As The Faithful Budget 2014 makes clear, our society, and especially our youth, suffer from the prevalence of guns and violence in our nation. “As the most heavily-armed society in the world, the firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Research shows that our habits of violence are socially and financially costly compared to other nations.” (p. 43). For many years, NETWORK has supported efforts in Congress to counter gun violence along with many other groups.

Since January 2011, when 24 national faith groups announced the formation of “Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence,” NETWORK has worked with this group to confront America’s gun violence epidemic and to rally support for policies that reduce death and injury from gunfire. By 2014 the group had grown to more than 50 supporting members, including Jewish, Sikh and Muslim supporters, representing over 80 million Americans in faith communities across the nation — far, far more than NRA members.

With each passing year more gun violence is perpetrated in our communities, and the call to confront this unbridled gun violence has grown ever more urgent. In light of mass-shooting tragedies in Newton, Aurora, Tucson, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Oak Creek, Isla Vista and so many more communities, NETWORK and others who are part of “Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence” believe that we have a moral obligation to keep guns out of the hands of people who may harm themselves or others.

While we continue to pray for the families and friends of those who died as a result of gun violence and share in their grief, we must also support our prayers with action. And that action requires legislators, especially in Congress, to support gun control laws.

After the Newton, CT massacre, President Obama charged Vice President Biden (December 2012) with overseeing an administration-wide process to develop proposals for Congress to pass. Those proposals were unveiled in January 2013 when the president announced a series of executive actions he could take administratively along with several legislative proposals for Congress. Together, they involved not just access to firearms and ammunition but also school safety and mental health care. His own executive actions were relatively modest since the main problems demanded legislative changes.

However, Congress took up only one of the many proposals of Vice President Biden’s task force, the Manchin-Toomey bill, which failed to receive sufficient votes in the Senate in April 2013. The bill attempted to expand background checks at gun shows and for online sales. Unfortunately, the Senate has never revisited this issue, despite strong public support. (Ninety-two percent of Americans supported universal background checks in late 2013.) Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) initially said he would try to bring the background checks bill back for a vote by the end of 2014, but has since acknowledged that the votes are not there. Currently, background checks – aimed at preventing criminals and people with mental illness from acquiring weapons – are required only for sales handled by licensed federal gun dealers.

An attempt in early 2014 by a small number of Democrats in the House to expand background checks for all commercial gun sales and make gun trafficking and “straw purchasing” (those in the business of reselling weapons) a federal crime, ended up merely as a resolution and never made it to the floor of the House. The official position of House Republicans has been that existing gun laws are not being adequately enforced, an issue that is strongly debated by gun control advocates.

Research demonstrates that in the 16 states and the District of Columbia where background checks are required for private sales, gun trafficking is 48% lower, the rate at which women are killed with a gun by an intimate partner is 38% lower, and the gun suicide rate is 49% lower.

Four Senate Democrats are up for reelection in conservative states this November, making it less likely that Reid will force a controversial vote, according to the Huffington Post. We believe that the price of political inaction is unconscionable because innocent lives must be protected.

Only modest proposals that can garner votes on both sides of the aisle will probably be considered this year (2014) – such as one by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D- MN) that would add convicted stalkers to the list of criminals barred from acquiring guns. This type of caution has characterized Democratic bills even in years when no elections took the spotlight, but the NRA had spent millions of dollars fattening campaign chests of both parties.

Another modest bill that was introduced in the Senate by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and in the House by Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on May 22, 2014 would give the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) $10 million a year to conduct or support research on firearms safety or gun control prevention (both the Department of Justice and the NIH also sponsor research on firearms issues and their funds have not disappeared). Prior to 1996 the CDC budget had been relatively flush with firearms research funds, but since 1996 it has been almost nonexistent thanks to opposition from Republicans. However, neither Markey nor Maloney has been able to attract any Republican support for their bills.

On May 29, the House approved a measure that would modestly increase funding for the nation’s background checks system, probably in response to the killing spree in Isla Vista, California. The amendment, which passed with a vote of 260 to 145, would provide an additional $19.5 million in funding for grants to states to improve their reporting to the national database. That database, the NICS, is designed to keep guns out of the hands of those with felony convictions and certain mental health issues. Given that the bill simply offers a modest boost to the existing program and that the NRA adopted a neutral stance toward the bill, the Senate is highly likely to pass it, too. This bill is just a minor step in the uphill battle to enact stricter gun laws and ignores the wide gaps that exist in the background checks system, but it allows Congress to refute arguments about its inaction on the issue of gun control.

As the issue of gun control has ebbed in Congress, it has accelerated in the states, where legislatures are debating hundreds of gun-related bills, some weakening and others strengthening restrictions. Let’s look at a couple of measures, the first of which could serve as a model for national reform, and the second deals with the mental health issue, a major problem in several recent massacres.

The Supreme Court ended Chicago’s 30-year ban on handguns in 2010. The mayor’s office has just proposed some reasonable measures that are designed to withstand Constitutional challenges, according to a New York Times editorial. Using zoning regulations, the city would limit gun shops to less than 1% of the city’s geographic area, would tightly audit the shops, limit sales to one handgun per customer per month and videotape the sale, and require a 72-hour waiting period to complete the purchase. Yes, people can probably easily acquire weapons in surrounding states and suburbs (which demonstrates that Congress must ensure a national response to this problem) and these measures do not address the full scope of Chicago’s gun problems, but they should stop buyers who shop in volume and funnel guns into the underworld.

The other example hails from California. In 2013, a consortium of mental health professionals urged the federal government to extend its prohibition of gun ownership not only to those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution (current law), but also to those who have been involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, if they pose a danger to themselves or others. These specialists also proposed that people should be prevented from buying guns if they have been convicted of a violent misdemeanor, have been subject to a domestic violence restraining order, convicted of drunken driving two or more times in a span of five years, or convicted of two misdemeanors involving a controlled substance in five years. When these proposals were ignored in Washington, California passed many of them.

While it is generally agreed that passage of the mental health measures listed above would not necessarily have deterred many of the devastating shootings that have bedeviled our nation recently, that argument should not prevent our attempts to deter gun violence. No single law will ever prevent all violence. We cannot allow the NRA to induce a feeling of hopelessness among those who seek to address gun violence. We must continue, as long as the second amendment is misinterpreted by gun advocates (see below), to press for new restrictions.

Why is gun control such a divisive issue? Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center of Justice at NYU, has made some surprising discoveries in his new book The Second Amendment: A Biography. The most significant is that the second amendment was debated the least of all the amendments that constitute our Bill of Rights. This could have been due to our founders’ deep suspicion of a standing army (which, in their minds, was synonymous with tyranny) and their assumption that all male citizens would belong to armed local militias. Being armed was considered a duty. Virtually every reference in early documents to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” concerned military defense. There is nothing about a private right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting or for any other purpose other than being part of the militia.

The second amendment did not become controversial until 1977 when the National Rifle Association (NRA) was taken over by second amendment fundamentalists who set out to change the entire meaning of the amendment and took our founders’ words out of context. From that time to the present the right to own guns has become conservative dogma. The New York Times’ review of Waldman’s book concludes that he is indeed persuasive in tying the right to bear arms with a well-regulated militia. Once militias were replaced by professional armed services, the right to keep and bear arms should have lost its significance.

