Children’s Health At Risk Without CHIP Funding, Even If They’re Insured

March 2, 2015

I came belatedly to an enlightening article on the potential end of funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Learned more than I knew when I blogged about it last October.

Professor of Pediatrics Aaron Carroll, who wrote the piece, notes the concern about children who may have no health insurance whatever — about 2.2 million, according to one count. But he focuses mainly on concerns for those who will have coverage because their parents have an affordable family plan purchased on a health insurance exchange.

Or we surely hope so. As you’ve probably read, the Supreme Court has been asked to rule that the federal government can’t subsidize plans purchased on the exchange it established for people who live in states that didn’t create their own.

Many trustworthy experts think the Court won’t. But if it does, as many as five million children could wind up with no affordable health insurance, according to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and seven other organizations engaged in healthcare services and advocacy for children.

Carroll doesn’t allude to this doomsday scenario. He instead makes several points in favor of renewing CHIP funding, even with the subsidies intact.

The first is that CHIP covers a larger portion of children’s healthcare costs — more than 90%, as compared to 70% in the mid-level silver benchmark plans the Affordable Care Act provides for.

A troublesome difference. Some parents, however, might opt for plans with rock-bottom monthly premiums, but even higher deductibles and other out-of-pockets. This could cause them to forgo needed care — for themselves and perhaps their children.

Cost aside, Carroll raises several concerns about the health care children could receive through plans available on the exchanges. They’re rooted in the fact that the plans, unlike CHIP, aren’t tailored to children’s healthcare needs.

The problem begins with the ACA itself. The law establishes essential benefits that all plans must cover, both those offered directly to individuals and those small employers can purchase. They include pediatric services, with vision and dental care specified.

For reasons known best to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the rules are silent on all but the two named services. And they allow for a separate, optional dental care plan — at an additional, unsubsidized cost — rather than requiring coverage in the overall plan.

I don’t suppose I need to elaborate the potential consequences for low-income children.

More generally, the failure to specify essential pediatric services has allowed states to choose as the basis for their minimum requirements plans that exclude a variety of healthcare services for children.

Carroll cites, among others, services for children with learning disabilities and autism. He also notes gaps in services expressly required, e.g., care of congenital defects, hearing aids and implants for children whom hearing aids can’t help.

Another related variation applies to plans families may purchase. Some, Carroll says, have very narrow networks, i.e., hospitals and physicians whose services the insurance company will pay for.

They’re narrow for providers of pediatric care than care for adults — and especially narrow for providers of specialty care, he adds. The narrow-network plans tend to be cheaper. And we’ve some evidence that many purchasers don’t understand the trade-off.

So parents may learn, when it’s too late, that there’s no in-network children’s hospital or other source of affordable services from doctors trained to treat children with complex, chronic conditions.

What’s rather strange about CHIP is that the ACA extends it through Fiscal Year 2019 — and sets a higher federal match rate for states’ costs beginning in Fiscal Year 2016. Yet it gives the federal government authority to spend money on the program only through this fiscal year.

States may have some leftover funding, but it’s unlikely to last through the year. There’d still be a match for low-income children who’ve been served through Medicaid, rather than separate CHIP programs, but it could be lower. It would definitely be lower for the children states shifted into Medicaid, as the ACA required.

For the rest, there’s no assurance state exchanges would have insurance plans with benefits and cost-sharing comparable to CHIP. Carroll’s analysis suggests that many don’t now. They could, but wouldn’t have to if CHIP funding dries up.

Surely it would be irresponsible to let CHIP funding lapse and see what happens. If children’s health problems aren’t promptly and expertly diagnosed and/or don’t get appropriate treatment, no one can remedy the harms by restoring CHIP or refining the ACA later.

 


New Hope for Some Refugee Families Held in Detention Camps

February 25, 2015

After I published my post on our government’s detention camps, I discovered that a federal court had recently issued a preliminary injunction that should provide relief for some of the incarcerated families.

Those who’ll benefit are mothers and children who’ve already passed the first test for gaining asylum, i.e., a hearing officer’s decision that they have “a credible fear” of persecution or torture in their home countries.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has been routinely holding them in the camps, rather than releasing them on bond or some other condition intended to ensure they attend their next hearing.

The government’s lawyers argued that keeping virtually all the families locked up was necessary in order to deter others from crossing the border. Alleged that “an absence of deterrence” would pose a threat to national security.

