Doing Our Bit for Defense

April 14, 2014

Having exhausted all possibilities for procrastination, I finally prepared my tax returns. Then I got a receipt from the National Priorities Project. You can too — and as I did, also get a receipt for the typical taxpayer in your state.

Here are some things I learned.

First off, District of Columbia filers paid, on average, $5,560 more than the average for taxpayers nationwide. The District’s average is, in fact, higher than the averages for all but one state — Connecticut.

This, of course, speaks to how very well the better-off households in the District are doing. How the less well-off are doing is a different story. It’s doubtful that those in the bottom 20% earned enough to owe any federal income tax this year.

But however much or little we owe, we pay the same portions for each and every item in the federal budget.

So about 27 cents of every dollar we pay goes to defense.* For the average D.C. taxpayer, this translates into $4,681, plus nearly $873 for veterans benefits, which NPP tabulates separately.

Skimming down the receipt, I see that this same taxpayer will contribute about $1,744 to Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but only piddling amounts to other programs for low-income people. For example, s/he’ll chip in:

  • $42.07 for WIC  — probably about 60% of the cost of one month’s worth of the healthful foods supplement for one low-income mother or child in the District.
  • $23.36 for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program — just a few dollars more than the cost of restoring SNAP (food stamp) benefits for one of D.C. household that receives them.
  • $106.24 for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families — about 25% of the current maximum cash benefit for a D.C. family of three.
  • $215.87 for Pell grants and other student financial aid.

Now, the receipt doesn’t account in detail for all income tax dollars that support programs for low-income people. SNAP and free and reduced-price schools meals, for example, are included in the Food and Agriculture category, but not broken out.

And I haven’t cited above two the receipt itemizes that benefit low-income people, as well as others, i.e., job training and employment programs and the Community Development Block Grant.

But even adding them in still leaves the average D.C. taxpayer — and me — spending nearly 10 times as much on defense. I’m sure as can be that the federal budget could “provide for the common defense” with less.

That would leave more to patch the frayed safety net and to help more people achieve economic security without it. There’d be more to meet other essential needs too, e.g., protecting public health and safety, refurbishing our neglected infrastructure, enforcing civil rights and labor laws.

Perhaps not enough more, however. I, for one, would be willing to pay higher taxes — painful as that would seem at this time of year — if a larger share went to these priorities.

Congressman Paul Ryan and his Republican colleagues in the House would instead cut my taxes — or so it seems. The Center for American Progress, among others, says they’d actually rise.

Whichever, the just-passed House budget plan will clearly shift more of our tax dollars into defense  — and drastically reduce our relatively small contributions to major safety net and other non-defense programs.

Obviously not a budget reflecting my priorities — or those of most of my fellow taxpayers either, according to the polling data NPP cites.

We’ve got to do more than grumble at tax time to get a budget we like.

* The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports a considerably lower figure. This is mainly because it includes Social Security and Medicare. NPP excludes spending from dedicated revenue streams like payroll taxes.

 

 


Lessons From the Ryan Budget Plan

April 7, 2014

I feel I ought to say something about Congressman Paul Ryan’s latest budget plan. Yet, as the ferocious overview by the Center for American Progress indicates, there’ not much that’s new — not even the title.

It’s again The Path to Prosperity, which is true if you’re already prosperous. A path to more desperate circumstances if you’re poor or near-poor.

Not a path you’d like the country to go down if you care about the safety net or many other things the federal government supports, e.g., education, workplace safety, healthcare and other scientific research.

Or if you’re counting on having affordable health care in your golden years — or even next year, if your employer doesn’t provide it.

Far too much for a blog post. So here instead are a couple of ways of looking at the plan.

The Devil Isn’t Just in the Details

Congressman Ryan, as we know, has a long-standing hostility to federal safety net programs — except Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which the plan again endorses as the model for others.

So it’s no surprise that he again wants SNAP (the food stamp program) converted to a block grant that would, in some unspecified way, expand the already-existing work requirements.

The block grant clearly wouldn’t enable states to sustain current eligibility standards and benefit levels, since it would save an estimated $125 billion over 10 years. (More savings from other changes discussed below.)

