these measures as an important reflection of commitment to reduce federal spending and shrink government in the coming years. Opposition: most if not all Democrats, deficit hawks ?Detractors view the changes as a significant weakening of pay-go’s deficit reducing impact, and many believe it demonstrates Republicans’ fundamental unseriousness about tackling persistent budget deficits.Link – Spending Causes Trade-Off (2/3)(__) Republicans spending forcing trade-offsMehan, The American Spectator, 2011 (G. Tracy, adjunct professor @George Mason University, The American Spectator, “RYAN TAKES THE POINT ON FISCAL REFORM” January 6, 2011 )But there is more. The House Republicans are going to enact new rules "to make it harder to tax and spend," writes the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The GOP will, among other things, replace the Democrats' often ignored "paygo" approach with a "cut as you go" requirement in which increases in mandatory spending -- for new and existing entitlements -- must be matched by spending cuts in an equal or greater amount elsewhere in the budget. Another encouraging aspect of the new rules package is the empowerment of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the new Budget Committee Chairman, the point on budget reform, to impose budget limits, on his own, for the current fiscal year.(__) New programs will have to trade-offKhimm, Mother Jones, 2011 (Suzy, Washington Bureau of Mother Jones, “How Not to Cut the Deficit” January 6, 2011, )Under the Democrats' "pay-as-you-go" rules—introduced during the Clinton era and continued under President Obama—Congress had to match every spending increase or tax cut with a commensurate spending cut or tax increase. The GOP has now upended "pay-go" with "cut-go" rules, under which tax cuts don't have to be paid for and tax increases can't offset spending hikes. "The idea is that the only two things you can do are cut spending and cut taxes," explains the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. The problem is that cutting taxes without paying for them gives the government less to work with when it comes to balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. Effectively, the GOP rules could make it even more difficult to create new government programs, while making it far easier for the GOP to hand tax breaks to corporations and the wealthLink – Spending Causes Trade-Off (3/3)(__) No loopholes—no new spending without cuts, can’t use taxes to pay for itVan Hollen, US Representative from Maryland, 2011 (Chris, Member of Committee on the Budget, “Republican House Rules Make Fiscally Irresponsible Changes” January 5, 2011, )The rules package guts the pay-as-you-go concept, replacing the House rule with a new one-sided “cut-as-you-go” scheme that not only exempts certain tax cuts, but also requires new net mandatory spending to be offset by only spending cuts, not revenue increases. In particular, the new rules exempt tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, as well as any repeal of the health care law, from having to comply with the deficit neutrality standard Democrats followed under our House pay-as-you-go rule. The rules also allow reconciliation packages to deepen the deficit – a change that flies in the face of the original purpose of budget reconciliation – and exempt tax cuts from statutory pay-as-you-go requirements. The rules also give the Budget Committee Chair extraordinary power to establish new 2011 appropriations limits that were not even available before the vote on the rules package. Giving the Chair unilateral authority to impose new spending levels without even a vote or debate is a violation of their promises to operate in a transparent and open manner. On their very first day in the majority, House Republicans put in place rules to limit open debate and keep the American people in the dark. Notable Changes “Cut-as-you-go” Replaces Pay-as-you-go – The new rules replace pay-as-you-go with a “cut-as-you-go” scheme that enforces discipline only on the spending side of the budget. In a break from past pay-as-you-go rules, spending increases must be offset dollar for dollar by spending cuts; revenue increases are no longer eligible to offset spending increases. The rule allows for an emergency exemption but decreases transparency by no longer requiring a separate vote on that aspect.Link – Ocean Exploration (1/2)(__) Ocean exploration funding is controversial and expensive – makes a trade-off more likelySpross, Think Progress, 2014 (Jeff Spross, Climate Progress, “Republican Bill Cuts Funding For Climate, Social, Economic Research By $160 Million”, April 15, 2014 )It would also shift money out of the geoscience areas that cover oceanic and climate studies. Democrats have managed to amend the bill to lessen the cuts to 26 percent. But even that would leave spending levels well below their previous path. “It’s the role of Congress to make sure we’re using limited federal funds for the highest priority research,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and the bill’s author, told the Globe. Specifically, the FIRST Act is a partial reauthorization of the COMPETES Act, which was first passed by Congress in 2007, and then again 2010, and has now expired. The COMPETES Act originally set funding for the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and two offices with the Department of Energy, but the targets were always something of a suggestion — thanks to sequestration and the general push for budget austerity over the last few years, the full funding called for by the COMPETES Act was never authorized by Congress. The FIRST Act would only cover funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, leaving the Department of Energy agencies to be tackled by separate legislation. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the FIRST Act gets into the weeds of how the NSF apportions its funds — something Congress hasn’t done in years. The NSF is split into different directorates, each one covering a different area: Biological Sciences (BIO), Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Engineering (ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), and Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE). The original version of the FIRST Act would’ve modestly cut GEO, which includes funding for ocean and atmospheric sciences. It would’ve cut SBE funding much more deeply. FIRST-NSF In mid-March, Democrats pushed through an amendment to scale back the SBE cut to half of what’s pictured above. The FIRST Act would also require the NSF to publicly justify how each grant it awards would serve the national interest. Just what that would mean has changed as the bill has been revised. And anticipating ahead of time whether any particular research project will serve the “national interest,” however defined, is an inherently difficult business. Finally, the FIRST Act’s overall level of spending is so low it would not keep up with inflation, making it a cut in real and not just nominal terms. Link – Ocean Exploration (2/2)(__) Congress is trying to CUT funding for ocean research and exploration now – the plan would reverse thatKollipara, news reporter for Science Magazine, 2014(Puneet. “U.S. House Wants Limits on Climate, Marine Policy Programs” June 3, 2014. )Some ocean and climate researchers are suffering a bit of heartburn from amendments that lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives last week added to a major spending bill. In a 321 to 87 vote, the Republican-controlled House on 30 May approved a $51 billion spending bill that would fund the departments of Commerce and Justice, and an array of other agencies including the National Science Foundation (NSF), in the 2015 fiscal year that begins 1 October. During 2 days of debate on the bill, House members offered scores of amendments, many proposing to shift funding between programs or cut spending. NSF survived the free-for-all largely unscathed. But lawmakers adopted several amendments that targeted marine research and climate science programs. The U.S. Senate, which this week begins work on its version of the spending bill, would have to agree to the amendments in order for them to become law (and in the past has stripped similar provisions from the legislation). For now, however, these amendments remain in the mix: Representative Bill Flores (R–TX) successfully added language barring the president from enforcing his National Ocean Policy, which has been a partisan football in recent years. The amendment, which is similar to past amendments adopted by the House but later stripped from final measures, was approved on a voice vote. In a 226 to 179 vote, the House adopted a proposal from Representative Mark Meadows (R–NC) to bar the United States from entering international trade agreements to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions. An amendment from Representative Scott Perry (R–PA), adopted on a voice vote, would bar spending money on a number of government climate assessments and reports, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s National Climate Assessment (NCA). The president has used the most recent NCA, released last month, to bolster his Climate Action Plan to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Several other amendments offered by Democrats to bolster funding for ocean acidification and climate research failed on voice votes. Advocates for strong action on climate change are hoping the Senate will hold firm against the climate-related funding restrictions and strip out the “poison pills,” says Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The White House has also indicated its opposition to climate research limits.Internal Link – Trade-Off with Social Programs(__) Fights looming over budget and a spending cap makes a trade-off more likely – especially for social programsPeterson, Wall Street Journal, 2014(Kristina, covers Congress from the Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau. “Congress Takes on Spending Bills, but Fights Loom.” Wall Street Journal. May 2, 2014 )As part of the December budget deal, Congress agreed to allocate $521.3 billion for military spending and $492.4 billion on nondefense spending—levels that will require lawmakers to make tough funding choices. "We've got money problems," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee. "We've got a lot of demands and a lot of needs and not enough money." Last year, that led to problems even for House Republicans, who had pushed for deep cuts in spending but were forced to pull a transportation and housing bill from the floor when some GOP lawmakers thought it reduced spending too much. In the Senate, procedural hurdles make it harder for spending bills to reach the floor. Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has set aside time for the Senate to consider appropriations bills on the floor in June and July, at least five Republicans would have to vote with the chamber's Democratic caucus to even consider the legislation. All year, fights over amendments have derailed bipartisan support for much lower-profile bills. In both chambers, the labor, health and human services bill is almost always the most contentious, as it includes divisive social programs, as well as some funding for the Affordable Care Act. "It's rife with issues that tend to incite partisan dispute," said Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress and a former longtime Democratic aide on the House Appropriations Committee. And because lawmakers have already agreed to overall spending levels, "a lot of fights are going to be more on policy riders," said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D., Texas), a member of the appropriations panel. Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) has already suggested he may again push an amendment passed by the House last year to prevent the Obama administration from spending any money to implement the program that gives temporary protection to young illegal immigrants.Impact – Economy(__) Canada proves that social services return their investment by achieving poverty reduction Zehr, The Hook, 2009(Garrett, Editor of The Hook “Social spending will stimulate economy: CCPA,” , accessed 6/30/09)"What was surprising to me was that we have seen such big drops not just in earnings . . . but in after-tax income," said the report’s author and CCPA public interest researcher Iglika Ivanova. The study determined that this drop in real after-tax income was higher in B.C. than anywhere else in Canada. Ivanova said it shows the provincial government is failing to live up to its responsibilities. The CCPA is advocating a number of policy recommendations, including raising the minimum wage to $10.60, raising taxes for the wealthiest and increasing social assistance rates and accessibility. The organization is also calling on the provincial government to expand social services, such as universal child care, which Ivanova said will benefit all B.C. families. While acknowledging that these proposals will require substantial public money at a time of government revenue shortfalls, she said the investments will pay for themselves if people are patient. "Putting money into poverty reduction, we're going to stimulate the economy," she said. "We will recover faster that way and we will recover the money." (__) Social services are good for the economy -- greater spending on domestic programs enhances economy stabilityGlyn and Miliband, Oxford University, 1994 (Andrew and David, Economist and University Lecturer on Economics at Oxford University and British Labour Party Politician, “Paying for Inequality: The Economic Cost of Social Injustice”, published by IPPR/Rivers Oram Press in London, pages 205-217)There are good reasons for believing that equality may enhance economic stability. Policies to increase economic equality are frequently associated with higher levels of government spending; this tends to act as an automatic stabiliser, reducing the impact on production and employment of fluctuations in other elements of demand. Second, if the taxation to pay for the expenditure is progressive, this, together with the cyclical movements of the budget deficit, also acts to dampen fluctuations. Finally it may be expected that if the distribution of personal income is more equal, then consumption will show a steadier trend, as a greater proportion of income will be in the hands of those who will spend it consistently rather than those veering between bouts of saving and credit-financed consumption sprees. As J.K. Galbraith put it ‘A reasonably equitable distribution of income is a stabilizing economic influence it is macro-economically functional. The poor and the middle class spend their income; their support to aggregate income is stable and assured.’Impact – Poverty (1/2)(__) Expanding social services is vital to reducing povertyRank, Washington University in St. Louis 2006(Mark, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. “Poverty, Justice, and Community Lawyering: Interdisciplinary and Clinical Perspectives: Toward a New Understanding of American Poverty”, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. Vol. 20 LexisNexis)Another key strategy for addressing poverty is to increase the accessibility of several vital social and public goods. In some respects, the conditions of poverty and near poverty in the United States are worse than the statistics indicate. This is because several key resources have become increasingly unattainable for a number of American households. In particular, quality education, health care, affordable housing, and child care are either out of reach or obtainable only at considerable economic expenditure and hardship. n111 Yet, these social goods are vital in building and maintaining healthy and productive citizens and families. Virtually every other Western industrial society provides greater access to health care, affordable housing, and child care than does the United States. n112 These societies also do not display the wide fluctuations in educational quality to which American children are subjected at the primary and secondary levels. n113 The underlying [*49] reason for this is the belief that there are certain social and public goods to which all individuals have a right, and that making such resources accessible results in more productive citizens and societies in both the short and the long run. In addition, these countries recognize that such goods and services reduce the harshness of poverty and economic vulnerability. If the United States is to seriously address the widespread nature of poverty, it must address the fact that too many Americans are unable to access affordable and quality health care, child care, housing, and education. Many ideas exist on how to provide universal or near universal coverage of these vital social goods. n114 A third strategy for reducing American poverty is to adopt policies that encourage the building of individual assets. Social policies are frequently designed to alleviate the current conditions of poverty. Indeed, the strategies of making work pay and providing access to key social goods are each aimed at improving the current economic conditions of individuals and families. This is understandable, given that poverty affects individuals in the here and now. Yet, poverty alleviation approaches must also pay attention to longer-term processes and solutions. In particular, asset accumulation is crucial, both during the individual life course and within the communities in which Americans reside. The acquisition of assets allows individuals to more effectively function and to reduce their risk of poverty. Assets enable individuals to ride out periods of economic vulnerability. They also allow for the growth and strengthening of individual development. Assets build a stake in the future that income by itself often cannot provide.Impact – Poverty (2/2)(__) Changing social safety nets has a big impact on poverty ratesRank, Washington University in St. Louis 2006(Mark, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. “Poverty, Justice, and Community Lawyering: Interdisciplinary and Clinical Perspectives: Toward a New Understanding of American