The judge wouldn’t buy that. We’re talking here about tired, hungry, poor — and fearful — mothers and children after all. This is one, though not the only reason he enjoined blanket detention until further notice.

So at least for the time being, ICE will have to revert to its prior policy of deciding, on a case-by-case basis, whether releasing families would post a risk to the community or of flight, which I assume means managing to elude capture if they don’t show up for their hearings.

A preliminary injunction means that the judge believes that the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the suit, is more likely than not to win the case.

This will, so far as I can see, do nothing for the families who haven’t passed the “credible fear” test — and may fail simply because they don’t have a lawyer to represent them. But it’s still a piece of good news in what’s very bad-news situation.


Shoutrage at Refugee Family Detention Camps

February 23, 2015

We interrupt this stream of semi-wonkish posts to bring you a burst of shoutrage — a coined word I’ve been looking for an occasion to use ever since I found it nearly a year ago in The New York Times Sunday magazine.

The magazine has now provided the occasion — an intensively-researched story about “the shame of America’s detention camps.” If you haven’t read it, you truly should, unless you want to spare yourself a sense of outrage and a sinking feeling that shouting about it won’t spur the reforms needed to end the shame.

A brief overview nonetheless so you’ll see what you’re in for — and why I felt compelled to veer from my usual topics.

The shameful detention camps are where our federal government is holding hundreds of families who’ve come to this country seeking refuge from death threats, rape (threatened and committed) and other violence perpetrated by gangs in several Central American countries.

They’re packed into these facilities, sometimes eight to a room. Needless to say, communicable diseases spread. This is especially the case because many children won’t eat the food that’s served — at least in part because it’s so different from what they’re used to.

“The first time I went in,” said a paralegal, “all I could hear was a symphony of coughing and sneezing and crying and wailing.”

Children who aren’t too young or too debilitated to benefit from education don’t get regular schooling, though they’re legally entitled to it, as well as medical care, exercise and housing in “the least restrictive environment possible.”

The families are held in the detention camps until they can get a hearing to determine whether a further hearing might find they are indeed refugees eligible to remain in this country. They’ve no attorneys to represent them, unless they’re one of the relative few whom volunteers can serve.

The rest, of course, have no idea how to answer the judge’s questions so as to ping the legal criteria. And they’ve got to ping them quickly because judges swift them through the process. Those who luck out may not know they have because only the judge’s questions are translated.

Most who are in the hearing room on their own don’t luck out. One judge reportedly has denied an average of 91.6% of asylum requests.

Children sent back to Honduras “just return to die,” said a morgue operator there. And that’s true not only for Honduras. Ten children were killed after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency flew them back to El Salvador.

What’s become of the parents who were shipped back is perhaps unknowable. But it’s clear that families who’ve asked our government for a chance to live safely are routinely denied due process in what are effectively death penalty cases.

My late husband Jesse and I had an expression we’d use when talking, as we so often did, about policies that distressed us. “Bad Rs.” I’d like to say that now, but I can’t.

True, lead Republicans in Congress have said they won’t do anything to reform our outdated immigration system until our borders are secure — and the President is enforcing the existing laws, as they understand them.

Also true that they made a huge deal about all those Central American children crossing the border and blamed the President because he’d allowed some children who were already in this country to remain.

And it was the Bush administration that first claimed it wasn’t legally bound by a long-standing court settlement to favor release over incarceration whenever refugee children were involved. Only, it said, when they weren’t accompanied by parents.

But it was the Obama administration that made the same argument — earning a smack-down from the judge, as the Bush administration had.

It’s the Obama administration that decided to resume detention as a routine response to families seeking refuge. It’s the Obama administration that’s running the camps, overseeing the court system and shipping thousands back to dangers they’d fled.

“Our message to this group is simple,” the Secretary of Homeland Security testified last July. “We will send you back.” No evident concern about to what.

One infers from the Times story that the ICE doesn’t much like those volunteer attorney/advocates gumming up the wheels of injustice — nor journalists investigating the camps.

Neither a lead attorney nor the correspondent who wrote the story could get permission to tour the camp where they’d temporarily settled in. The latter cites two related instances when ICE basically stonewalled questions about the school issue.

Well, a fair amount of the shameful business is public now, including angles I haven’t even touched on. One would like to think there’d be shoutrage where it would make a difference. Not holding my breath.