It’s also no surprise that the Path would again make a block grant out of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Funding increases would be based on inflation and population growth, rather than healthcare costs and the number of people eligible.

So the federal government would save $732 billion over 10 years. And states would have the “flexibility” to cope with the loss.

Many other programs that benefit low-income people would get cut in different ways — Pell grants, for example, and Supplemental Security Income for severely disabled children. There’d be no funds at all for the Social Services Block Grant because the plan would kill it.

But here’s the devil lurking behind such details. Ryan made safety-net slashing inevitable by building his plan on certain basic principles. These are all, I hasten to add, cherished by the right-wing House majority.

First, the budget must balance within 10 years. In other words, what the federal government spends in any given year can be no greater than what it receives in tax revenues.

At the same time, the tax code can’t be changed to increase revenues. Any savings achieved by closing loopholes and the like would have to be used to offset tax cuts.

So the federal government would have to spend a great deal less — even less than seemed the case last year because the Congressional Budget Office now takes a dimmer view of prospects for economy growth and thus of revenue collections.

But — another principle here — the federal government must spend more on defense than what the Budget Control Act allows.

So what the plan giveth to defense, it must taketh away from non-defense — even more so because Ryan aims to bring total spending under the cap.

Defense would thus get $483 billion more than the sequestration levels in the BCA. Non-defense programs subject to annual appropriations would get $791 billion less.

Add cuts to the so-called mandatory programs like Medicaid and SNAP and the total non-defense loss soars to $4.8 trillion.

If At First You Don’t Succeed

This, of course, applies to the SNAP and Medicaid block grants, as well as to the fuzzily-described premium support option for Medicare — essentially, a choice of private insurance plans, with costs partially subsidized. But less over time, according to both CAP and Families USA.

As in the past, the Ryan plan would raise the Medicare eligibility age to the already-increased eligibility age for full Social Security retirement benefits.

This would leave a lot of low-income seniors in the lurch because — you knew this was coming — the plan would repeal the Affordable Care Act, including the federal funding for states that expand their Medicaid programs.

Seniors are far from the only people who’d be affected, of course. Everyone who became newly-eligible for Medicaid and everyone who’s purchased — or intends to purchase — subsidized health insurance on an exchange would be back where they were before.

At least 40 million people — one in eight Americans — would become uninsured by 2024, when the 10-year budget window closes, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ also ferocious response to the plan.

The plan would also undo compromises reflected in the new Farm Bill. For SNAP, it reverts to what the House Republicans put on the table.

Specifically, states could no longer use receipt of a TANF benefit as a basis for determining eligibility. At least 1.8 million and perhaps as many as 3 million low-income people in 40 states and the District of Columbia would lose their SNAP benefits, according to earlier estimates.

Every year, another 1 million or so would lose them because the plan resurrects another provision that didn’t survive the negotiations. This one eliminates the waivers states can get to exempt able-bodied workers without dependents from the usual work requirements when meeting them would be extraordinarily difficult.

The plan would also eliminate a provision that House Republicans got into the Farm Bill. No more so-called “heat and eat” option at all because what they hoped to achieve, i.e., SNAP benefits cuts for some 850,000 households, hasn’t altogether succeeded.

A Big So What

Well, this is the fourth Path we’ve been treated to. The last proved so problematic that House Republicans themselves couldn’t face some of the cuts required.

In any event, Congress has already passed bills setting defense and non-defense spending caps through 2021. House Republicans can’t change them. They can’t unilaterally make the far-reaching program changes either.

The plan is, however, a clear indication of Republican priorities — a “campaign manifesto,” as The New York Times calls it. Something to bear in mind as we read nervously about the upcoming Senate elections — and look beyond to 2016.

 

 


DC Budget Should Fund Help With Disability Benefits Applications

March 31, 2014

The Fair Budget Coalition recommends, among many things, a $3.9 million increase for the District of Columbia’s Interim Disability Assistance program — a temporary income supplement for low-income residents with severe disabilities.