As Patricia McGuire wrote in the Huffington Post after the Sandy Hook tragedy in December 2013, “Many of the same legislators who have nothing but contempt for gun control, who hide in the deep pockets of the NRA, also claim to be ardently pro-life. Opposing sensible gun control, and allowing children to die in their schools because you don’t want to offend your campaign bankrollers, is a total rejection of the moral value of life.” Unity, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare and liberty – all part of our Declaration of Independence – are jeopardized when Congress refuses to take reasonable actions to prevent “violence that occurs repeatedly in a society awash with guns.”

We at NETWORK, together with the millions who are a part of “Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence” call on our federal elected leaders to respond to this crisis in our nation. With each day that goes by, dozens more of our children, parents, brothers and sisters are lost to the violence of guns. As Bishop Blaire, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, said in his letter to the Senate, April 8, 2013, relating to the Manchin-Toomey bill, “the expansion of background checks for all gun purchases is a positive step in the right direction.” He cited the U.S. Bishops’ 2000 pastoral statement on criminal justice, which voiced support for “measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer.”

At a July 24 event, Paul Ryan officially unveiled his own anti-poverty program, the heart of which is called an “Opportunity Grant” – part of the “Expanding Opportunity in America,” a discussion draft of the House Budget Committee, that he chairs. This is Ryan’s attempt to re-conceptualize the federal government’s role in providing a safety-net for people in poverty. This first step in a journey towards evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the social safety net leaves much to be desired, but as a discussion draft one can hope there remains room for compromise and change.

As we are all well aware from his numerous criticisms of federal anti-poverty efforts, Ryan has previously proposed massive cuts in many of these programs. The “Opportunity Grant,” however, re-structures the safety-net programs, but leaves their funding intact.

His “Opportunity Grant” proposal is a voluntary pilot program to be undertaken by select states whereby up to 11 federal anti-poverty programs would be consolidated into a single funding stream. Here are some of its main components:

• States would have the flexibility to combine such things as food stamps, housing subsidies, child care assistance and cash welfare (TANF)
• The same amount of funds would be spent as current law allows
• A state’s plan would be required to meet these conditions to achieve approval:
  1. Monies would have to be spent exclusively on people “in need”
  2. Work requirements must be incorporated and the duration of funding must be limited
  3. Multiple service providers (at least two) must be allowed to offer services
  4. An evaluation by a neutral third party would be required to track metrics
  5. Any service provider who came up short could no longer participate in the program

After assessing many pilots, “we would pool the results and go from there,” Ryan said.

He explained that families in need could choose from approved non-profits, for-profits, community groups or their state program office. In this streamlined procedure, families or individuals would deal with one person, their case manager, who would be a personal resource to assist them in their efforts to overcome poverty.

While there are many unanswered questions in the proposal (e.g. If the federal government plays a more limited, reinforcement type of role for state-organized programs, how are “people in need” defined? Would the same criteria be used by each state in that definition? How limited would the duration of funding be?), answering them could be the nature of any “pilot” effort. One is reminded that the sub-title of the proposal is “discussion draft.” Is Ryan open to push-back?

One needs to be wary for the simple reason that Ryan’s track record in the area of federal safety-net programs is less than sterling. Many think that an attempt to consolidate programs for those who are needy is merely a prelude to cutting them. An editorial in the Washington Post on July 25, called Ryan’s proposal “ambitious, thoughtful and not entirely persuasive.” Here are some areas of the “Opportunity Grant” program that I find problematic.

The “Opportunity Grant” has all the hallmarks of the 1996 “reform” of welfare, which subsequently became Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In Ryan’s words, he is proposing a “more dynamic form of aid” than the safety net programs establish, by incorporating work into the system. As indicated above, work requirements are an integral part of the proposal. Even some of the key metrics to be used by the states are similar to those used in TANF – percentage of people who find work, who get off assistance, who move above the poverty threshold, obtain their high school diploma, and grow their wages. There is ample evidence that TANF, compared with other safety-net programs, did not perform well during the Great Recession. As a matter of fact, Jared Bernstein’s July 23 blog reminds us that turning federal programs into state block grants has been a primary way to end their essential counter-cyclicality. In graph form, Bernstein shows that from 2007 through 2012 when unemployment soared, food stamps and several other federally-administered safety-net programs rose in tandem with unemployment as expected, but TANF remained essentially unchanged and did not serve its intended beneficiaries.

Ryan appears to anticipate this criticism by suggesting that possible options exist for designing a block grant that would be counter-cyclical. For example, funds could be varied based on the level of unemployment in the state, or states could be required to set aside a portion of their grant funds for future expenditures. The latter option might cause deprivation to people in the short-term if the grant is not designed carefully–even this suggestion precludes any political nastiness resulting from disagreement. But the options that he suggests are very tentative.

Strangely, with its central emphasis on work, the “Opportunity Grant” program (as well as the other three sections of his complete program) is entirely devoid of any suggestion of how additional jobs would be created.

Lacking a “job creation” component, raises immediate questions about the prospective viability of the effort. Ryan’s desire to enable people to get “out of poverty,” could be achieved through his (and his colleagues’) support of increasing the minimum wage — the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 900,000 people would move above the poverty threshold, if the minimum wage were raised incrementally to $10.10. Interestingly, many of the “Opportunity Grant” examples used in the text of Ryan’s proposal are of jobs that pay minimum wage (e.g. Andrea’s medium-term goals to be a teaching aid). People cannot live on, or care for a family on today’s minimum wage of $7.25 which, therefore, undermines his arguments.

Ryan envisions case managers helping people craft a life plan (or contract) that includes measurable benchmarks for success, a timeline for meeting these benchmarks, sanctions for breaking as well as incentives for exceeding terms of the contract and clear time limits for cash assistance. Case managers would also provide (or contract with others to provide) services that include mentoring programs and drug treatment programs, or any number of other programs. Since success is tied so closely to the effectiveness of case managers, one is entitled to ask who they would be and how they would be paid? What would happen to administrative costs if they were all paid a “living wage?” Would having sole authority for determining sanctions for breaking the terms of the contract include withholding benefits? The centrality of the role of case managers would hardly reduce the bureaucracy and complexity that Ryan decries.

Another significant question left unanswered is how these “contracts” will respond to changes in both the lives of the individuals and the economy. If a sudden shift in family situation or an unplanned illness prevents a worker from meeting their contractual obligation, how would the caseworker seek to punish this “failure” to meet a benchmark? Just as important given the last decades turbulent economy and job market, how will the contract’s stipulations on work—particularly attaining the individual’s ideal occupation, and not just a job to pay the bills, within a certain period of time—respond to shortcomings in the job market that occur through no fault of the individual? These are questions left unanswered in the document, potentially left at the discretion of the caseworker or the individual state, but that make a significant difference in the flexibility of the program.