UPDATE: Now there’s a ray of hope for some of the detained families. You can learn about it here.


Why We Should Care About Payroll Tax Holidays for High Earners

February 19, 2015

Last week, the top 1% of American workers finished paying their Social Security taxes for the year — an inflection point flagged and flogged by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. On the very same day, the Senate Budget Committee held a hearing on the impending depletion of the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund.

These two events are related because the first provides a fresh perspective on the second, as well as a solution that’s not fresh, but seems sensible anyway.

As I’ve written before, the so-called DI trust fund will run out of reserves in 2016, unless Congress and the President agree on a solution. If they don’t, former workers with severe disabilities will receive only about 80% of their benefits — an average loss of nearly $244 per month.

That’s a real dent in the household budget. Average benefits now are $1,165 a month for disabled workers themselves and only $811 more for those with qualifying spouses and children.

The shortfall has been predicted for a long time, based mainly on demographic changes in the workforce, e.g., the aging of the baby boomer cohort, the large increase in the number of women working — and working long enough to qualify for SSDI.

Federal policy choices have contributed as well — specifically, the decision to take some pressure off the Old Age and Survivors trust fund by raising the eligibility age for full retirement benefits. But for that, many disabled baby boomers wouldn’t be receiving SSDI benefits any more.

All these factors explain why money is going out of the DI trust fund. The beginning of the payroll tax holiday for the very highest earners — and upcoming tax holidays for others who are doing quite well — explains why not as much money is flowing in.

As I’m sure you know, all of us who get paid for our work owe payroll taxes. If we’re employees, we pay 6.2% for Social Security. Our employers deduct it from our checks and pay the same amount. If we’re self-employed, we owe the whole 12.4%.

But the income subject to Social Security payroll taxes is capped — and always has been. For more than 30 years, the cap has been adjusted annually based on the average national wage index.

The index almost always rises, though rarely by a lot. The cap this year is $118,500 — up by $1,500 from last year.

But as everyone who hasn’t been living in a cave knows, more and more income is flowing to very high earners — those making a million or more a year. There were already six times as many of them in 2013 as in 1989, according to the Center for American Progress.

So more and more income escapes the Social Security tax. And it’s not only wage income enjoyed by the millionaires and billionaires, as this year’s cap indicates.

Class warfare alert! Not really. The point is that income inequality helps explain why the DI trust fund could soon run dry — and why the OASI trust fund will long about 2034 — unless our federal policymakers come up with a way to preserve the benefits that most workers and their families need.

A stopgap solution we already have — a relatively small increase in the share of payroll taxes going to the DI trust fund. But as I recently wrote, House Republicans have passed a rule to block any such shift, precedents notwithstanding.

They say they want a long-term solution to the whole solvency problem. Thus far, however, the most we can glimpse of what they have in mind comes from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, who opened last week’s hearing.

He trashed on the President, of course — in part, for proposing the payroll tax shift. But he also suggested that more workers with disabilities severe enough to meet SSDI’s strict standards could actually work because technology enables people to work from home, start their own businesses, etc.

Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times perceives a move to distinguish deserving from undeserving SSDI recipients. Perhaps. Or perhaps it means something that one of Enzi’s friendly witnesses advocated “early intervention,” i.e., rehabilitation and other services to keep people with “work-limiting conditions” in the labor force.

Bottom line, however, is that enabling some additional workers with disabilities to remain gainfully employed won’t do a whole heck of a lot to keep the DI trust fund solvent — and nothing at all to preserve full benefits for retirees.

Uncapping the payroll tax cap would. If Congress had simply scrapped the cap four years ago, it could have closed about 90% of the projected funding gap for 75 years.

Other cap-scrapping scenarios could have closed roughly 70-80%. These, which seem more politically realistic, would have boosted benefits for higher earners, as well as capturing more of their income. We’ve had cap-lifting, as well as cap-scrapping proposals too.

So there’s more than one way to minimize the projected shortfall. But any solution that leaves the cap alone is bound to severely reduce retirement benefits — perhaps deny some severely disabled workers and their families any benefits at all.

Not much of a worry for those folks whose tax holiday has already begun. But for the rest of us ….


When the Safety Net’s Ripped, the Babies Will Fall … and the Rest of the Family Too

February 17, 2015

In less than eight months, some 6,000 families in the District of Columbia will have no cash income whatever, unless the parents can land jobs PDQ. Most probably won’t because they would have if they could have.