The increase would bring local funding for IDA to somewhat over $5.9 million — a significant increase, but still less in real dollars than the program had in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010.

It would be enough, Fair Budget says, to provide benefits — a modest $270 a month — to 1,200 more disabled residents while they wait … and wait for the Social Security Administration to render decisions on their applications for SSI (Supplemental Security Income).

If they’re successful, SSA pays their benefits retroactive to the day they applied, less what they received from the IDA program. That goes to the District, making the program partly self-sustaining.

The program could probably serve more residents with less local money if a larger number could obtain SSI benefits swiftly and/or the SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) benefits some are entitled to.

As it is, the process is complex and, more often than not, successful only after appeals — sometimes several stages thereof. This is when applicants have attorneys or other experts who know how to write, document and argue a claim.

Ms. I, for example, worked for many years cleaning offices, hospitals and nursing homes. She eventually suffered from a variety of serious ailments, plus side effects from the medications she had to take. She applied for SSI and SSDI in February 2009. Nearly two years passed before her application was approved.

But at least she got those benefits. Less than a third of SSI applications are initially approved. All but 10% ultimately are when applicants have attorneys to represent them in the appeals process, according to a pro bono attorney who spoke at an IDA briefing last fall.

But, of course, not all applicants do have attorneys. They’re hard put to gather the required proof that they’re not only income-eligible, but too disabled “to do any substantial gainful activity” for some considerable period of time.

They can easily miss one of the deadlines in the appeals process — especially, Fair Budget notes, if they’re homeless and so don’t have a mailbox to check every day.

Other applicants may also find the demands especially formidable, e.g., people unable to work because they’re developmentally disabled or suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder.

Special barriers aside, many prospectively eligible applicants decide at some point that they’ve just had enough of the time-consuming process — and the frustration.

As one who didn’t remarked at the briefing, “Either SSI is fickle or it’s set up to make people give up.” Perhaps both. Judges apply the complex regulations arbitrarily, said another of the pro bono attorneys.

A splendid example from Bread for the City, whose attorneys persuaded a judge to overturn a ruling which held that a father was demonstrably able to work because he could care for his son, with help from his family and the community.

Well, there’s nothing the District can do about the way the Social Security Administration conducts its business or the unpredictable proclivities of judges.

But they help explain why the District recovers, on average, only about 40% of the money it spends on IDA benefits — a reason Mayor Gray has taken a dim view of the program.

And they suggest that one of the items on his last wish list, i.e., funding priorities if revenues were higher than projected, should be put into the budget itself, as Fair Budget recommends.

I’m referring to funding for services to help residents apply for SSI. They’d then know, insofar as anyone can, what records they need to collect. Also, one hopes, how to describe their disabling condition(s) so as to ping the SSA checklist. They’d get help with appointments, Fair Budget suggests — and those who need it, a mailing address.

The investment should lead to more and quicker approvals, thus moving beneficiaries out of the IDA program to make way for others.

At the same time, more approvals would boost the reimbursement rate. So the District could tide over more SSI applicants without commensurate budget increases. It might, in fact, no longer have a waiting list, which undermines the whole point of interim assistance.

As things stand now, the Department of Human Services has capped IDA “customers” at 1,000 for this fiscal year. The DC Fiscal Policy Institute estimates that it will actually serve 825 — about 30% as many as it served in Fiscal Year 2009.

I need hardly add, I hope, that it would be a whole lot better for low-income residents with severe disabilities to receive SSI benefits, low as they are, than the $270 a month IDA provides. SSA might find some eligible for SSDI, which could be even better for them.

Fair Budget recommends $580,000 for SSI application assistance — about 60% of what the Mayor put on his wish list. The ask seems to me very small. But at least it would get the program started — without, one hopes, compromises in quality.

If it proves effective, as a particular model for homeless people has, then the District will have home-grown results justifying an increase.


My Blog Turns Five, Looks Back and Forward

December 9, 2013

Today is my blog’s fifth birthday — not an event that would have been part of my long-range plan, if I’d had one.

I’ll spare you the back story. Let’s just say that I got impatient with a blog administrator who left my time-sensitive posts languishing in the queue — so impatient that one day I said to myself, [expletive deleted] I’ll start my own blog.