It is answers to questions like the foregoing that will clarify the real intent behind the “Opportunity Grant” program. It is clear that some of Ryan’s long-held beliefs on work and the consequences of long-term government assistance are apparent in this proposal. Getting people to simply “move off welfare” and “out of poverty” by “accepting responsibility” for their choices and “holding them accountable” for their actions have become not only his personal mantra but are that of the party to which he belongs. Despite his praise for Catholic Charities’ programs and his recent experience in visiting other low-income aid programs as well as with people in poverty, Ryan still seems to have little understanding of the fact that many of the elements of his proposal are middle to upper-class concepts accepted globally by those classes, and that all Americans have not had the advantage of that type of upbringing or living with these values. One would hope that Ryan would challenge the current ideology of his own party as forcefully as he is doing in this proposal to merge safety-net programs that some advocates have spent their lives to garner in legislation.

To many safety-net program advocates, Ryan’s grant proposal is merely a cynical re-branding effort in an election year. Others are skeptical of Ryan because of his track record. One Center of American Progress (CAP) article by Melissa Boteach finds it nearly impossible to impute a radical change in Paul Ryan’s belief system after four years of radical budget cuts on the very programs he would now re-structure. Instead, she admonishes him to support policies like that for a national paid leave for families program, high-quality child care and an early education program as well as an increase in the minimum wage, all of which could cut poverty and increase economic mobility more than any attempt to change safety-net programs.

Robert Greenstein, Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), cautioned Ryan “to play it straight on poverty programs” and not mischaracterize or distort key poverty data, as he has done in the past. Greenstein, who is intimately familiar with research on the effects of all safety-net programs, is eager for Ryan to know that a recent academic assessment of the research on poverty, finds that safety-net programs have very little effect on the amount that people work.

While there are many facets of the Ryan proposal of which we should be wary, there are also many aspects of the OG that bear further discussion, and for that we should be grateful. Eschewing politics in this year of mid-term elections, let’s consider some straightforward possibilities in addition to support for job creation and the questions raised above. All of the suggestions should be tested from the perspective of the people in poverty who use the various safety-net programs. Here are just a few that should be questioned and would probably benefit from pilot testing based on clear metrics:

• The haphazard and sometimes confusing way in which many federal safety-net programs are currently administered
• The need for simplification and innovation in these programs (could be based on some “best practices” used in many states)
• Collaboration among state program agencies, non-profits and community programs who are all trying to serve people who need assistance

These are a few suggestions that could form the basis of a dialogue with Paul Ryan and his colleagues responsible for the “Opportunity Grant” section of “Expanding Opportunity in America.”

On July 24, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chair of the House Budget Committee, released a discussion draft entitled “Expanding Opportunity in America.” In it, he opened up some exciting opportunities for discussion and working together to improve the situation for our most vulnerable. In his comments, he said “I want to start a conversation. I want to talk about how we can repair the safety net and help families get ahead.”

We at NETWORK look forward to this conversation – and hope the Congressman is sincere that this is adiscussion draft. And since conversations need to be two-way, here are some first thoughts that I hope Congressman Ryan will listen to.

In talking about the EITC, he has included a Democratic idea of including younger and childless workers. This would be helpful for those who are able to find work. As he was speaking, I kept asking myself, “what jobs?” He talked about how critical it is for people to be working, but seems to miss that there are not enough jobs for the number of people who are searching, and those underemployed. A scan of today’s Washington Post showed fewer than 20 positions that would not demand specialized skills or licensure. Clearly, Congressman Ryan’s emphasis on job training is right on track.

He talked about “repairing” the safety net – which truly needs repair. His plan would meld 11 human needs programs into an “Opportunity Grant” program – to be administered by each state. Coordination across programs of the best benefit to a particular family or individual is an excellent goal, so long as sufficient resources are available. One question about the melding of programs is how this compares with the “One-Stop Shops” that assisted people to become enrolled in any mix of programs from which they would benefit.

An additional question comes to mind. Case workers are overburdened now. Will there be funding to greatly expand the number and preparation of these workers? Is there an expectation that charities and philanthropic offerings will cover this? A young homeless woman in D.C. has waited over six weeks to see her case manager in order to see a doctor about recurrent bronchial pneumonia. She has been to the ER each time it becomes life-threatening. She is unable to get placed with a physician for ongoing and preventive care, because her case manager can’t fit her in.

The “Opportunity Grant” program would be modeled on the welfare reform of 1996, that Paul Ryan terms “a remarkable success.” NETWORK has done research on the TANF program in 2000, 2005 and 2010. The results do not acclaim the program a success as with each study more gaps appeared. As funding became tighter, changes were made to further limit the program.

[An example: I was in teacher education from 1978 through 2003. In the nineties, I regularly monitored a few students in each class for attendance, study and preparation time and quality of work. I was required to sign off on each student, each week, verifying that they were in compliance with the work requirements of TANF. In 2001, students began to drop out of teacher education, as they could no longer use homework and preparation time as a part of their work-related hours. The subsidy to assist with school costs was also eliminated. They had to get additional jobs. With responsibilities of home, children and now another job, many could not remain in school. Their desire for a job that could truly raise them out of poverty was dashed.]

I laud Congressman Ryan on his attention to changes in the criminal justice system. He proposes giving judges greater flexibility in sentencing of nonviolent drug offenders. He also proposes federal prisons expand enrollment in rehabilitative programming to reduce recidivism. Those leaving prison could be helped to move out of poverty, as skills may not have eroded and they might find work more easily.

Congressman Ryan addresses the increasing numbers of jobs for which states require occupational certification, often with local requirements that are more than necessary for the skills. State-based requirements are often not reciprocal. These can be significant in preventing people from moving out of poverty, a particular disadvantage to persons returning after incarceration. For example, a number of prisons teach cosmetology or barbering, however in most states a felony conviction prohibits a person from receiving a license. But, its impact also affects those who move to another state.

[Example: My dental hygienist’ husband was transferred to Florida. Since the licensure is not reciprocal, she will be unable to work for the 4-5 years they will be there.]

I am most anxious to work with Congressman Ryan and his staff to help this program have a tryout in pilot states, where we would be able to assess the greatest strengths, and modify the elements that will need revision. The start of this conversation is important, and I look forward to engaging in it.

In his Expanding Opportunity in America, Congressman Paul Ryan spends a lot of time talking about education policy: actually almost as much as he talks about his “opportunity grant.” Sadly, though, it hasn’t received the headlines of his safety net suggestions. This “getting buried” is more than just a disservice: it’s a potential danger to Americans, as Ryan’s proposed policy changes in education, if enacted, would fundamentally alter the lives of generations of Americans.

Americans must accept the fact that our education system is falling short of the exceptionalism we so often boast about, as we are now ranked 36th in the world in regards to our overall education. As the global economy demands more skilled labor, reforming our education system is the first step in returning us to primacy in both intellectually and economically, something Ryan wants included in his political legacy.

To this end Ryan, has opened up his work for criticism, asking everyone from lobbyists on K Street to tourists on Main Street to weigh in on his anti-poverty ideas. In the spirit of the educational system he seeks to reform, the draft Mr. Ryan produces elicits the following grade: “Despite demonstrating new knowledge about education and poverty, there is room for improvement. See me after class.”