Poverty”, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. Vol. 20 LexisNexis)Similarly, changes in various social supports and the social safety net available to families will make a difference in terms of how well such households are able to avoid poverty or near poverty. When such supports were increased through the War on Poverty initiatives of the 1960s, poverty rates declined. n57 Likewise, when Social Security benefits were expanded during the 1960s and 1970s, poverty rates among the elderly declined precipitously. n58 Conversely, when social supports have been weakened and eroded, as was the case with children's programs during the past twenty-five years, poverty rates have gone up. n59 The recognition of poverty as a structural failing also makes it quite clear why the United States has such high poverty rates as compared to other Western countries. These rates have nothing to do with Americans being less motivated or less skilled than individuals in other countries, but have to do instead with the fact that our economy has produced a plethora of low-wage jobs in the face of global competition and that our social policies have done relatively little to support families compared to those of our European neighbors. From this perspective, one of the keys to addressing poverty is to increase the labor market opportunities and social supports available to American households.Impact – Moral Obligation(__) Ensuring that every human has the bare necessities is the biggest moral question – must be a prerequisite Pogge, Yale University, 2002(Thomas Pogge, Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale University, World Poverty and Human Rights, November 2002, pages 50-51) Acceptance of such a universal core criterion of basic justice does not preclude particular societies from subjecting their national institutions to a stronger criterion of justice that involves a more specific measure or human flourishing. Such a national measure might, for instance, ascribe to citizens additional basic needs. such as: to have certain legal (constitutional) rights, not to be too severely disadvantaged through social inequalities, to be adequately compensated for genetic handicaps and bad luck, or to receive a subsidy for the discharge or important religious duties. But such additional basic needs would everywhere be understood as secondary to the universal human needs recognized by the globally shared conception of human rights. The preeminent requirement on all coercive institutional schemes is that they afford each human being secure access to minimally adequate shares of basic freedoms and participation, of food, drink, clothing, shelter, education, and health care. Achieving the formulation, global acceptance, and realization of this requirement is the preeminent moral task of our age.Impact – Racism(__) Expanding federal social services is vital to addressing structural racismWiley and Powell, Center for Social Inclusion and Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, 2006(Maya and John, Director of the Center for Social Inclusion and Director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity “Tearing Down Structural Racism and Rebuilding Communities,” Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, May/June 2006 )The racialized poverty of the region and of New Orleans represents the effects of a shrinking city tax base, propelled by white flight. The racialized poverty there also represents the racially driven failure of the nation to invest in blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asians as potent human resources for the country’s future. For example, the New Deal excluded almost three-fifths of the black community from the benefits of Social Security Insurance by excluding domes- tic and agricultural workers from eligi- bility.59Driven by Southern Dixiecrats intent on maintaining the social, eco- nomic, and political subordination of blacks, the white power structure demonstrated a willingness to seal the fates of poor white agricultural and domestic workers to preserve white racial hegemony. Furthermore, by allowing unions to discriminate on the basis of race while empowering union organizing under the Wagoner Act, unions not only participated in the strat- ification of black workers even in the industrializing north but also helped weaken the labor movement possibilitiesin the South.60 New Deal policies had a tremendous impact on the wealth-creat- ing possibilities for whites with wealth and educational opportunities which increased opportunities for future gen- erations. By the same token, the disin- vestment and exclusion that these poli- cies advanced for black people and other communities of color have perpetuated multigenerational poverty and nonac- cess to opportunity. The current discussion around rebuild-ing appears to be headed away from a stronger, more equitable region. Having spent forty years to gain political ascen-dancy, often using a strategy of pander-ing to white Southern racism in coded language, the political right can now move its agenda. The political right has a vision for a radically different America based on less government and more cor- porate prerogative. The White House recently repealed laws mandating stan- dard local wages for recovery construc- tion workers, suspended affirmative action in contracting requirements and environmental regulations, allowed states to cap their Medicaid spending, and even worked to eliminate estate taxes. This ideological approach harms people of color and whites. Consider the fact that in 2004 the richest 10 percent of Americans received tax cuts worth two times what the government would spend on job training, college Pell grants, pub-lic housing, low income rental subsidies, and child care.61The portrait painted by both our historic and current federal policies reinforces a structure of racial segregation, disinvestment, and lack of sustainability for all our communities and the nation. Impact – Answers to “Social Services Fail”(__) Federal poverty reduction programs are empirically successfulWeil, Food Research and Action Center, 