I had no idea that it would become so important to me as a structure for learning — and an avenue to people who know a whole lot more than I do and achieve far more than I could ever hope to.

As I said last year on this auspicious date, I’m grateful for them, the discipline the blog provides and you who read what I post.

But this is all personal stuff. So let me share a broad-brush of what I think when I look at my earliest posts in light of what I’m following — and sometimes writing about — now.

My very first post took the DC Council to task for hurriedly cutting funds for affordable housing and, at the same time, rescinding a modest increase in benefits for families in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

Both were prompted by a projected drop in revenues — a problem state and local governments across the country were grappling with because we were sunk in the Great Recession.

No one then, I think knew how bad the recession would be — or that the labor market would remain in such bad shape for so long after it was officially over.

The District’s revenue stream has more than recovered, however. And happily, we who advocate for the interests of low-income residents no longer have to expend all our energies protesting imminent spending cuts.

Yet the source of the steady revenue increases has, in some ways, made life tougher for them because it’s due largely to an influx of high-earners. Their housing demands — and decisions to accommodate them — have driven up housing costs, especially for low-income renters.

And the District — understandably perhaps — is far readier to invest in things that will make high-earning taxpayers and business interests happy than to provide a secure, sufficient safety net and other income supports for residents who, for a variety of reasons, can’t afford basic living costs.

True, the DC Council recently put more money into affordable housing — $9.75 million more for vouchers this fiscal year. And it’s approved the Mayor’s one-time $100 million commitment to affordable housing construction and preservation. How much the latter will benefit the very lowest-income residents remains to be seen.

The Council is now considering a benefits increase for TANF families — about $16 more, in real dollars, than the one it pulled back, but still not enough to lift a families of three out of severe poverty.

In the meantime, it’s set in motion benefits cuts, leading to zero for most families who’ve been in the program for more than five years, even if the parents can’t find jobs that pay enough to sustain themselves and their children — a likely prospect for many, given what it costs “to get by” in D.C.

The District nevertheless isn’t engaged in more safety-net cutting. Not something one can say for some of the “red” states like Kansas.

Nor, like them, has it refused to expand its Medicaid program — a political decision on their parts that leaves a total of more than 4.8 million of their poorest residents without health insurance.

So on the local front, things could be better, from a poverty policy perspective, but a whole lot worse too.

Turning now to nearby Capitol Hill, I don’t know what to say that you don’t already know. But I feel I must say something to round out this selective review. So …

The economy was a whole lot worse when my blog was born, but I believe many of us had hope for positive change when President Obama was sworn in less than two months later.

And we did, in fact, soon get a package of measures to mitigate the personal hardships and other harms the recession was causing, while at the same time, kick-starting a recovery.

But there’s been a huge ground shift since then, due largely to right-wing Republican victories in the 2010 Congressional elections — and the Democrats’ defensive reactions.

No one, to my knowledge, believes we’ll see any genuine job-creating investments now — or additional investments in training and education that could improve prospects for some of the many millions of jobless workers.

Even an extension of the pared-back unemployment benefits for long-term jobless workers is reportedly iffy, though not to the point we should throw in the towel.

Another of the 2009 measures — the temporary SNAP (food stamp) benefits boost — has already prematurely bitten the dust.

And House and Senate negotiators are trying to strike a deal that would, at the very least, cut benefits further for well over half a million families — a compromise that House Majority Leader John Boehner reportedly won’t accept.

Other negotiators are trying to find common ground for a budget plan that would afford some relief from sequestration.

But no one at the table is looking to reverse earlier cuts to key affordable housing programs — let alone fund them and homeless assistance grants at levels consistent with rising costs and needs.

And the best we can hope for TANF, it seems, is another extension of the never-increased block grant, which is now worth 32% less than when the program was created.

To borrow from several blogging wits, our federal leaders are afflicted by deficit attention disorder.

And so long as that’s true, neither the District nor other state and local governments can effectively meet the diverse needs of their poor and near-poor residents, even if they want to.

