Posts
Showing posts with label Spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spending. Show all posts
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Paul Ryan Budget Reduces Spending To Lowest Levels Since 1948: Report
Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) proposed budget would reduce government spending outside of Social Security and interest on debt to its lowest levels in over six decades, Investor's Business Daily reported Wednesday.
Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, unveiled his latest fiscal proposal on Tuesday, laying out $4.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade. The blueprint aims to balance the budget in 10 years by slashing Medicare, Medicaid and programs to aid the poor, including food stamps. Ryan's plan would also repeal President Barack Obama's health care reform law.
"This is not only a responsible, reasonable balanced plan," Ryan said on Tuesday. "It's also an invitation. This is an invitation to the president of the United States, to the Senate Democrats, to come together to fix these problems."
Under the House GOP plan, government spending would hit its lowest levels in 65 years. Investor's Business Daily's Jed Graham reports:
By 2023, under Paul Ryan's budget, the entirety of federal spending outside of Social Security and interest on the debt (16.4% of GDP in 2012) would shrink to 11.2% of GDP, a level not seen since 1948 — before ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, the interstate highway system and almost before the first baby boomers were born.That is nearly 25% below the 14.6% of GDP average over the past 64 years. In the only three years over this span that saw spending on the main functions of government (outside of saving for retirement) dip just below 12% of GDP, the unemployment rate averaged 4.5% or less, shrinking safety net outlays while bolstering the spending capacity of state and local governments.
Graham also calculates that by leaving Medicare expenditures out as well as Social Security and interest, spending levels would shrink to 7.9 percent of GDP by 2023, the lowest level since 1938, before Social Security and Medicare programs were created.
Click here to read more on Ryan's budget plan.
Also on HuffPost: Get Alerts Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!Monday, March 25, 2013
Social Security, Healthcare Spending To Double Over The Next Decade: CBO
* Spending on Social Security, healthcare due to double in decade
* CBO warns of sharp rise in debt unless Congress acts
* Gradual changes would minimize economic impact
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - U.S. spending on Social Security and healthcare will double to $3.2 trillion a year over the next decade, threatening a sharp rise in national debt unless Congress acts to avoid the danger, congressional researchers warned on Tuesday.
A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office did not put forth a plan to resolve the long-term imbalance between revenues and spending on retirement and healthcare benefits. But it said that action taken now would help minimize the economic impact of whatever course lawmakers can agree on.
"Unless the laws governing these programs are changed - or the increased spending is accompanied by corresponding reductions in other spending, sufficiently higher tax revenues, or a combination of the two - debt will rise sharply relative to (the U.S. economy) after 2023," the CBO warned.
The report, CBO's latest on the U.S. budget and economic outlook, comes as President Barack Obama and Congress prepare for a showdown over the federal deficit in coming months.
"Deciding now what policy changes to make to resolve that long-term imbalance would allow for gradual implementation, which would give households, businesses and state and local governments time to plan and adjust their behavior," CBO said.
The agency estimated last June that Social Security and federal health programs would account for more than one-quarter of U.S. gross domestic product by 2037 unless laws were changed.
Federal spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid stood at $1.6 trillion in 2012, with healthcare spending alone at $885 billion.
CBO predicts that annual outlays for those programs alone will top $3 trillion by 2023, with Obama's healthcare reform law adding another $134 billion in costs to provide coverage for 26 million people through new state-based healthcare exchanges.
Expanded health coverage under the reform law would cost $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years, slightly higher than its forecast in August, and reach 38 million people in 2022 through the exchanges and an expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor beginning Jan. 1, 2014, the CBO said.
Meanwhile, 7 million fewer people were forecast to have employer-sponsored health insurance in 2022 due to Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The estimate is up from August, when CBO predicted a drop of 4 million people with employer plans.
The agency said the change was due largely to the lower marginal tax rates Congress passed on Jan. 1, which would reduce tax benefits associated with insurance provided by employers.
Medicare, the federal healthcare program for 50 million elderly and disabled Americans, is expected to remain at around 3 percent of GDP until 2019 before climbing to 3.5 percent of the economy by 2023, for a total of $1.1 trillion in spending.
Medicaid is forecast to grow to 2.2 percent of GDP by 2023 when it is projected to total $572 billion in federal spending and 84 million beneficiaries.
Social Security outlays, estimated to account for almost one quarter of the government's spending next year, are projected to remain near 5 percent of GDP in most years through 2018 and then climb to reach 5.5 percent of GDP in 2023.
Despite forecasts for rising spending for Medicare and Medicaid, both are expected to grow more slowly per capita over the coming decade than they were just six months ago.
The change was due partly to expectations for lower enrollment and a larger number of young, healthier beneficiaries in the Medicaid coverage pool.
It also reflected a slowdown in spending growth for Medicare's Part A hospital, Part B physician and Part D prescription drug benefits, as younger retirees from the baby boom generation have entered the pool of beneficiaries.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Poll Finds Support For Deficit Reduction, Opposition To Spending Cuts
* Most Americans want deficit reduction in near term
* Opposition to cuts in education, Social Security, Medicare
* Public favors 'Obamacare' exchanges and Medicaid expansion
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Most Americans want President Barack Obama and Congress to reduce the federal deficit without cutting Medicare, Social Security and education, according to polling data released Thursday.