The families I’m referring to have participated in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for a lifetime total of 60 or more months. The benefits they’ve received have been, at best, extremely low — $428 a month for a parent with two children.

But their benefits have already been slashed. Our three-person TANF family facing a cut-off now receives $152 a month. Is this what a parent would choose over paying work of any legal kind, assuming s/he’s got someone to care for the kids?

Of course not. The parents who’ve perforce depended on TANF for a long time or recurrently often have what are euphemistically called severe barriers to work, e.g., debilitating physical and/or mental health problems, domestic violence trauma, functional illiteracy.

The District’s TANF program will count time spent receiving services to help overcome such barriers as compliance with its work activity requirements. But it won’t stop the clock ticking toward the cut-off date, except for the relatively few  parents who’ve been shifted out of TANF into a locally-funded program.

Most parents used to be placed in programs designed to get them into the workforce quickly, regardless of their needs and skills. No real attention to whether they could stay in the workforce. Most didn’t, as even the District’s short-term tracking showed.

Then the Department of Human Services revamped the TANF program, providing for individualized assessments and a range of services, including more diverse education and job training options. But time spent in the flawed program still counts toward the 60 months.

And parents who were deemed work-ready, either initially or after some “barrier-removal” services, had to wait for job training because the budget didn’t fund enough slots. Again, the clock kept ticking.

Now Mayor Bowser and the DC Council can let these very poor parents and their children fall into utter destitution or decide that the 60-month limit is, at the very least, too rigid, if not a bad idea altogether.

When they consider the options, as one hopes they will, they should recall that the Council hastily adopted the time limit as part of a budget-gap closing package that then-Chairman Vincent Gray pushed through shortly before he became mayor.

At least some Councilmembers — and we the public — were sold a bill of goods when a less draconian version of the benefits cut-off surfaced in the original gap-closing bill. DHS called it a measure “to more closely align with federal policy.”

But, as I said at the time, nothing in federal policy compels states or the District to cut — let alone end — TANF benefits at the end of five years. The rules only prohibit the use of federal funds to help pay for them.

And not altogether. States and the District may use federal funds to extend benefits for up to 20% of their average monthly caseload based on “hardship or domestic violence.” About 20 states do, in one form or another. The District has taken a pass. It exempts parents from their regular work requirements, but it keeps the clock running. And, as I already said, it set the clock to start when TANF families first enrolled.

So more than 6,100 families lost a portion of their benefits with virtually no warning — and little or no chance to first improve their employment prospects through the new, improved assessment and referral process.

Many would still have faced high barriers — not only those I’ve mentioned, but others that some states count as “hardship,” e.g., the need to care for a chronically ill or severely disabled child.

And then there’s that barrier confronting all local job seekers who don’t have a college degree. Last year, 19% of District residents without a high school diploma couldn’t find work, even part-time. The unemployment rate for those with, but no more was only 1% lower.

So we’ve undoubtedly got TANF parents who’ve been putting in their required work activity hours searching for a job, but to no avail. Yet we’re about to punish them — and their children — further by cutting off their benefits.

The DC Fiscal Policy Institute’s recommendations to the Mayor and Council include a temporary, renewable benefits extension for parents up against the time limit when they can’t find a job that offers enough hours for them to make ends meet.

Some other parents should get extensions too, it says — those who aren’t yet work-ready, for example, and those with the kinds of significant barriers I cited above. It also recommends extensions when families will otherwise suffer “serious hardship,” e.g., homelessness.

One can make lots of arguments, moral and pragmatic, for protecting families from the benefits reductions and cut-offs they face under the current law.

Among the most pressing of both sorts is what’s providing to be an unprecedented homeless family crisis. Stingy TANF benefits help explain it — as, of course, do the even stingier benefits the 60-month families are getting.

But there are still families who’ve managed to stay housed, at least for awhile — by doubling-up (or tripling-up) with other low-income families, for example, or by contributing to the household expenses of a hospitable friend of relative.

These arrangements are by no means ideal for the children, since housing instability of any sort tends to harm them — and in ways that have lasting effects. But they’re better for them than living in the DC General shelter — or on the streets when it’s not cold enough for them to get in.

And they’re better than the cut-offs for the District’s budget too, though I’d like to think our policymakers will take a broader view of their responsibilities when they decide whether to extend a lifeline to at-risk TANF families.