Even before carefully considering his solutions, reader’s first reaction to the chapter will undoubtedly be about its rhetoric. Ryan is already more famous for his skillful (and sometimes not-so-skillful) language than his successful political actions, and his anti-poverty education plan finds its greatest strengths in its verbiage. On every page there are nuggets of progressive language promising low-income communities more authority in the face of a financial system working against them. First, Ryan commendably, although belatedly, acknowledges that poverty and education are inextricably linked, something refreshing as too many politicians seek to tackle the social ills separately. More importantly, Ryan recognizes that there truly are two separate education systems in America, one for the poor and another for the wealthy. Citing statistics pointing to the large gap in graduation rates based on financial background, Ryan sees that students from low-income backgrounds are fundamentally disadvantaged in the classroom. He also rightly understands that mending the gap between these two educational experiences is the duty of the federal government.

However, it is critical not to confuse sentiment with sensible solutions. While Ryan presented the document to the press by flaunting his newfound understanding of poverty he gained through a nationwide tour over the last year, readers should not forget that he is the same man who has authored so many other documents on poverty that would have merited him “Needs Improvement” marks on his report card. It is when readers get to the heart of Ryan’s idea that the plan he promotes epitomizes that the true meaning of draft—a work that needs improvement.

As is to be expected from anything with the words Ryan and funding in it, alterations to Head Start is at the heart of his early childhood education plan. His plan converts the funding for Head Start—in his opinion a failed program—and other sources of funding for early childhood education into a block grant, which he argues will provide states and educators more flexibility for programming endeavors. The Congressman also states that by transforming early childhood education’s funding from small grants with a variety of limiting provisions (as it currently stands) to one large block grant, it can embrace the experimental nature of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, which mandates a certain percentage of the grant be devoted to finding innovative new sources of assistance for low-income people. Ryan believes that only a block grant given to states with stipulations like that of MIECHV can provide legislators and educators with the flexibility and funding they need to instill life-long social and academic skills in their students.

For those who know anything about Ryan’s education platform, the focus on changing Head Start is a cause for alarm. Ryan’s federal budgets have consistently included deep cuts to the program. One of his budgets cut $1.1 billion from early childhood education; therefore the fear that placing Head Start within a block grant structure serves only as a pit-stop to Ryan’s goal of defunding the program is not unmerited. Advocates who wish to ensure the survival of the program should come to the discussion with ways to guarantee that Ryan and the House Budget Committee do not use this format as a multi-step plan to disband Head Start and devote its money to defense spending or elsewhere.

In addition to adopting the block grant model, and in spite of his distaste for Head Start, Ryan also mirrors an attitude found throughout the program’s ideology: that children’s education is not only a function of their time in the classroom but also in the home. It is in this spirit that the proposal has stated its desire to lump the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) into the “opportunity grant.”

By connecting CCDF to the “opportunity grant,” children are left vulnerable. The grant requires that penalties be doled out for adults who fail to meet contractual deadlines, so it would be possible that money typically devoted to childcare or nourishment may be cut from a family’s budget.

Ryan renews his faith in the merits of the block grant model of funding in his plan for elementary and secondary education. Funding for the now nine facets of the Title I-A program and other, smaller programs focused on secondary education would be converted into one large block grant given to states annually. Ryan uses examples of local-grown anti-drug and anti-gang programs in the states he visited as proof that many of the potential creative sources fighting on the “front lines” of poverty are too localized to warrant federal attention through the current system of multiple funding streams, and thus remain under-funded.

Despite what Ryan says the block grant model will do in regards to growing creative programming, it is vital to understand that this funding model also makes all forms of assistance for low-income students morevulnerable. When grouped together, funding becomes easier for Congress to cut; additionally, certain aspects of education currently guaranteed through the Title I-A system could be essentially eliminated without much recourse if states decide to simply devote funds to other causes. For example, currently there is one facet of Title I-A funding uniquely specified for the education of immigrant and non-English speaking communities. Given the current vitriol towards children seeking asylum, it would be possible for state legislators to choose to divert money away from this program in order to discourage immigrant communities from forming in their state.

Also noteworthy in his secondary school policy, Ryan plans to help states further foster successful teaching styles and community programs by advocating for the continuation of annual report cards to measure schools’ performances. Educators and legislators alike have rightly objected to the report card system, stating that it first asks that under-funded schools produce equal results to those by richer schools, and then justifies continuing to under-fund these needy schools when they fail to meet that standard; thus the Ryan plan would only perpetuate an already broken cycle.

In his final section on education reform, Ryan handles higher education with a unique mixture of understanding and cruelty. Recognizing the hefty fees associated with four-year institutions that do not always guarantee the skills necessary for gainful employment, Ryan’s proposal seeks to ease the financial burden on low income students by changing the accreditation process so that specific courses, not just programs, would be accredited; students who know their intended occupation could take those courses best suited for their job’s skill set, build their own major, and graduate earlier and with less debt. Such a step will help train a better prepared work force that hopefully will not be crippled with exorbitant debt.

Ryan also suggests alterations to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application will change the attitude of accessibility toward college for students from low-income families. Currently, the application is lengthy, confusing, and sometimes results are given months after students learn about their college admissions, meaning some low-income students discover they cannot afford the dream school that admitted them months before. Ryan wants to make the document more user-friendly, more aligned with college acceptance decisions, and begin teaching families about FAFSA as early as eighth grade; such steps, however seemingly small, would foster a more friendly college application process for low-income applicants.

Beyond these two major victories in changing the attitudes of students towards higher education, Ryan’s plans for college affordability and job training are grim. First, Ryan proposes capping the currently limitless government-regulated loans to students and their families; Ryan notes that this unfettered ability to borrow money has caused many to fall into extreme debt. To fight this problem, Ryan suggests capping Grad PLUS loans at $138,000 and Parent PLUS loans at $57,500.

The idea of placing limits on loans is problematic and may continue to limit low-income students’ ability to enter into top-paying fields. If they cannot receive the necessary loans to pay for graduate school, how can they manage to become lawyers or doctors? The Congressman’s concern over the harmful effect of loans on low-income families may also be classed as disingenuous given that he has voted to allow student loans to accrue interest while students are still attending college.

Ryan also proposes reorganizing and modernizing the Pell Grant and TRIO programs. First, Ryan seeks to unite many of the separate funding sources for low-income first-generation college students authorized as TRIO programs into a single block grant model. The concerns about Congress more easily cutting funding from a block grant than from multiple, smaller funding sources remains present in this funding model.

Ryan also vaguely suggests making alterations to the Pell Grant program’s funding and other requirements in order to “modernize” it. While the argument can be made that the vague language of “modernize” is because the document is still a draft, the murkiness is worrying. Much like his attacks on Head Start, Ryan has long been an advocate of limiting the Pell Grant program: as late as April of this year his budget would have cut $170 billion from the program and cut off 1 million Americans’ access to federal grants over the next 10 years.