A joint survey by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Harvard School of Public Health and the Kaiser Family Foundation also showed majorities support President Barack Obama's plan to expand Medicaid and provide subsidized private health insurance to working families through new online state exchanges.
The survey found that two-thirds of Americans want Washington to reduce the deficit in the short term rather than wait for a stronger economy. That included 74 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of independents and 57 percent of Democrats.
At the same time, about two-thirds of the 1,347 adults polled Jan. 3-9 rejected cuts to public education, Medicare and Social Security as a means of deficit reduction. Three-quarters said deficit reduction can occur without cuts to Medicare specifically. The findings have a 3 percentage point margin of error.
The data could suggest public support for Obama as he heads into another round of intensive deficit negotiations with Republicans while vowing to preserve the current structures of Medicare and the national Medicaid program for the poor. The two programs together are expected to cost more than $1 trillion in 2013 and serve just under 100 million people who are elderly, disabled or poor.
But experts said the results suggest political risk for Republicans and Democrats alike as deficit talks go forward.
"Both parties want a grand bargain. But I can't find a detail on either side. They want the other side to say what Medicare would look like before they come to the table. That is nervousness about public opinion," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard professor who studies political trends in healthcare.
Most respondents said deficit reduction can happen without cuts to Medicare and opposed a possible increase in the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 that Democrats and Republicans have considered as a deficit-cutting option.
Majorities also opposed reducing payments to hospitals and other Medicare healthcare providers or raising payroll taxes on workers and employers to help fund the program for the elderly and disabled.
Instead, 68 percent of Americans favored a proposal to save money by reducing prescription drug prices for low-income people who receive Medicare benefits.
Separately, a new poll by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press also found that 72 percent of Americans believe reducing the federal budget deficit should be a top priority. More than two-thirds of the 1,500 adults polled by Pew from Jan. 9 to 13 favored making Medicare and Social Security financially sound.
The survey by Robert Wood Johnson, Harvard and Kaiser also found that majorities of Americans favor two controversial provisions of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that would extend health coverage to more than 30 million people who currently have no health insurance.
The first provision, which would create state healthcare exchanges, was favored by 55 percent of respondents who said it should be a top priority for their state governors and legislators. Another 31 percent called the exchanges an important but lower priority. Support included clear majorities of Republicans and Democrats.
Additionally, 52 percent of respondents supported the second provision, which would expand the Medicaid program for the poor to nearly all Americans earning up to 133 percent of the poverty line, equaling about $24,000 a year for a family of three. But opinions split sharply along party lines.
Kaiser President and Chief Executive Drew Altman said the results depict a contrast between political ideology and tangible benefits in the mind of the public.
"The overall idea of the (law) creates a very mixed public reaction, certainly if you call it 'Obamacare.' But most of the benefits of the (law) are very popular, even on a bipartisan basis," he said. (Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Jilian Mincer and Dan Grebler)
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Outdoor Recreation Spending Overrides Buying Gas And Cars By Americans
From TakePart's Alison Fairbrother:
Americans may have a reputation for being gas-guzzling, resource-burning city slickers, but new research suggests that we spend our hard-earned dollars on some remarkably outdoorsy pursuits.
Americans devote more money to enjoying the outdoors than buying gasoline, purchasing pharmaceutical drugs, or owning cars. More than 44 percent of us make outdoor recreation a priority, adding up to an annual economic impact of $646 billion, according to a recent report by the Outdoor Industry Association. (By comparison, Americans buy $354 billion worth of gas and other fuels).
Outdoor recreation supports 6.1 million jobs and a combined $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. More American jobs depend on trail sports (768,000) than there are lawyers (728,200) in the U.S., according to the report.
If spending patterns reflect values, then Americans care much more about the outdoors than current federal funding reflects, or than anyone gives them credit for.
“The biggest takeaway is that protecting our public lands, waters, and trails is more than just about the land. It’s about preserving and protecting economies, communities, and people whose lives depend on having great places to play outside,” Frank Hugelmeyer, president of the Outdoor Industry Association, told TakePart.
Activities quantified in the research include bicycling, camping, fishing, hunting, motorcycling, snow sports, wildlife viewing, and more.
While previous economic analyses have interpreted outdoor activities narrowly, the new study considers the broad economic impact of outdoor recreation, including the design, development, marketing, and manufacturing of gear, sales linked to retailers and wholesalers of outdoor equipment, expenditures for going on a trip to use equipment, purchasing of licenses and supplies, and costs associated with leisure and hospitality. A caveat is that the study was commissioned by a trade association representing outdoor retailers and brands. You can read their technical report and methodology here.
The numbers are impressive, and it appears that more and more Americans are taking advantage of the country’s natural resources. Many sectors of the economy contracted during the great recession, but outdoor recreation grew by 5 percent between 2005 and 2011.
Unfortunately, Congress doesn’t seem to be taking the hint. Devastating budget cuts loom for the nation’s 398 national parks, monuments, and historic sites, as well as federal conservation activities and fishery management.
“Environmental spending – including spending on fisheries – has been under major attack in recent austerity measures, which would suggest that Congress does not believe they are priorities for the American people,” says Allison Ford, director of strategy at the Marine Fish Conservation Network.
Also on HuffPost: Get Alerts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)