 

 

 

 


President Proposes Much-Needed Unemployment Insurance Reforms

February 12, 2015

The unemployment rate may be down from its recession peak. but we’ve still got jobless workers, as we always do. Unemployment insurance benefits are supposed to be their safety net. Yet only 27% of them received any UI benefits last year, the National Employment Law Project reports.

NELP offers about a dozen recommendations to avert a repetition. These are things states and the District of Columbia could do. But the report also flags several problems Congress can address, including one that only it can.

President Obama picks up on these in his proposed budget for next fiscal year. One proposal could make UI benefits available to more jobless workers, regardless of labor market conditions. It could also help them get back to work quicker.

Another proposal could, but wouldn’t necessarily restore benefit levels and weeks of coverage that some states reduced when they had to borrow from the federal government to meet their UI obligations — not a forced choice, as one of NELP’s senior staff attorneys notes.

The boldest of the proposals — and the one I’ll focus on here — would overhaul the Extended Benefits program.

How EB Fits Into the UI System

Unlike the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program that got so much attention when Congress dawdled over renewals and then let it die, the EB program is as permanent as anything federal legislation creates can be.

As its name suggests, it’s supposed to extend UI benefits beyond the period states’ regular programs cover when unemployment rates are unusually high.

But it doesn’t kick in fast enough to serve as a secure safety net for jobless workers — and as a boost, through their spending to state economies. Nor does it reliably deliver federal support for benefits as long as needed — a lesson driven home by the Great Recession.

How the EB Program Works

Under ordinary circumstances, states and the federal government share the costs of EB benefits. States “trigger on” when either the unemployment rate for their UI-eligible workers or their total unemployment rate reaches a specified percent and is a specified percent higher than the rate during the prior two years.

The UI-eligible worker provisions apply unless states have adopted the total unemployment alternative. The latter allows for a smaller percent increase over the so-called look-back period — 10%, instead of 20%. And it provides an additional seven weeks of benefits if the state unemployment rate is over 8%.

In either case, however, the unemployment rate must continuously rise or states will “trigger off.” So there’ll be no more benefits for workers still jobless at the end of the period their state’s regular UI program covers, even if the unemployment rate is still high. Or at least, there won’t be unless Congress enacts a temporary extension like EUC.

What the President Proposes

The President’s budget would convert EB to a federally-funded program, as it temporarily was under the Recovery Act. But eight states that retrenched their own programs would have to revert to 26 weeks or the pay half they do now.

The budget would also reform the problematic trigger system — and provide up to a year’s worth of benefits, in addition to the weeks state UI programs cover.

Basically, it sets up four employment rate triggers, beginning at 6.5% and continuing at 1% intervals up to 9.5%. Each of these produces an additional 13 weeks of benefits.

An alternative formula would trigger benefits if a state’s unemployment rate rose very rapidly. Instead of the usual 6.5%, for example, a state would qualify if its unemployment rate, plus the percent increase over the year equaled at least 6.5%.

This, as the White House budget summary says, “would ensure that the UI program responds quickly to dampen the effects of recessions and provides a critical safety net for unemployed workers in states where jobs are scarce.”

Not a critical safety net for all jobless workers, however. That shocking 27% NELP reports reflects, among other things, state eligibility criteria that deny UI benefits to many part-time workers and to others whose recent work history consists of temporary jobs, with lapses in between.

One of those other parts of the President’s UI packages would give states a financial incentive to expand eligibility in at least two specific ways. These, I’m told, will include those that states had time-limited incentives to adopt under the Recovery Act.

So new hope perhaps for jobless part-timers in nearly half the states that still deny them UI benefits if they can’t, in good faith, seek full-time employment. Also perhaps for some on-and-off-again workers in a dozen states.

What’s for anyone not to like? Well, for one thing, the way the proposed budget would offset the additional costs — two minor tax increases, one for employers and one for all but the lowest-earning employees. Are Republicans in Congress going to go for this? Are the associations that purport to represent employers?

The best the President can do at this point is to lay down a marker, says New Republic columnist Danny Vinik, echoing an unnamed administration official. “Now it’s up to Republican leaders to respond,” he adds. Interesting to see if they do.

 


How We Could Cut Child Poverty By More Than Half and Pay for It Too

February 9, 2015

Back in 2007, the Half in Ten campaign set a goal of cutting poverty in America in half in 10 years. Not doing so well at that, are we?

Well, says the Children’s Defense Fund, what if we ended child poverty in this very wealthy country? That, of course, would mean ending poverty for parents and guardians too.

CDF recently released a report to take us a long way toward the child poverty goal. It offers nine recommendations that would reduce child poverty by roughly 60% — and deliver more economic resources for families of all but 3% of children who are poor now.

We’d have 6.6 million fewer children living in poverty, including half a million who are deeply poor, i.e., in households with incomes below 50% of the applicable poverty threshold.

What’s Notable

Several things distinguish this report. The first is that it builds on existing policies and programs that have proved effective. The aim is less to innovate than to increase reach — and in some cases, effectiveness as well.

The second, which is more distinctive, is that the report includes poverty-reduction impacts for each of the recommendations.* These reflect analyses by experts at the Urban Institute, who used Census Bureau data and its Supplemental Poverty Measure — a more complex and accurate measure than the one used for official purposes.

The third distinctive thing is that the report identifies specific policy and other budget changes that would yield enough savings or additional revenues to offset what the recommendations would cost.

What CDF Recommends

The recommendations fall into two big buckets. In the first are recommendations that would enable more low-income parents to work — or work more than they do — and to make their work pay more, both directly and through the tax code.

On the work side itself, we have subsidized jobs, like those temporarily funded through the Recovery Act. Also enough childcare subsidies so that all eligible families below 150% of the federal poverty line could afford high-quality child care during their working hours.

On the pay-more side, we, of course, have an increase in the federal minimum wage, but also an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and changes in the Child Care and Dependent Tax Credit. The latter would become refundable so that families with incomes too low to owe federal taxes could benefit. At the same time, the reimbursement rate for lower-income families would increase.

In the second bucket, we have recommendations that would ensure children’s basic needs are met. These are mostly changes in major safety net programs. And all but one — treatment of child support payments — would lift more children out of poverty than any of the work-related recommendations.

The most effective of all addresses housing costs. CDF proposes a large expansion of the shrunken federal Housing Choice voucher program.

Vouchers would become available for all households with children that have incomes below 150% of the poverty line and that pay — or would have to pay — at least half their income for rent at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s fair market rate. This recommendation alone would cut the child poverty rate by 20.8%.

Next down on the impact scale is a recommendation based on one the Food Research and Action Center has made for some years.

It would change the basis for determining SNAP (food stamp) benefits from the Thrifty Food Plan, which is generally used for no other purpose, to the Low-Cost Food Plan, which, FRAC says, is “generally in line with what low- and moderate-income families report they have to spend on food.”

We’d not only have fewer poorly-fed — or even underfed — children. We’d have 11.6% fewer in poverty. No benefits boost, however, for people who’ve got no children living with them.

How We Could Pay for the Proposals

First off, it’s worth noting that we’re already paying for child poverty — roughly $500 billion a year, according to an estimate a team of economists produced some years ago.

The proposals themselves would cost an estimated $77.2 billion a year. This is not only far less. It’s a tiny fraction — about 2% — of what the federal government spends.

CDF nevertheless lists five trade-offs, i.e., policy and spending changes that would free up funds to cover the costs of its proposals.

Like the recommendations, the trade-offs fall into two buckets. In one bucket, we have tax loopholes Congress could close, plus an income tax rate for capital gains and dividends equal to the rate imposed on wages.

In the other bucket, we have cuts in egregiously large and arguably wasteful Pentagon spending. Congress could, for example, give up on the F-35 fighter plane, which still can’t fly. This would free up $162.5 million per plane.

Total savings from this alone would fund all CDF’s proposals for 19 years, it says. Could be even longer, since the President’s proposed budget would fund more of these clunkers than the estimate CDF relied on.

On the other hand, the President’s budget does include some proposals similar to CDF’s, e.g., a subsidized jobs program, a larger maximum Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit for families with young children, more funding for housing vouchers, though far from enough to expand eligibility. General resemblances to some of the trade-offs in his tax code proposals too.

House Speaker John Boehner, among others, pronounced the budget DOA even before it got to Congress. Other sources think there might be some common ground. Far from enough — or in enough of the right places — to significantly reduce the child poverty rate. But it’s useful to know how we could do it — and pay for it too.

* Economist/blogger Jared Bernstein, who uses the report to poke Republican Presidential hopefuls, provides a table that identifies each recommendations, its impact of child poverty and the net new cost.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 195 other followers