Finally, Ryan tackles the issue of job training with an eye for consolidation. The document points to the confusing web of job training programs—47 across nine agencies to be exact—and the House Education and Workforce Committee’s findings that there are over 50 duplicative training programs as a reason to merge a variety of programs with similar goals. With fewer programs to sort through, Ryan believes students and government officials alike will find this facet of education easier to negotiate.

Although supporting easy access and understanding of job training programs is absolutely necessary, Ryan must be held to his word that when programs are consolidated, what emerges includes all previously separate funding. While stated in the speech he gave when he released his report, no language stipulates this in the document, and thus it is activists’ job to hold Ryan to his word.

Congressman Ryan’s education plan is many things: obsessed with streamlining; employment focused; more bipartisan than expected; but more than anything: it isn’t perfect. The conflict of hope and distrust, particularly about Pell Grants and Head Start, get at the heart of people’s response to this entire anti-poverty plan: has Paul Ryan actually changed? Can we trust these plans at face-value?

Despite doubts, history, and what some pundits say, if we ask our politicians to change their ideology, the least we can do is to begin a dialogue, however weary, with them when they seem to be responding. With the word “draft” in the title, activists committed to the common good are called on to raise their hands, as well as their voices, and contribute to the conversation on education.

In recent years, legislation has too frequently forced people to stomach bad policies in order to gain necessary and life-altering improvements. Such can said about Representative Ryan’s proposals in the area of regulatory reform in Expanding Opportunity in America, a mixture of positive anti-poverty suggestions and unnecessary political tactics that have no place in proposals fighting poverty.

Half of the regulatory reform portion of focuses on the currently unjust burden placed on low-income workers seeking occupational licenses. Rep. Ryan highlights the arbitrary and burdensome nature of many licensing requirements—for example, he notes that Minnesota law requires more hours in the classroom for cosmetologists than lawyers.

Occupational certification often protects those already licensed and makes it particularly challenging for low-income workers to gain qualifications. The Institute for Justice explains that “hurdles are exceptionally burdensome for low-income workers” because the process of receiving an occupational license too often requires long hours and high cost, something most workers cannot always afford. By keeping requirements for a license high, license-holders protect their businesses from competition and indirectly continue the cycle of poverty.

Reforming occupational licensing is important. There has been a significant increase in the percentage of laborers in fields requiring state licenses: in the 1950s approximately 5% of workers were licensed; by the 1980s that number tripled to just under 18%; in 2014 roughly 33% of workers must be licensed.

Changing occupational licensing will significantly benefit people with low incomes and benefit our economy. One recent study shows that “licensing is associated with about 18 percent higher wages.” Also, more commonsense licensing requirements will provide more choices for consumers.

The other half of Ryan’s proposal is about “regressive reforms.”

Under the current regulatory system, federal agencies are granted the right to review and, at times, alter agency policies without congressional approval. It is this independence that Congressman Ryan objects to so strongly; it prompts him to argue that our model has bred “seemingly overzealous bureaucracy” that disproportionately harms low-income families.

It is important, however, to look at Ryan’s true intention.

First, whenever a federal agency intended to introduce or change a regulation, it would be required to conduct a three-part distributive analysis of the proposed change in order to assess its effects on low-income Americans. The first analysis would study which demographic bears the greatest cost because of the new regulation, with a particular focus on whether the proposed regulation would disproportionately burden people who are poor. This study would also be required to account for low-income people’s willingness to pay for the change. Second, the agency would need to analyze which group or groups benefit most from the proposed regulation. The final analysis would estimate number of jobs lost or created, both directly and indirectly, either above or below the median income because of the change.

Then, (in what I believe is a clear attempt to ensure a delay in presenting regulations for review) all findings must be translated into layman’s terms, as per the requirements of the Plain Writing Act.

Then the agency would submit their findings to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. If, upon inspection, a report is deemed “lacking,” it would be returned to the petitioning federal agency for additional information.

Then, if the proposed regulation were regressive, the agency would be required to conduct an additional assessment to see if enacting it would cause an “immediate risk to the public health or safety.”

Then, regardless of findings on the issue of health and safety, Ryan states that reforms with regressive effects must either be changed to mitigate these effects, or receive congressional approval. In addition to the large quantity of analysis already conducted, any regulation needing congressional approval objections must also include a document to Congress explaining why the relevant agency believes the regulation necessary.

It is only after all of these steps are completed that any vote on a change take can be considered. In comparison with all of the hoops necessary for the federal agency, the only requirement Ryan makes of Congress is that it considers the petition in “a timely fashion.” He offers no further explanation on how Congress should assess any of the information, or if the only reason for rejecting a regulation would need to be on its harmful impact on low-income households.

I believe that government agencies must do their utmost to ensure that the largest financial burden in any regulation reform does not fall to those living in or near poverty. However, we find this plan is about politics, not poverty.

The Ryan proposal speaks more to a desire to slow down regulations Republicans dislike than to promoting just reforms. All of the distributive analyses and extra requirements would take significant periods of time, months or years, to complete. Given that Congress would only be required to respond in the vaguely termed “timely fashion,” one must question: what does timely mean when placed next to a years-long process? A disapproving Congress could stall critical pieces of regulation until they had the votes in both houses to reject the regulation. Essentially, Representative Ryan wants to make it possible to crush regulatory reform under paperwork.

Moreover, while Rep. Ryan claims that this document is the manifestation of his nationwide tour, any politically knowledgeable person knows that this suggestion was born out of Republican politics. Citing what he considers an “overzealous bureaucracy,” Ryan drafted this plan thinking about his party’s various failed attempts to block or gut the Affordable Care Act, the recent problems with the Internal Revenue Service and the Office of Veterans Affairs, and, most significantly, the president’s use of executive orders. Some House Republicans like Ryan have concluded that the power of the legislative branch is under attack and it seems they feel that new legislation like this must be enacted to take back lost ground. But in reality this would throw our democracy out of balance.

According to our Constitution, the legislative branch has the power to write and pass laws, the executive to enforce them, and the judicial branch to determine their constitutionality. Part of the executive’s power is its role in devising means to act within the parameters of the laws; this means that they have the authority to propose changes to regulations within their agencies without express Congressional approval so long as they remain within the legal limits. Moreover, it is not Congress’s role to decide if a regulation is constitutional; that is the job of the courts. If Rep. Ryan and Congress want to ensure no regressive reforms exist, they are tasked with writing laws that make this impossible.

Representative Ryan unites the brightest and darkest elements of his plans and of himself. Coupling his truly bipartisan and progressive ideas of improving licensing with his obviously partisan attempt to make it harder to created needed regulations, Ryan shows just how conflicted he is about his growing understanding of poverty; Ryan is not yet the new anti-poverty advocate he calls himself.

The Fiscal Times reminds us that Congress has only successfully passed 13 spending bills on time since 2001, and during election years has enacted a federal budget only 25% of the time. So I guess we should not be surprised that everyone is anticipating a “continuing resolution” (CR) as a near inevitability this year with mid-term elections soon upon us and only about 12 days of congressional activity remaining in September before recess.

However, since the successful negotiations of Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) and congressional approval of their two-year budget deal in December 2013 following the government shutdown in October, most pundits expected the passage of the 2015 budget to be a relatively easy exercise.

Instead, the House has passed only four of 12 appropriation bills for 2015, the Senate has passed none, and, of course, no appropriations bills have been enacted. It appears that the acrimony and partisanship that have dominated the run-up to the midterm election process has also seeped into congressional dealings and ended any thought of bipartisan agreement on the 2015 budget.

The appropriations Chairs – Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Representative Harold Rogers (R-KY-05) have conscientiously used the numbers from the December budget deal in drawing up their respective budgets and accompanying legislation, but action in the Senate has been stymied by a disagreement between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Essentially, the argument between Reid and McConnell boils down to a failure to find a mutually agreeable process for approving amendments to the spending bills. AAS Blogger Joshua Shiode describes the machinations and jockeying between Reid and McConnell as a “complicated dance surrounding the appropriations bills,” or in less colorful language, one might consider it a “test of wills.”

As some legislators pointed out, part of the problem was an unanticipated emergency request from the president for $3.7 billion to deal with the humanitarian crisis of tens of thousands of unaccompanied migrant children from Central America at our southern border, which disrupted the appropriations process. But unexpected issues are a significant part of governmental decision-making, so clearly this interruption was not a causal factor in playing havoc with what was already a chaotic process.

By mid-July, Mikulski, who had earlier hoped to complete all individual spending bills prior to October 1, was already acknowledging that an overall omnibus bill would be needed to wrap up fiscal year 2015 work. As late as last week, at an event in her home state Mikulski said she planned in early September one more push at an omnibus bill even it was a long-shot, before conceding the need for a continuing resolution. Roll Call indicated in its August 11 edition that Mikulski would use the 2015 Military Construction-VA spending bill as the vehicle for a catchall package because Congress had recently agreed to a groundbreaking bill for veteran’s health care, and VA medical care could be the impetus for moving to an omnibus. However, her House counterpart, Harold Rogers, who frequently worked closely with her on strategy, was less sanguine about the successful possibility of an omnibus, and conceded that a continuing resolution was probably inevitable.

With all due respect to Senator Mikulski, whose formidable power to help achieve passage of legislation is legendary, Rogers is more likely to be correct. Here’s why. Both houses of Congress have given themselves approximately 12 legislative days before recessing for campaigning for the midterms. Prior to the summer recess, the House and Senate passed divergent bills on President Obama’s request for supplemental funds to deal with the humanitarian crisis on our southern border. This unfinished business will probably be taken up in early September.

Another controversial issue that is bound to consume valuable time is the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, whose expiration occurs on September 30. A highly unusual coalition of Democrats, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups are supporting its reauthorization. In a strange twist, House Republicans, many influential with the leadership, oppose its reauthorization as “crony capitalism” as well as corporate welfare.

In an early session of the Senate in September, Harry Reid plans to begin consideration of a bipartisan proposal to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for five years. If time runs out, Reid plans to attach it to must-pass legislation, such as the continuing resolution. It isn’t at all clear that Mikulski will have the time she would require to gather momentum for an omnibus bill or even to get it to the floor, given Reid’s penchant for a rather authoritarian approach to his leadership role.

If the leadership and the majority in both the House and Senate decide to pass a continuing resolution, the area of disagreement may well center on its timing. If the Republicans are confident of winning a Senate majority, they may vote to extend the resolution into February or March of 2015 so that their party will have the opportunity to change the federal budget before fiscal year 2016. By the same token, if the Democrats fear losing their Senate majority, they would more likely vote to extend the continuing resolution only to the end of the lame duck session. And, of course, the reverse is true. The key issue is that the ensuing contention will be time-consuming, when only a few days remain to deal with significant matters.

Regardless of all the uncertainties that September will bring and given the gridlock for which the 113th Congress is well-known, it is more than mere conjecture that this Congress will approach its budgetary responsibility with a continuing resolution – another example of “kicking the can down the road” (an overused but apt cliché).

Whether we like it or not, fiscal issues will be paramount in this lame duck session at the end of this year because the stop-gap spending bill, called a continuing resolution (CR), funded the federal government only until December 11, 2014, and because several significant tax provisions affecting a large number of Americans must be either extended or allowed to expire by December 31.

Let’s deal with appropriations first.

Budget experts tell us that congressional leaders have three options for funding the federal government post-December 11, 2014:

1. An omnibus spending bill that combines the 12 annual spending bills (regular FY 2015 appropriations bills) into a single package that funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year
2. Another stop-gap spending bill or CR that funds the government at 2014 levels through some portion of the fiscal year (e.g. until March 31 or June 1 in 2015) or for the full fiscal year
3.  A hybrid package in which some of the 12 spending bills are regular appropriations bills, with funding and program adjustments, and others are stop-gap bills that fund various agencies at 2014 levels and don’t alter policies or programs. In recent years this option has been used several times.

Congress has not passed any of its 12 annual spending bills for FY 2015 even though the fiscal year began on October 1. The House has approved seven of the 12 bills for FY 2015 and the House Appropriations Committee has approved another four. The full Senate has not passed any spending bills, but there are reports that the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved eight spending bills and assembled drafts of the other four bills. This state of affairs is not unusual in that the federal government has not enjoyed a real budget on time since 1997!

A New York Times article on November 6 stated that the majority of Republicans want to find a way to finance the government through next September and take “those sticky spending issues off the table” – in other words, start the new 114th Congress with a clean slate rather than refighting old issues. Other Republicans, mostly very conservative, want a CR to extend only until the new Congress begins its legislative session so that the Republican-dominated House and Senate can use their greater leverage to shape the budget according to more conservative thinking.

It is anyone’s guess at this point whether incoming Republican leaders of the House and Senate will decide on a fresh start or use a CR to set the stage for a broader debate early in 2015 on government spending across the board.

What we do know is that there are some very influential people behind the congressional push for an omnibus bill. For example, House Appropriations Committee Chair Harold Rogers (R-KY) agrees with his Senate counterpart, Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), that it would be best to pass an omnibus bill in the lame duck session so that the new Congress does not have to deal with leftover issues.

Chances are also better thanks to the Murray-Ryan agreement of December 2013 (following the government shutdown), setting defense and non-defense spending issues through FY 2015. One of the major problems with another CR, says the Coalition on Human Needs (CHN), is that “agencies and their programs are hurt since it severely limits their ability to adjust their spending and activities to respond to changing realities.”

After the Senate passed the CR in mid-September, Senator Mikulski said that the goal of the CR “is to lay the groundwork for an omnibus funding bill in December that will include all 12 appropriations bills.” Both Senator Mikulski and Representative Rogers have said that the two chambers are not that far apart on an omnibus package and they would much prefer drafting and passing a FY 2015 omnibus spending bill rather than passing another CR that merely funds the government for a few months. Their respective staffs have been working on the various appropriations bills for several weeks and the principals (Mikulski and Rogers) are discussing the status of their work with the congressional leadership.

As recently as November 13, according to CQ Roll Call, Representative Rogers maintained that Republican leaders would help him press the case for an omnibus bill at their weekly caucus meeting. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California agreed to support the measure as well as other leaders of the House. Rogers believes that passing an omnibus bill to which agreement with the Senate is obtained, not only would prove to a skeptical public that Congress could overcome the “gridlock syndrome,” but also achieve several conservative priorities by including some of their long-sought provisions in the bills – such as rolling back financial regulatory reform and EPA regulations. There had been threats to derail the omnibus should the president issue his executive order on immigration, which, of course, he did. We don’t know at this point if they will make do on their threats.

While Rogers and Mikulski are significant players, the final decision is still in the hands of congressional leaders, the president, and a Democratic Senate, who may not agree with the priorities of Representative Rogers.

Whether the result is an omnibus funding bill, a CR or a hybrid, the appropriations will end up as a $1 trillion-plus spending bill including roughly $550 billion defense spending, with nearly $60 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). This would be a behemoth bill, no matter what shape it takes.

An October 29 article in The Hill states that government often grows during lame duck sessions and cites as past examples gas tax hikes, congressional pay increases, free-standing debt limit hikes, and industry bailouts. The author claims that “elected officials are more susceptible to the demands of special interests when they face no future elections,” and urges that Congress break from the past this year and try to limit the harm.

Whether Congress will adhere to the Ryan-Murray budget deal remains to be seen since discretionary spending is already $19 billion higher than that deal anticipated, and the OCO budget keeps growing. Key questions are whether Congress will provide supplemental funding for Ebola and for fighting the Islamic State militants. One issue that should be considered in the request for supplemental funding for the Pentagon is that the current CR left the military with excess resources because the CR continued war spending at FY 2014 levels, and some recent needs have diminished due to drawdowns of military personnel from Afghanistan.

The largest appropriations bill is for defense. Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees have been negotiating their differences. Their decisions will affect spending on the Air Force A-10 Warthog aircraft, Navy cruisers and Army National Guard attack aviation. Both the House and Senate bills reject the administration’s proposal to retire the Warthog (saving $4.2 billion over the next five years), but take different approaches to paying for the planes to stay in service. There are also contentious debates about whether half the Navy’s fleet of cruisers should be taken out of service for modernization as the Navy has recommended, and whether the Army National Guard Apache helicopters should be moved to active duty as part of an overdue restructuring that the administration says will save money. Ultimately, the plan is for a military authorization bill to move through Congress during the lame duck session and be passed regardless of the fate of other appropriation bills.

In addition to the appropriations bills, a significant section of fiscal issues facing the lame duck Congress is taxation. Rather than comprehensive tax reform, Congress will be considering extending certain tax provisions (thus, the appellation “tax extenders”) that expired on January 1, 2014 and will reinstitute some or all of them retroactively. The Senate Finance Committee, under Democratic leadership, and the House Ways and Means Committee under GOP control, support very different approaches to tax extenders bills.

The Senate Finance Committee supports an $85 billion two-year (this past year and next year) extension of more than 50 tax provisions; whereas the Ways and Means panel wants to permanently extend and expand certain tax provisions related to investment, research and small businesses, at a 10-year cost of more than $500 billion. Most observers, including several congressional staffers close to the negotiations, believe a two-year extension package is more likely during the lame duck session.

Some groups, such as the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), think that Congress should reject the renewal of any costly corporate tax breaks (tax extenders) or pay for them by closing other corporate loopholes so that corporations are paying their fair share of taxes. Antipoverty groups such as NETWORK agree, but also feel that any move to make permanent any aspect of the tax extenders calls for the permanent expansion and extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), on the basis of reciprocity. Both credits have always enjoyed bipartisan support.

The two major fiscal issues we have discussed, appropriations and taxation, must ensure that all individuals and families within our country are able to live in security and dignity; that every person is valued; and that Congress will serve the common good, especially by robustly funding support for poor and vulnerable people and reducing reliance on tools of violent conflict.

The two major fiscal issues requiring action in this lame-duck congressional session are the 55+ so-called “tax extender” breaks that expired in January 2014 and the passage of a federal budget for 2015. Regarding the latter, the Continuing Resolution (CR) passed in September expires on December 11, 2014.

Tax Extenders

Let’s consider the $41.6 billion “tax extenders” package first, since it passed overwhelmingly in the House on December 3and was sent to the Senate, whereas the federal budget for 2015 may go down to the wire in both houses of Congress.

The 378-46 vote in the House will retroactively extend all tax breaks for 2014 and will force Congress to deal with more ambitious efforts to handle these issues next year. The House vote sends the package (H.R. 5771) to almost certain approval in the Senate because hopes of (as well as opposition to) a two-year alternative plan that was being negotiated in the two tax-writing panels in the Senate and House became the first collateral damage of the president’s action on immigration.

Because this “tax extender” agreement [negotiated prior to President Obama’s executive action — primarily between Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Finance Chairman, and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI)] did not include a permanent extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) in its final form, Sister Simone Campbell, in an op-ed article in The Hill, made NETWORK’s position on this issue clear. Failure to include the permanent extension of the EITC and CTC while permanently extending tax breaks for business rendered the agreement deeply flawed and worthy of the president’s veto, said Sister Simone. Because of the collapse of tax negotiations following the president’s message on immigration, a veto now is unnecessary. “We are open to short-term extensions of many of those provisions,” Obama has recently said.

The one-year retroactive renewal includes tax breaks for corporate research, wind production, renewable fuels, corporate expensing and expanded depreciation schedules. It also includes tax breaks for individuals, such as deductions for mortgage debt forgiveness and for state and local sales taxes as well as tax breaks for certain businesses, such as racetrack builders and the rum industry in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Many Senators appeared willing to support the short-term measure and agreed with Representative Sander Levin (D-MI) who said, “To not act would disrupt the coming tax-filing season for millions of American workers and businesses, which have relied on Congress to extend these provisions and will, in a matter of weeks, begin filing their 2014 tax returns.”

Federal Budget

On the second fiscal issue facing this current lame duck session of Congress – passage of a federal budget – it is likely at this stage of the process that a hybrid bill, known as a “cromnibus” package (because it consists of 11 full spending bills and one CR of two-or-three months’ duration for the Department of Homeland Security) will be presented for votes the week of December 8 in the House and Senate. Regardless of the best of intentions, moving a huge year-end spending package through Congress requires trade-offs among appropriators in both parties and will be subject to the inevitable “riders.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) told CQ Roll Call that it was her intention to finish the “cromnibus” at the committee level by December 5 and leave remaining decisions to leadership. It is at the leadership level that conservatives in Congress will plead for riders that bar the president’s immigration actions. The major question is whether House GOP opponents of the president’s actions will number 12 or 50. If the latter, John Boehner (D-OH), House Majority Leader, will need the assistance of Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to deliver Democratic votes to move the measure. Under this scenario, a major question becomes “What is the quid pro quo?” and could place Democrats in a position to force changes in important areas. Pelosi’s Democrats may decide the bill’s fate if the conservative number is large enough to preclude Republicans from rallying sufficient votes.

Despite the Democrats’ openness to compromise on this issue, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), in his leadership position in the party, said, “Obviously, we think the best way to do this is to have an omnibus for the full year for all government agencies, but we’re going to look at the fine print and make a decision.” Freezing Homeland Security’s funding is bad policy, but better than some of the alternatives heard immediately after the president’s actions on immigration, and far better than short-term CRs for all agencies that House leaders have as a back-up plan.

Republicans are continuing to cobble together the specifics of the package as this article is being written. From everything we can tell, the Democrats are maintaining a wait-and-see approach. Most importantly, the administration has signaled that Obama is willing to accept the package, albeit, somewhat reluctantly, since 12 full spending bills is the first choice, but there is not yet a veto threat.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), despite his concerns about the Homeland Security provision, is supporting the GOP effort, which seems to be following the Mikulski/Rogers strategy. He, as well as several other Democrats in both houses, feel that Mikulski’s involvement in the “cromnibus” negotiations gives the Democrats leverage they won’t have next year.

Yet the Democrats’ wait-and-see approach is based on the fact that the package is not yet finalized. There could still be a full-fledged political fight over policy riders targeting the EPA’s recent regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants or those targeting labor issues resulting from National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decisions or financial regulations of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau or nutrition requirements of the School Lunch Program. These are but a few of the dozens of policy riders that have stalled floor action on spending bills earlier this year.

We, at NETWORK, are committed to serving the common good by urging Congress to fund adequately critical human needs, social service and environmental protection and that includes the annual appropriations bills reviewed in the foregoing section.

Conclusion

In the first section dealing with tax breaks, we know that congressional members have punted to the next Congress the major issues that could promote the common good. The 114th Congress in 2015 must create a more equitable and secure society by expanding tax credits to those living in or near poverty rather than focusing on expensive tax breaks for those already economically secure. Only then will we be able to raise reasonable revenue and begin to deal with our budget needs. If either house of Congress plans to protect only corporate interests in shaping tax policy next year and neglects individuals and families living in or near poverty, NETWORK, together with our many friends in the faith-based community and other non-profits, will immediately spring into action to help create an equitable tax system based on fairness and justice.

The “Cromnibus” – a hybrid of a Continuing Resolution (CR), funding the Department of Homeland Security until the end of February 2015 (giving those opposed to the president’s executive order on immigration a chance to work their budgetary legerdemain), and 11 omnibus bills for the remainder of the government – is riddled with policy riders that should have been thoroughly debated openly and voted up or down during congressional sessions in FY 2014. About the only good thing that can be said about cobbling together all the annual bills that fund federal agencies and disallowing adequate debate on the policy riders is that it beats a government shutdown. As the December 15 issue of The Washington Post notes: “Some [of the policy riders] have been thoroughly debated in committees, and others have barely been considered.”

At the outset, let me clarify that not all policy riders slipped into the final “cromnibus” are objectionable. But this blog will focus on those that should have been voted down during earlier congressional sessions.

For those policy considerations that were introduced earlier in the fiscal year, a combination of politics and policy differences delayed their earlier passage. We are not as concerned with all the bad policy riders or with the so-called “Cruz-Lee rebellion” that ultimately allowed the Senate to approve a final group of Obama nominees for government posts, as we are about several policy riders that are either obstacles to those struggling to provide for their families, or continue to keep the economy out of kilter and balanced toward the more fortunate among us. In still other cases, for example, the School Lunch Program and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program, we have wholeheartedly supported improved nutrition, which is antithetical to what ultimately was passed.

Among the many policy riders that are part of the “Cromnibus” signed by President Obama on December 16 are the following issues we do not support:

• The wealthiest people in the country will be able to donate up to $1.5 million (or $3m if they are a married couple) in campaign contributions to political parties within every two-year election cycle, spelling the death knell for the McCain-Feingold law’s ban on large party donations enacted to end the “soft-money” corruption of Watergate. The national parties were able to win this policy rider partially because they had become the underdogs, based on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision of 2010, which allowed super PACs and politically active nonprofits to displace the national parties as major power brokers in national politics. Undoubtedly, some members of Congress supported this policy based on the fact that donors would be subject to disclosure rules that would therefore increase transparency for campaign contributions. (Those who benefitted from the Citizens United decision do not report the identity of donors, thus the appellation “dark money.”)
• A revision of the Dodd-Frank 2010 law that allows banks to use their customers’ federally-guaranteed deposits to buy credit default swaps – those risky derivative deals that partially led to the Great Recession of 2008 – which places taxpayers back in the catbird seat to bail out Wall Street again. As the New York Times suggests in its editorial on December 11, 2014, “Passage of this rider would also signal open season on the rest of the Dodd-Frank reforms when Republicans take control of both houses next year.” It is true that Democrats protected several other provisions of Dodd-Frank that came under attack, but gave in on this provision when Republicans offered to increase funding for the regulatory enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). For this reason alone, a Washington Post editorial on December 16, 2014 placed the Dodd-Frank policy rider in the “category of regrettable, not cataclysmic,” and accounts for the White House’s “complaints” about the rider, but ultimately its acquiescence and willingness to sign the whole spending bill.
• The Dodd-Frank reforms will not be the only target for the next Congress; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also endured extensive budget cuts in the lame duck session in addition to ensuring that a Bush-era rule would continue to allow the mountaintop mining industry to dump toxic waste into Appalachian streams. In the next Congress it will be interesting to see how hard legislators defend the environmental regulations recently issued in September by the EPA reducing the amount of carbon emissions from power plants.
• The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has suffered the harshest cuts of 2015 – almost $346m – which continues its budgetary decline over the past several years, thus weakening its ability to audit the tax returns of the very wealthy who have many protectors among congressional groups.
• Pell Grants – the largest federal grant program for low-income undergraduate students – was cut by $303m. Even though the maximum annual award was increased for the 2015-16 academic year, fewer students will benefit from the government program. The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) points out that the program is projected to face a significant shortfall in FY 2016 and beyond. In the past when shortfalls have occurred, they have caused problems for students. CLASP claims that it is shortsighted to cut Pell Grants now instead of saving the surplus for future leaner years, and also sets a dangerous precedent for the program.
• The Department of Agriculture was also the recipient of several policy riders. Among the negative ones, in our view, are provisions that prohibit the federal government from requiring less salt in the School Lunch Program and allow schools to obtain exemptions from all whole-grain requirements. Michelle Obama, among others, fought hard for tougher nutrition standards, especially relating to sodium. Watering down the revised nutrition standards that were thoroughly debated in the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act of 2010, is uncalled for and a victory for the food industry, whose lobbyists were determined to maintain the profitable status quo. The WIC program also suffered the ignominy of having tougher nutrition standards reversed when it allowed those who qualify for WIC to purchase white potatoes (think French fries) with their government food money.

These are some of the major policy riders that we at NETWORK oppose because they all leave unjust policies in place or produce barriers that impede fairness, such as the non-defense discretionary sequestration spending cuts that have wreaked havoc for those who lack basic living standards. We will continue to push for changes to these and other policies in the 114th Congress to uphold the common good and the dignity of all.