Not a happy birthday thought. But I know I’m prone to gloom, as well as impatience.


How Many More Low-Income Households Will Be Left in the Cold?

November 26, 2013

On Sunday, a blast of cold air arrived in Washington, D.C. With the gusting winds, the feel temperature around mid-day was 21 degrees. So much for my plans to cut down the withered vines and sweep up the mounded leaves in our backyard.

Instead, I spent part of the afternoon cleaning out my inbox, where I found a press release that made me feel at once privileged and newly distressed about the hardships that sequestration is causing.

About 300,000 fewer low-income households received help with their home heating and cooling costs last fiscal year, reports the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, which represents the state directors of the federally-funded Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

This was a direct result of sequestration, NEADA says. But the cut came on top of other cuts that began in Fiscal Year 2010. The cumulative losses have reduced the number of households served by 17%, or 1.4 million.

At the same time, the average grant households received shrank from $520 to $406. And even during the baseline period, the average grant didn’t cover estimated heating costs.

The shortfall was greatest — and has remained so — for households that use heating oil. These are largely households in the Northeast, where, as you know, it can get bitter cold.

But even households like ours, which use natural gas, would have had to come up with about 40% of their heating costs last winter, assuming the estimated seasonal cost and average grant apply.

Prospects for the winter season that seems to have begun are worse. Home heating costs are expected to rise by an average of 6%, due mainly to a 13% spike for households using natural gas.

This translates into a further purchasing power loss for LIHEAP — from 52.5% of the average household’s home heating costs in 2010-11 to a projected 41.5%.

And this doesn’t factor in any additional funding cut for the current fiscal year. NEADA seems to think that another cut will occur unless Congress “takes action to reverse” sequestration — by which I assume it means the spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act.

In point of fact, non-defense discretionary programs like LIHEAP, i.e. those that depend on annual appropriations, will collectively meet their Fiscal Year 2014 spending cap without further cuts because Congress tinkered with the BCA to give defense some one-year protection.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no reason to worry. Republicans generally — and some Democrats — want to shield the Pentagon from the $20 billion cut it faces.

At the same time, some leading Republicans insist that the total discretionary spending level the BCA imposes must remain the same. That’s not possible, of course, unless that $20 billion is shifted over to the non-defense side of the ledger.

It’s doubtful we’ll see this sort of deal. But a deal that preserves the existing NDD cap would still leave LIHEAP vulnerable because Congress could decide to trim it in order to boost spending on other programs, as the President’s proposed budget did.

Even if Congress can’t agree on anything more than a continuing resolution, more low-income households could be left without home energy assistance because, as the NEADA press release indicates, level funding won’t be enough to help even as many households as were helped last winter — unless grants are further reduced.

No (or less) energy assistance could mean no heat this winter — perhaps no indoor lighting or ability to cook either. The loss would affect some of the most vulnerable people in the country, according to a survey NEADA conducted several years ago.

Seventy-two percent of the households served then had a family member with a serious medical condition. Of these, 26% relied on medical equipment that used electricity. Even with a LIHEAP grant — or perhaps before they received it — 19% got sick because their homes were too cold.

Merely restoring LIHEAP to its Fiscal 2010 level would leave more than 99.8% of the estimated budget for other purposes.*

Something I would hope members of Congress think about as they sit snug and warm in their homes this weekend.

* This figure reflects the result yielded by the Center for Economic and Policy Research responsible budget calculator.


Drilling Down on the Debt Ceiling Crisis

October 15, 2013

I’ve been trying (unsuccessfully) to ignore the steady stream of reports and commentary on the debt ceiling crisis. And I’d no intention of writing about it until I noted a disturbing shift in the conversation.

I’m not talking here about the statements welcoming a default from a couple of the House Tea Party types — Congressman Ted Yoho (R-FL), for example, who claims “it would bring stability to world markets.”

My concern is rather that some are saying the crisis isn’t all that bad because the government could still pay bondholders — and thus, there’d be no default.

Moody’s Investor Services gave this narrow definition credibility with a widely-reported memo that implicitly defined “default” as only failure to pay interest and principal on publicly-held debt.