06(James, President of the Food Research and Action Center. “The Federal Government—the Indispensable Player in Redressing Poverty,” Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, May/June 2006, )When Attacking Poverty, the Federal Government Often Is Very Effective That the business sector, state and local governments, and charity are inadequate to the task of redressing poverty and ensuring opportunity would not mean that the federal government should play an important role if the federal government also were unsuccessful or institutionally incapable. But the federal government possesses the resources and has proven itself as an actor—the most successful actor—in these arenas, especially when (as discussed earlier) it moves both economic and spending policy in the same positive direction. When it did that in the 1960s and the late 1990s, progress was substantial. Separately in this issue Peter Edelman addresses the canard (from Ronald Reagan among others) that “we fought a war on poverty and poverty won.”49 The fact is that many federal initiatives from the last seventy years have been extraordinarily successful. Their impact has been incomplete but still formidable: ■ The federal government has transformed old age from a frequent sentence of poverty to, typically, albeit not universally, a state of economic and health security. In 2003 public benefit programs reduced by more than 80 percent the number of seniors who otherwise would be living in poverty (14 million fewer seniors).50 ■ Public benefit programs (overwhelmingly federal or federal-state programs), such as TANF, social security, Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, and others, lifted nearly one in three otherwise poor children out of poverty in 2003.51 ■ Public benefits substantially reduce the severity of poverty even for those they do not lift out of poverty. In 2003 for those who remained poor the programs increased their average income from 29 percent to 57 percent of the poverty line.52 ■ In the 1960s studies found deep hunger and malnutrition in many poor areas of the country. While hunger and food insecurity are still widespread problems, food stamps, school meals, WIC, and related programs have made severe hunger much less common. ■ In the first fifteen years after Medicaid began, black infant mortality dropped by 49 percent, more than nine times the rate of improvement of the preceding fifteen years.53 Indisputably these results are not good enough. The work of ensuring that the federal government lives up to its responsibilities and appropriately takes on poverty, insecurity, and unequal opportunity through its economic and spending policies is hardly finished. And that work is not easy, short-term, or assured of success. But there is no alternative. The federal government is the indispensable player in redressing poverty.Non-Unique – Ocean Funding Increasing(__) Funding for ocean research and exploration is increasing nowLeone, Space News, 2014(Dan, NASA reporter for SpaceNews, where he also covers other civilian-run U.S. government space programs and a growing number of entrepreneurial space companies. “House and Senate Find Common Ground on NOAA Budget.” Jun. 12, 2014 )WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on June 5 approved a budget bill that would give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about $5.4 billion in 2015, including some $2.1 billion for its major weather satellite programs — a small increase over 2014 that is about even with the White House’s 2015 request and what House appropriators included in a competing bill approved in May. Senate and House appropriators now seem to be more or less on the same page when it comes to the weather agency’s 2015 budget, even if they do not agree fully with the White House — or each other — on every detail. Senate appropriators, like their counterparts in the House, agreed to give NOAA’s two major weather satellite programs the roughly $130 million boost the White House requested in March. That comes out to about $916 million for the Joint Polar Satellite System, some $95 million more than 2014, and about $981 million for the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R, roughly $39 million more than 2014. The second Joint Polar Satellite System spacecraft is slated to launch in 2017 — a test bed satellite launched in 2011 was pressed into service as the program’s first — while the next geostationary satellite would lift off in 2016. (__) Funding is increasing for ocean researchSpace Ref 2014(Space Ref, an international privately owned media company that covers civil, commercial and military space as well space policy, space technology, astronomy and most other space related topics. “House Passes FY 2015 Funding Bill for NASA, NIST, NOAA, and NSF” June 3, 2014 )The bill’s funding level for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research was increased by $12 million under a successful amendment offered by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK). Arguing that the increased money would accelerate R&D and the development of new technologies, Bridenstine’s amendment shifted the money from the Census Bureau. Both Wolf and Fattah supported the amendment and it passed the House by a vote of 340-71. In announcing his support for the amendment, Wolf described H.R. 4660’s “strong funding” for the National Weather Service, explaining the bill’s appropriation was $16 million above the Obama Administration’s request. The bill also provided funding above the Administration’s requests for information technology officers, the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program, and a tsunami community education awareness program.No Link – No Trade-Off (1/3)Even House Republicans won’t force cuts—finding loopholes for Health CareScher, Campaign for America’s Future, 2011 (Bill, executive director of Campaign for America’s Future, “House GOP Will Obliterate Its Own 'CutGo' Rule When It Repeals Health Reform,” Huffington Post, January 3, 2011 )The House Republican leadership has announced it will enact two things immediately upon taking control of the House this week: a new "CutGo" rule to require revenue offsets for any increases in spending, and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act health reform law. The Republicans might want to pass health reform repeal first. Because if they install "CutGo" rules first, they won't be able to repeal health reform without also finding $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next two decades to make up for the taxpayer savings they'll be throwing away. At minimum, if the House GOP doesn't feel bound by the Congressional Budget Office's nontraditional long-range forecast -- which was provided because the bulk of the estimated deficit reduction would occur in the second decade of implementation -- it would at least need to offset the $143 billion that the traditional CBO estimates would be saved by health reform in this decade. As the conservative Daily Caller reported last month, "The rule will require that any legislation that seeks to increase mandatory spending (which is spending that once added to the federal budget recurs year after year and is thus permanent) cuts spending by a similar amount." Repealing health reform, according to the CBO, will "increase mandatory spending," and therefore would be subject to the proposed "CutGo" rule. Throughout the last year, Republicans who had previously equated CBO with "God" suddenly trashed the agency once it found that Democratic reforms for both health care and capping carbon emissions would save taxpayers money. But now that Republicans will be controlling one body of Congress, they are going to have the deal with the fact that the Congressional Budget Office estimates are the basis for congressional budget rules. I suppose that if this little wrinkle comes to their attention, House Republican could create an additional "CutGo" loophole (beyond the giant loophole that exempts all tax cuts from requiring offsets.) Maybe they'd say the scrapping of cost saving reforms also doesn't count. Maybe they'd say cost estimates must be based on Heritage Foundation projections instead of the CBO. I'm sure they can come up with something that would pass muster for the editors at Fox News. No Link – No Trade-Off (2/3)(__) Congress finds loopholes and it exempts trade-off of expensive initiativesThe Daily News, editorial, 2011(Longview Daily News – Longview, WA. “'Pay as you go' rule is good in principle, but don't expect Congress to follow through.” February 22, 2010 )A couple of weeks ago, congressional leaders and the administration tried to calm those investors, along with an increasingly nervous American public, by signaling a new commitment to fiscal restraint. The principal vehicle they chose was the old "pay as you go" budget rule that supposedly requires lawmakers to offset any new spending or tax cut with spending cuts and/or tax increases in other areas. The rule, commonly referred to as PAYGO, can be an effective restraint when strictly applied. It was helpful during ‘90s in turning large budget deficits into significant budget surpluses. The rule was abandoned in 2002 to accommodate the previous administration's tax cuts and post-9/11 spending in Afghanistan and on homeland security. It's doubtful that the PAYGO rule enacted earlier this month will be nearly so effective as the ‘90s version. Unlike its predecessor, this Congress' budget exempts many costly spending initiatives. It will allow Congress to extend middle-class tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration without any corresponding spending cuts or tax increases. The rule allows Congress to restrain the growth of the alternative minimum tax, lower the estate tax and cancel scheduled payment cuts for Medicare physicians - all without corresponding cuts in spending of tax hikes. Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, was dismissive of this porous budget rule during last year's debate. "This is like quitting drinking," she said, "but making an exception for beer and hard liquor." Advocates acknowledge the new PAYGO rule's flaws, but argue that it is preferable to no rule at all. It's true, we suppose, that the budget rule has value if it helps focus congressional attention on the need to restrain spending and convinces foreign investors that U.S. lawmakers are indeed committed to getting the nation's fiscal house in order. But this budget rule will do little restrain spending or reassure investors unless congressional leaders are willing to follow it to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be happening. About a week after enacting PAYGO, congressional Democrats were attempting to carve out a loophole large enough to slip a costly jobs bill through the rule. No Link – No Trade-Off (3/3)(__) Rules won’t be applied – there are other ways to fund the planBernstein, The Atlantic, 2011(Jonathan, staff writer for The Atlantic, “Budget Gimmicks” April 6, 2011, )The important thing to remember about all budget gimmicks is that they there are really only two ways to change the federal deficit: raise more revenues, or cut spending. The presidents and Congresses that have really wanted to cut deficits (most notably George H.W. Bush in 1990 and Bill Clinton in 1993, along with Democratic Congresses in both cases) have done so by actually supporting proposals that would change government revenues and/or outlays. Any time you hear someone propose a budget gimmick instead of proposing to raise revenues or cut spending, you can be fairly certain that it's just hot air. The only exception I'd make would be for a pol who does both. Barack Obama, for example, is putting together a commission which is purely a public relations gimmick, but he's also supporting a health care plan that will, if implemented, probably cut the long-term deficit quite a bit. (Commissions can work if everyone involved wants to do something but doesn't want to leave fingerprints; that's not the case with Obama's commission). In general, I'd probably be willing to speculate that the more distant the gimmick, the less serious the authors are about it. So the one gimmick that actually might matter is the Democrats' PAYGO rules...although even there, the only real way it's going to matter is if Congress and the president abide by those rules, which means that the rules themselves are close to, although not quite completely, irrelevant.No Impact – Social Services Fail (1/3)(__) Federal poverty spending empirically failsMalanga, The Manhattan Institute, 2008 (Steven, senior editor of City Journal and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. "We Don’t Need Another War on Poverty", City Journal, Fall, LexisNexis)Yet the War on Poverty's legislative architects ignored the cities' own failings and instead embraced the theories of left-wing intellectuals, who argued that the external forces arrayed against the poor, such as racism or globalization, were simply too overwhelming to address on the local level. "Officials and residents in urban communities are losing control of their cities to outside forces," warned urban planners Edward Kaitz and Herbert Harvey Hyman in their book Urban Planning for Social Welfare. "Cities are relatively powerless." The answer was federal intervention. Columbia University's Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward gained an influential following among policymakers by arguing that an unjust and racist nation owed massive government aid to the poor and mostly minority residents of struggling cities. Further, to compel those residents to work in exchange for help, or even to make them attend programs that might boost self-reliance, was to violate their civil liberties. The War on Poverty, motivated by such toxic ideas, transformed welfare from temporary assistance into a lifelong stipend with few strings attached. As everyone knows, welfare rolls then skyrocketed, increasing 125 percent from 1965 to 1970 alone, and an entrenched generational underclass of poor families emerged. Typically, they lived in dysfunctional public housing projects--many of them built as another battle in the War--that radiated blight to surrounding neighborhoods. The federal government created a series of huge initiatives, from Medicaid and Head Start to food stamps and school lunch programs, that spent billions of dollars trying to fight urban poverty. And then, to attack the "root causes" of poverty (whatever they were), the feds spent billions more on local social-services agencies, which ran ill-defined programs with vague goals like "community empowerment" that did nothing to alleviate poverty. Despite years of effort and gargantuan transfusions of money, the federal government lost its War on Poverty. "In 1968 . . . 13 percent of Americans were poor," wrote Charles Murray in his unstinting examination of antipoverty programs, Losing Ground. "Over the next 12 years, our expenditures on social welfare quadrupled. And in 1980, the percentage of poor Americans was--13 percent."No Impact – Social Services Fail (2/3)b(__) Scientific studies prove federal social programs are ineffectiveMuhlhausen, The Heritage Foundation, 2014(David B. Muhlhausen, PhD, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. “Do Federal Social Programs Work?” March 19, 2014. )Do federal social programs work? Based on the scientifically rigorous multisite experimental evaluations published since 1990, the answer certainly cannot be in the affirmative. Despite the best social engineering efforts, overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that federal social programs are ineffective. Ameliorating such problems as low academic achievement, poor cognitive ability, poverty, joblessness, low wages, and personal relations appears to be out of reach for federal social programs. The most notable exception is welfare-to-work programs, which increased earnings, but participants still received some government assistance. The evidence clearly shows that federal social programs are ineffective. It cannot be just a coincidence that the many multisite evaluations published since 1990 overwhelmingly find that this is true. Our nation faces a severe debt crisis that threatens our very future. Americans should not fear eliminating social programs. Now is the time for deep budget cuts in federal social programs. The social programs that Congress continues to fund need to undergo large-scale experimental evaluations. Multisite experimental evaluations are the best method for assessing the effectiveness of federal social programs. Yet to date, this method has been used to evaluate only a handful of federal social programs. Congress needs to reverse this trend.No Impact – Social Services Fail (3/3)(__) Money spent on social services has empirically failed to make a differenceTanner, CATO Institute, 2006 (Michael D., Research Fellow at CATO Institute, “More Welfare, More Poverty”, August 31, 2006. )News that the poverty rate remained at 12.6 percent last year, statistically unchanged from the year before, has set off a predictable round of calls for increased government spending on social welfare programs. Yet, last year, the federal government spent more than $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty. That amounts to $12,892 for every poor man, woman, and child in this country. And, it does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since President Bush took office. Despite this government largesse, 37 million Americans continue to live in poverty. In fact, despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What does that say about our welfare policy?(__) The government welfare system has tried and failed to eliminate poverty, wasting trillions of dollars in the process.Kelley, The Atlas Society, 1998(David, Philosopher and founder and senior fellow of The Atlas Society. A Life of One’s Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State, )Figure 1.1 shows the growth in total social welfare spending between 1930 and 1990. Figure 1.2 shows what the same numbers mean in per capita terms, taking account of the growth in population. Despite the enormous growth of the economy, which has made it possible for more and more people to earn a more and more comfortable living, government spending on individuals—and of course the taxes it takes from individuals—increased from $66 to more than $3,500 (in constant dollars) per person over the period. Despite that increase, the poverty rate—the proportion of the population with incomes below the official poverty level—has remained at 13-14 percent since the early 1970s. It had been dropping steadily before that, from about 30 percent after World War II, but leveled off just as the Great Society programs began to take effect. Although it has spent trillions of dollars, the War on Poverty has not lowered the actual poverty rate (Figure 1.3).Answers to: Poverty Impact(__) Overall material conditions of the poor are improving across every major indicatorEberstadt, American Enterprise Institute, 2008 (Nicholas, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “The Poverty of “The Poverty Rate””)**OPR = Official Poverty RateOne additional and signal failure of the official poverty rate must be flagged in any empirical discussion of poverty and material well-being in America today. This is its manifest inability to provide an accurate reading of absolute poverty in the United States—the charge that the indicator was expressly assigned from the 1960s on.The OPR is, by explicit official designation, meant to monitor absolute poverty—that is to say, to measure poverty in relation to a set income threshold, rather than in relation to the current incomes reported by families or some other relative, and thus perennially changing, standard. Ever since the OPR’s original poverty thresholds were established back in 1965, they have been annually revised solely to take account of changes in the Consumer Price Index. In principle, this should mean that a fixed and unchanging income criterion is being used for determining the poverty status of families. Further, since the inflation-adjusted income threshold of those counted officially poor is supposed to remain constant over time, the material condition of those below the poverty line should similarly be more or less consistent from one decade to the next.Yet, as we saw, this supposition is completely refuted by biometric and other physical data on the living conditions of the U.S. poverty population. With regard to food and nutrition, anthropometric data demonstrate that our poor are incontestably better off today than in 1965; ironically, in fact, overweight and obesity are the prime problems that have emerged over this interim as major nutritional concerns with regard to this population. With respect to housing, the poor today live in decidedly less crowded, more spacious, and better-furnished dwellings than they did four decades ago—and those housing standards appear to have improved steadily, decade by decade. By a number of benchmarks, indeed, the officially poor today enjoy better housing conditions than the nonpoor in 1970, or the American population as a whole as recently as 1980. With respect to transportation, a steadily increasing proportion (by now, the vast majority) of officially poor households own cars, trucks, or other sorts of motor vehicles, and a significant and rising minority of officially poor families have two or more motor vehicles. Finally, utilization of medical and health-care services by the officially poor has progressively expanded over the decades—so much so that children in families below the poverty line in 2004 were more likely to have at least one annual doctor’s visit than were children in families with incomes well above the official poverty line only two decades earlier.Answers to: Economy Impact(__) The impact of social programs is too long-termNilsen, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2007 (Sigurd, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability OfficeCQ Congressional Testimony, “THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL COSTS OF POVERTY,” January 24, 2007, LexisNexis)Economists have long recognized the strong association between poverty and a range of adverse outcomes for individuals, and empirical research, while limited, has also begun to help us better understand the impact of poverty on a nation's economic growth. The interrelationships between poverty and various adverse social outcomes are complex, and our understanding of these relationships can lead to vastly different conclusions regarding appropriate interventions to address each specific outcome. Furthermore, any such interventions could take years, or even a generation, to yield significant and lasting results, as the greatest impacts are likely to be seen among children. Nevertheless, whatever the underlying causes of poverty may be, economic research suggests that improvements in the health, neighborhoods, education, and skills of those living in poverty could have impacts far beyond individuals and families, potentially improving the economic well-being of the nation as a whole.(__) Any savings are long term, the short term costs are still hugeHaskins, Brookings Institution, 2007 (Ron, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Senior Consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation CQ Congressional Testimony, “THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL COSTS OF POVERTY,” January 24, 2007, LexisNexis)I would, however, like to emphasize a cost that is not part of the calculations made by Holzer and his colleagues. Even if we reduce childhood poverty and prevent some of the costs childhood poverty imposes on the economy, whatever actions we take to end poverty would themselves have substantial costs. Thus, even if $500 billion is an accurate estimate of the costs of childhood poverty, we would need to spend money to reduce childhood poverty in order to reduce its long-term costs. In 2005 we spent well over $600 billion on programs for poor and low-income individuals and families and yet the child poverty rate was 17.6 percent. It's anyone's guess how much more we would have to spend to greatly reduce the current child poverty rate. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download