This is something, it said, the Treasury Department could clearly do, even after it had exhausted the time it’s been buying through extraordinary measures.

Needless to say, right-wing sources seized on the memo to debunk Treasury’s warnings about the macroeconomic impacts of even a prospective default, e.g., a jittery stock market, higher borrowing costs.

It’s all a not-to-worry, said the Heritage Foundation, among others, because Treasury will take in enough revenues to satisfy its bond obligations and most of the government’s “non-debt obligations” over the course of the year.

In the meantime, it can “prioritize payments,” i.e., defer paying those “non-debt obligations” in order to keep current with bond interest and repayment of principal on dates due.

Some Republicans in Congress have been making this argument for awhile now. Others of various political persuasions have said it’s not that simple.

Treasury may not have the legal authority to pick and choose which bills to pay. Besides, its payment systems aren’t set up to prioritize, as its Inspector General reported to the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee during the run-up to the last debt ceiling crisis.

Now we’re hearing more about what would happen if Treasury did prioritize — virtually all of it that I’ve seen on a macroeconomic scale.

Goldman Sachs economists estimated the impacts of the required pullback in spending at 4.2% less economic growth over the course of a year — enough to send us back into a recession.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argues that we could be looking at a 10% decline — and a 5% rise in the unemployment rate — because the government would have to make more spending cuts to offset the loss of tax revenues and rise in safety net spending that always occur during a downturn.

Still, we’re told, Treasury could perhaps postpone some payments — not interest on the debt, of course, but other big-ticket obligations, e.g., reimbursements to Medicare and Medicaid providers, Social Security and food stamp benefits, veterans benefits and military pay.

Wonkblogger Ezra Klein borrows a table from the Bipartisan Policy Center to show what that could look like over the short-term.

We see that the last round of Social Security payments for October would be two days late. The next round nearly two weeks late. And then …?

I single these out because a post by Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research evoked a down-to-earth, personal response of the kind we haven’t heard enough of.

Baker was essentially pooh-poohing the alarm bells about higher interest rates. “Hitting the debt ceiling would undoubtedly be bad news, ” he said, “but an earth-shaking disaster is pretty unlikely. Everyone will get their money, with interest, even if it is a big late.”

Which prompted the following: “I don’t know about you, but I pretty much live from Social Security check to the next Social Security check, and toward the end of the month I go to cheaper brands of cat food (not from steak to chicken like those plutocrats advocating the Great Betrayal). To me, ‘a little bit late’ means ‘a little big hungry.'”

I suppose food stamp recipients, whose benefits could also be put into the pipeline to conserve cash for bond interest, would say the same. Likewise some veterans and families of active military servicemembers.

And what would happen to people who need health care from Medicare and Medicaid providers who’ve been told their reimbursements are on hold is anybody’s guess. We have a tiny window into the prospects here in the District of Columbia, where Medicaid payments are on hold until Congress approves our budget.

Sure, all these de-prioritized payments could have large-scale economic impacts — and these would surely have personal consequences. But let’s not forget the hardships that would set in swiftly for those who rely on social insurance and safety net benefits.

I understand that these concerns may seem irrelevant now, what with the deal the Senate leaders are reportedly putting the final touches on. But even if House Speaker John Boehner lets it pass without a majority of his caucus in favor (big if), we’ll be right back in the same place in February.

Everyday ordinary people pawns in political brinkmanship games — and under the radar of most economic prognosticators too.


Sequester Scarier Than Washington Post Claims

July 8, 2013

A catchy headline in a late-June issue of the Washington Post. “They said the sequester would be scary. Mostly they were wrong.”

“They” are the Obama administration, which, as the reporters say, “issued specific — and alarming — predictions” about what would happen when the across-the-board cuts began.

The article cites a half dozen, then says, “But none of these happened.” The casual reader would surely infer that the administration blew the whole sequester thing out of proportion.

In fact, it’s hard to read the piece as saying anything other than the sequester isn’t all that bad, though it does casually acknowledge “real hardship to many people.”

It rightly points out that Congress averted some of the predicted harms. In a couple of cases, it provided some additional funds. In others, it let agencies move money around, rather than cut every program and activity equally, as the law initially required.

But none of this means we should breathe a sigh of relief. Even the Post‘s research shows this, though we have to burrow into the details elliptically offered via a graphics box on the front page.

Here we find that the Post generally began with predictions that federal agencies had made in response to a request from the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

It then apparently contacted the agencies to find out whether 48 of the predictions had come true. No explanation of why it chose these. My best guess is that it picked only potential impacts the agencies had quantified — and only those that might already have come to pass.

Thus, for example, the Post checked the Labor Department’s dire (and accurate) prediction of impending federal unemployment benefits cuts, but not what it said about lost employment and training services or weaker enforcement of worker protections.

And it checked none of the Education Department’s predictions because most of them address the upcoming school year. Dire, but unverifiable. So we’re not even told what they are.

Predictions agencies confirmed were said to have “come true.” And, of course, predicted impacts that Congress and/or the agencies had altogether averted were counted as not coming true.

But the Post also counted predictions in the “did not come true” category merely because a numerical estimated proved too high — at least for now.

The federal judicial system, for example, did — or will — furlough public defenders, but not initially for as many days as it earlier thought it would.

So there will be an impact. And pretty scary, I think, for low-income defendants who are behind bars, possible denied their right to a speedy trial and relying on lawyers who’ll have less time to prepare their cases.

The Post‘s approach also minimizes sequester damages because it takes no account of the impacts of cuts agencies made to avert — or partly avert — the impacts they’d predicted.

I note, for example, that the Social Security Administration has reduced the hours its field offices are open. Hard to believe this hasn’t affected frail seniors and people with disabilities, who already had long waits for help with benefits — and subsequent red-tape tangles.

The Defense Department will preserve health services for eligible beneficiaries who aren’t on active duty by furloughing 650,000 civilian employees.

How many of them and their families can easily get along on less income than they were counting on? What will happen to our economy as they cut back spending?

More importantly, over a quarter of the selected predictions couldn’t yet be verified, including those for major programs that serve low-income people’s needs.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, reportedly “declined to provide” new estimates for the number of formerly homeless people who’ve lost their housing or their beds in emergency shelters.

Ditto for the number of households who won’t have federally-subsidized housing vouchers.

The Health and Human Services Department says it doesn’t yet know how many children won’t have access to Head Start services — or how many teachers and aides will lose their jobs.

Nor does it know how many seniors will get fewer — or perhaps no — meals home-delivered or served in a group setting, e.g., at a church or community center.

Yet we already have considerable, if fragmentary evidence that the sequester is, in fact, shrinking access to these and other critical services.

The Coalition on Human Needs has been publishing weekly collections of news reports on sequester impacts since early March.

I don’t recall a week without several on Head Start programs that will be serving fewer children — and few weeks without an item on cutbacks in Meals on Wheels and related food-service programs.

The Center for American Progress has also been publishing a weekly series on sequester impacts. Again, we see contractions in Head Start programs, as well as other heterogeneous impacts.

Economist/blogger Jared Bernstein posts still another weekly set of sequester impact news clips.

Some of the reported impacts are prospective because local agencies and nonprofits are still figuring out how they will handle the funding losses. But some aren’t.

Federal agencies can’t yet compile totals to verify all their earlier predictions. Nor can advocates pull together reliable, nationwide numbers. But that doesn’t mean the sequester really isn’t all that bad.

This is especially true because the cuts aren’t a one-time thing. Congress is supposed to cut next year’s appropriations for non-defense programs by $37 billion — this on top of the cuts already in effect.

And, as Bernstein points out, agencies won’t have the same opportunities to blunt the effects, e.g., by counting leftover funds they couldn’t spend.

What the Post had done is okay so far as it goes. But its framing of the results strongly suggests that we can discount what the administration will say when it “seek[s] to make the threat reappear” in an effort to mitigate the next round of cuts.

Need I say that would be a big mistake — even if it turns out that fewer than 70,000 low-income children have thus far been denied access to Head Start and Early Start?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers