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.

NETWORK strongly believes the federal budget is a moral statement of the priorities of our nation. We analyze budget proposals according to social justice teachings of our faith and call on elected leaders to write and approve budgets that serve all segments of society, particularly those struggling to overcome poverty, with an eye to future generations. The federal budget should aim to build a strong domestic economy and thriving communities for the 100%.

At a time of historic levels of inequality, when a small percentage of families in the U.S. have done incredibly well while so many have struggled with flat wages and are barely getting by, it is imperative that economic policies be enacted to reverse this dangerous and destabilizing trend.

To that end, we applaud the Obama administration’s budget proposal as a valuable first step toward meeting our nation’s obligation to invest in working families while asking those who have benefited most from our economy – often through low taxes on capital gains and tax loopholes – to pay their fair share. The budget is fiscally responsible because it funds important programs that support families and individuals working to become part of the U.S. middle class.

Our economy is strengthened when workers receive wages sufficient to support their families. They need well-paying jobs along with education and training for those jobs.

A well-trained workforce begins in childhood and continues through appropriate preparation for the changing workplace. President Obama’s budget includes increased investment in early childhood education, supports for K-12 students with special needs, and well-trained teachers, particularly in subjects such as science, math and technology. It will also expand Head Start and Early Head Start to more children and for longer duration.

The budget will encourage workers to upgrade their skills as work environments change, offer two years of community college at no cost to responsible students, enact tax reforms to make additional college more affordable, and ensure that Pell Grants keep pace with inflation. Further, it will double registered apprenticeships and fund training in best business practices for entrepreneurs. With these policies, our nation invests in its most valuable resource – people.

In order for parents to hold jobs, they need access to work supports such as safe and affordable child care and the security of paid leave when they or family members are sick. The president’s budget increases availability of child care and provides a tax credit for low- and middle-income families paying for child or dependent care. Middle-class tax credits encouraging work include a “second earner” tax credit, a permanent improved Child Tax Credit, and an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit that helps non-custodial parents and individuals without children. Additionally, State Paid Leave Initiatives are further encouraged through funding for initial set-up to some states.

Expanding the National Network of Manufacturing Institutes, launching the American Made Scale-Up Fund (a public-private investment fund for start-ups), establishing an independent National Infrastructure Bank, and issuing more timely decisions on infrastructure permits will increase the availability of well-paying jobs in the United States. The 2016 budget proposal also provides a 6% increase in research and development investment, particularly in health-related areas. Investment in the Infrastructure Bank will provide well-paying jobs while repairing roads, bridges and public buildings that have languished for over 30 years. Those who make the greatest use of, and profit from, our infrastructure would be asked to take greater responsibility for its upkeep.

Workers and non-workers alike can only be secure when they have an assurance of available and affordable healthcare. The 2016 budget request strengthens the impact of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion.

Children are insecure when they are not in stable housing and school settings. Teachers in low-income schools report that up to 90% of students move and/or change schools within the year. At the end of the year, many of these students have lost rather than gained skills. The president’s budget request improves coordination of resources that enhance community stability and growth by supplementing HUD and Department of Education funding for additional “Promise Zones.”

Some security is also provided by law-enforcement and the military. The president’s budget will increase Homeland Security and Pentagon funding, commensurate with non-defense economic security. The Pentagon base budget would be increased, while the less monitored Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund will be reduced to covering truly extraordinary costs of overseas engagement.

The president’s budget will increase both non-defense and defense spending, but in deliberate and measured ways. It would eliminate the mindless approach called Sequestration – across-the-board cuts that pay no attention to damage caused by cutting individual programs. The House and Senate, on both sides of the aisle, agree that Sequestration is no way to make responsible budgetary decisions about how to enact reasonable cuts and raise sufficient revenue to meet the needs of the 100%.

Overall, we continue to be concerned about the increased Pentagon spending, preferring additional funding for human needs, both foreign and domestic. We know that real security comes when neighbors have their needs met and families have hope for a future. More Pentagon spending is not an effective way forward for our nation and our world.

Sequestration budget cuts have significantly harmed a large numbers of families. Between 2013 and 2015, 57,000 children were unable to be enrolled in Head Start, 100,000 fewer low-income households received rental housing vouchers, and hundreds of thousands of meals were not distributed by Meals-on-Wheels.

Between 2010 and 2015, 136 human-needs programs received cuts. Of these, 51 were cut by at least 15% and 40 by at least one-third. The estimated loss across all human-needs programs from 2010 through 2015 is 16%. These include programs for the elderly and children, education, youth services, home energy assistance, housing, public health, and job training. The budget proposed by the president will go far, but not far enough, in reversing the most critical cuts of the past five years. The damage will increase dramatically if Sequestration is the choice of Congress for 2016.

In reviewing tax proposals, NETWORK applauds the administration’s effort to fund increased investment through reasonable, fair tax increases for wealthy individuals and for corporations that avoid taxation through tax havens overseas. Loopholes supporting tax avoidance by wealthy corporations and individuals are unjust and drain the government of productive revenue. Revenues raised through our tax system should be enough to pay for the public needs of society and set us on a sustainable path to economic growth and stability. These proposals require corporations and wealthy individuals to pay their fair share of taxes.

The administration has chosen to limit tax expenditures to those that promote the common good and create a more equitable, secure society by expanding tax credits. Proposals to help working families, like a permanent and expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and a permanent, refundable Child Tax Credit, are crucially important and benefit 16 million families, including 29 million children each year. These proposals have longstanding bipartisan support and strengthen our society from the ground up.

Sister Simone Campbell, NETWORK’s executive director, has called on our elected leaders to make responsible budget decisions that benefit everyone, not just those who are rich and powerful: “Congress should reject partisan sound bites and get to work for our entire nation. We need to raise reasonable revenue for responsible programs that benefit the 100%. The president’s budget is an important step toward creating an economy of inclusion.”

Wednesday evening, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a budget. The version that ultimately passed by a vote of 228 to 199, had been dubbed “Price 2” after House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA). Seventeen Republicans opposed it along with all Democrats. No bipartisanship there.

In order to achieve passage, Boehner and his top team were forced to use a complicated maneuver called “Queen-of-the-Hill,” but they were successful, unlike nearly all previous attempts this year to gain agreement in the unruly Republican-dominated House. Under “Queen-of-the-Hill,” the House voted on six different budgets and the one with the most votes was declared the winner. “Price 1” had been passed by the House Budget Committee last week; “Price 2” was identical in all respects to “Price 1” except that it increased defense spending by $2 billion. Both versions of the budget were considered the work of Tom Price, although “Price 2” had the blessing of the House leadership.

A third Republican budget, that of the House Republican Study Committee, produced greater deficit reduction than the Price budgets, largely achieved through very deep spending cuts. All three Republican budgets would repeal the Affordable Care Act and produce hundreds of billions in domestic cuts similar to “Price 2.” The winning budget proposal would privatize Medicare for future seniors, turn Medicaid into block grants to the states, and slash other domestic programs that assist the poor and vulnerable people in our society, such as SNAP (formerly known as food stamps), special education, Pell Grants, job training, nutrition, elderly services and housing assistance – and increase military spending.

Price explained that his plan will lead to gradually smaller deficits and is designed to let the states determine social service levels. The latter purpose has been a common refrain in the party for many years, even though from many other programs we know that such logic leads to greater inequity among the states.

All told, this conservative budget would cut spending by $5.5 billion and eliminate the deficits over the next decade, which the deficit hawks in the party have made their clarion call. The budget resolution also includes “reconciliation” language that orders House committees to draft legislation repealing the Affordable Care Act. The real issue here is that a reconciliation repeal bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate and needs only a majority vote to pass. However, whether the Senate, in conference, would agree to this point is an unknown.

Many Republican lawmakers, according to Politico, just want a reconciliation process with the Senate, so that together they could send an Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal bill to President Obama.

Three Democratic House budget proposals were also considered on Wednesday – those of the House Democratic leadership, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus. These three plans all focused on improving growth, investing more funding in domestic programs, which have been starved for funds due especially to sequestration over the past few years, and raising taxes largely by closing current loopholes in tax law. None of these blueprints garnered votes outside the Democratic Party.

Floor Debate on the Budget in the House

During the House floor debate, Republicans vowed to shrink the government’s reach, balance the budget and start paying down the federal deficit – all without raising taxes – positions we are all familiar with. They scarcely mentioned how the severity of their cuts and the policy changes they are proposing would affect poor and even middle-class families. Instead, much of the discussion on the Republican side revealed the split between the defense hawks and the deficit hawks. There was nothing bipartisan about the floor debate

The New York Times clarified on March 26 how discomfited the Democrats were with the tenor of the debate. Speaking for many of his fellow Democrats, Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD), the House’s No. 2 Democrat, accused Republicans of “mercilessly gutting priority investments in education, job training, innovation, research and other priorities of this nation…This budget is a severe disinvestment in America’s future.”

The fact that House defense hawks inserted extra military spending into the Overseas Contingency Fund (OCO), which is reserved for emergencies overseas, ensures that the Defense Department may have more than it wanted in war funding and less than it needs for basic operations. President Obama’s FY 2016 budget, with a defense component nearly as large as that of the Republican budget, ignored the strict caps on military spending set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and added funding to the basic Pentagon budget. Adding funding through the OCO allows the GOP to avoid violating spending caps, although this did not convince the deficit hawks that the deficit was uppermost in the minds of the defense hawks.

Expectations in the Senate Budget

As I am writing this blog, the Senate is debating its own version of the budget, which may continue well into Friday, March 27, a process that has been called a “Vote-A-Rama.” Under this procedure, scores of amendments will be voted on consecutively with merely a two-minute explanation of the content. So far the Senate has voted on several amendments, and none has altered the basic budget written by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (WY). This document is broadly similar to that of the House-passed budget. Many of the unlimited number of amendments that are part of “Vote-A-Rama” are not even budget-related but are politically-oriented and intended to be used aggressively for Senate campaigns.

Politico also reports that the Senate began voting on aspects of the budget on March 24 when they defeated a Democratic proposal on infrastructure improvements over the next six years to be paid by closing corporate loopholes. That same day, Republicans forced a purely political vote on President Obama’s FY 2016 budget that was defeated overwhelmingly, with most Democrats joining in, 1-98. Democrats had previously expressed their preferences for competing bills, e.g., those of the Congressional Progressive Caucus or the Congressional Black Caucus. Of course, this vote was simply symbolic.

A Few Caveats

It is important to note that budget resolutions are non-binding blueprints that neither carry the force of law nor are officially submitted to the executive for approval or veto. They merely set overall spending levels for the coming fiscal year. However, as we see in the Republican Budget that just passed, they often generate binding legislation by including reconciliation instructions. In addition, if the Senate and House are able to reconcile similar yet competing versions of their blueprints, then having a final budget can ease passage of future legislation.

The Associated Press in U.S. News online quotes White House press secretary Josh Earnest as saying that President Obama will reject any budget that locks in deep spending cuts or increases funding for national security without providing matching increases in “economic security” funding. The president has also vowed to defend the healthcare law that is his signature domestic achievement. The House has already voted over 60 times to repeal it in whole or in part. However, now (since November 2014) they have a Senate partner who will back them up.

Problems in the House Republican Budget (FY 2016)

There is much in the FY 2016 Republican budget blueprint to challenge. Responding to the needs of people who have been marginalized and lifting families out of poverty are twin concerns that are nonexistent in the document. Where are the special protections for the most vulnerable Americans?

The overall revenue and expenditure levels do not ensure that 100% within the U.S. can live in dignity; surely not after severe cuts in Medicaid, job training, nutrition, SNAP and the many current domestic programs that will either cease to exist or be gutted to only a semblance of their former selves.

The 100% are not paying their fair share of taxes. The very wealthy are too often excused from the requirement to promote the common good. Moreover, there is no attempt in this budget to create a more equitable and secure society by expanding tax credits to low-income taxpayers. The distribution of resources in this budget does not enable people to help themselves or others. In fact, it is hard to avoid seeing a sinful social structure being erected in the place of a sense of social responsibility. Where are the human rights of the most vulnerable among us enshrined?

The drastic cuts proposed for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid do not meet the affordability and accessibility criteria that have been used by anyone remotely interested in the healthcare field, let alone the most vulnerable among us. And repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without any alternative being proposed defies concern for the 16.4 million Americans who are currently receiving healthcare benefits through the ACA.

No wonder that Catholic advocates like NETWORK, Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Relief Services, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and the National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, along with the Coalition of Human Needs and many others, are pressing Congress to focus more on vulnerable people as they develop their budget plans.

The March 23 issue of Catholic Courier online reminds us of the USCCB letter of Feb. 27 to each member of Congress in which they reiterated that a budget is a moral document and that the needs of poor people are significant. Other individual bishops have written that a budget requires the shared sacrifice of all; that adequate revenues must be raised and unnecessary spending on the military should be eliminated. Most importantly, Congress must address the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.

Sister Richelle Friedman, director of public policy at the Coalition on Human Needs, and Sister Marge Clark, a NETWORK lobbyist, said the needs of poor and vulnerable people were being pushed aside in the budget plans. Sister Richelle called the House budget “morally bankrupt…[R]ather than strengthening America for all who are currently being left behind, if elements of the budget were to become law it would be devastating to those vulnerable people.”

As the appropriations process advances this spring and summer, we must continue to urge Congress to enact or enhance programs that truly lift people out of poverty. And their dignity and human rights should be emphasized in meaningful ways.

Unfortunately, both the Senate and the House have proposed budgets for Fiscal Year 2016 that would drastically cut critical programs that have successfully helped people survive and move out of dire poverty—programs like Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), low-income tax credits and, of course, the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In addition, painful cuts are also proposed for education, housing, child care, Head Start, home energy assistance, meals for seniors, and many others on the domestic side of the budget. There is no need to make foolish and unsustainable cuts in the area of human needs and then add funding to an already well-funded military.

Emily Badger, a blogger for The Washington Post, calls our attention to the “double standard” that makes low-income people prove that they are worthy of government benefits, while the rest of the population, who receive four times as many benefits through farm subsidies, student loans and mortgage tax breaks, to name a few, feel that they receive nothing from the government.

The states of Missouri and Kansas are each trying to impose unprecedented restrictions on major federal programs for low-income workers. In the Missouri legislature, one infamous proposal is an attempt to ban purchases of cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood and steak using food stamps. Not only does this proposal demonstrate an effort to criminalize people in poverty, but it also exhibits a lack of understanding about the food stamp program and how little the SNAP program actually pays the 46.5 million Americans who receive them. The average of about $33 per week is hardly enough to feed one person for a week, let alone a family. On this meager allotment (already cut in 2013) it is nearly impossible to purchase anything fancy or non-essential. According to 2013 figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the food stamp program has an extremely low fraud rate – about 1 % over the last 15 years.

Many in the Missouri legislature, who are debating this bill, seem to lack an understanding of the types of pressures low-income families feel. Their choices may be: should I pay the rent or buy my child a pair of shoes for school? Not whether I should buy steak or lobster. The Center for American Progress (CAP) is right on target when they say that increasing the incomes for families who use SNAP should lift people out of poverty; then they won’t need SNAP benefits.

We need not worry that Missouri will be able to pass their proposal because the USDA does not allow bans other than their own on what those using SNAP may buy. It is doubtful that Missouri would acquiesce in a complete dismantling of their food stamp program by attacking the USDA standards.

Kansas, on the other hand, is attempting to curtail welfare (now called TANF or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) recipients from using their benefits at movie theaters, nail salons, pools and spas, liquor stores, jewelry stores, casinos and racing facilities, tattoo and piercing parlors, cruise ships and other locations. But the same lack of common sense prevails. Their proposal also imposes hard caps on the length of time recipients can receive benefits. Kansas, under Governor Sam Brownback, has already put in place changes that have led to more than 23,000 persons leaving the TANF program despite a steadily increasing poverty rate in the state.

Here the problem is quite different than that of the SNAP program. When federal welfare reform was enacted in the 1990s, states were given wide leeway to set up their TANF programs.

This reform means that states have considerable latitude to propose changes to TANF.

Think Progress, an offshoot of CAP, makes a couple of significant points about TANF today. The organization says that today only 26% of eligible poor families receive welfare, down from 72% in 1996. In addition, Think Progress says that the state of Maine examined the amount of abuse in TANF and found that less than 1% of all purchases with TANF funds were made at bars, sports bars or strip clubs, and there is no way to know what was bought.

One has to ask what is the point of these restrictions? It would appear that, as Emily Badger maintains in her blog, those who are poor and vulnerable are being forced to prove they’re worthy of government benefits. In other words, there is now a double standard for them that doesn’t exist for those who receive other types of government benefits.

Oregon is proposing that people on SNAP be unable to buy “junk food,” while several other states are considering drug-testing TANF recipients. With respect to Oregon’s proposal – federal reports have consistently found that people on food stamps are less likely to imbibe sugary drinks or eat salty snacks than those with higher incomes. Also, data on drug use do not demonstrate that poor people are more prolific users of drugs than those who do not receive TANF. In fact, what data do exist demonstrate that the opposite is the case. Again, one is forced to conclude that the real purpose is to make explicit the government benefits received by low-income people by showcasing a few egregious examples of waste, fraud or abuse, while the benefits enjoyed by the rest of us are kept intact.

Those with a more sinister bent of mind might conclude that the real purpose of these proposals is to make government aid for people at the economic margins as onerous as possible, a throwback to the Victorian era. Or perhaps this season is merely a dress rehearsal for worse to come in the area of human needs.

Emily Badger draws attention to the work of the Cornell political scientist Suzanne Mettler, who showed in her 2011 book, The Submerged State, how invisible government policies actually undermine democracy by making Americans hostile to the common good as well as to government benefits as a general principle, even though upper-income people receive numerous government “goodies.” Mettler called this the “submerged state.”

Medicare benefits and tuition and healthcare tax breaks that middle and high-income people receive are less visible than the federal subsidies for low-income people. One result of this reality is that it compels many Americans to be less tolerant of programs that assist low-income people. Such submerged policies obscure the role of government and exaggerate that of the private sector. They also conceal the massive advantages given to powerful interests and the most affluent Americans. All of this tends to exacerbate inequality. As Ms. Badger says, “We begrudge them their housing vouchers, for instance, even though government spends about four times as much subsidizing housing for upper-income homeowners.”

This blog was called “Everyone paying a fair share of taxes should yield a budget that supports the common good,” indicating that, as we approach federal income tax day on April 15, we all should be gratified to pay our taxes since the government requires reasonable revenue to support its needs. One of government’s vital concerns that is easy for some to overlook is to promote the common good, and that means providing a more equitable and secure society for those less fortunate than middle and upper-income people.

We need a budget that focuses on the human needs of all Americans. For those living in or near poverty, we believe that government must strengthen its social safety net. We also believe that it is not helpful to draw useless distinctions among those who receive government benefits, as this blog has described, although we believe more largesse is needed for people who are poor and vulnerable and less for the middle- and upper-income groups.

NETWORK advocates for low-income working families by supporting all entitlement programs, such as SNAP, TANF, Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP (Child Health Insurance Program); discretionary programs including the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children), housing, child care for low-income workers, and greater income equality starting with raising the minimum wage to a “living wage.” We’ve already made clear in other places our position on wasteful military spending and the elimination of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding.

These positions flow from our belief in economic equity, which requires valuing the worth and dignity of every person and ensuring that all people share the benefits of our economic activities, which is just another way of saying that we will always promote the common good. If we believe and support the latter then it follows logically that the budget we support must provide the essential needs of our communities, ensure the safe and healthy development of families and individuals, and support those who are most vulnerable due to unemployment, sickness, old age and poverty. We insist on a level playing field for all individuals, families and communities so that each may access resources allowing them to contribute their time, treasure and talent for the betterment of the common good.

The Senate Budget Proposal passed just before members left for their two-week Passover/Easter Recess. Although much of this proposal, as well as the one passed by the House, is devastating to people of low- or middle-income, there are some bright spots in amendments that were approved with votes from both parties. These are nonbinding, but there is hope they might be included in the final Joint Budget Resolution and be brought to reality through appropriations. They include items that NETWORK has been working on:

• Paid Sick Leave (passed 61-39) to improve workplace benefits and reduce healthcare costs. Would allow workers to earn paid sick time for themselves or to care for ill family members. Workers in higher paid fields expect and receive this! But, most of your food service workers are required to work when ill, take unpaid leave – or perhaps lose their jobs.
• Ending Discrimination Against Pregnant Workers (passed 100-0). Recall the current Supreme Court case involving the UPS worker who could not get a position lifting lighter packages – although someone with another illness could.
• Middle Class Tax Cuts (passed 73 – 27)  include the extension and expansion of the refundable tax credits such as the Working Families Tax Relief Act, American Opportunity Tax Credit, and the Helping Working Families Afford Child Care Act. There are other middle class tax cuts we strongly support, but were not named in this amendment: making permanent, with the 2009 improvements, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Hopefully, these will be taken up and passed.

As Senate conferees begin to meet with House conferees it is important that these items are kept on the table.

It is intriguing to review the messages of the Faithful Budget to our nation’s leaders in light of the House and Senate budgets for FY 2016 released last month. Recall that the “Faithful Budget” requests them to craft a federal budget that

• Fulfills our shared duty to each other in all segments of society
• Serves the common good
• Robustly funds support for poor and vulnerable people in this land of immense wealth
• Allows each person to live a life of dignity free from hunger and poverty
• Supports an economy that generates sufficient jobs at fair wages, so that everyone has the opportunity to improve his or her economic condition
• Advances fiscal responsibility while increasing support for those who are poor and vulnerable
• Focuses on job creation and economic revitalization
• Produces a tax system based on fairness
• Makes long-term investments required to help those most in need to build assets

House and Senate Budget Proposals for FY 2016 Run Counter to the Faithful Budget

Yet, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) points out in its March 23 analysis of congressional budget plans, both the House and Senate (their budgets are similar, though not identical) cut more than $3 trillion over 10 years (2016-2025) from programs that serve people of limited means – roughly 70% of the cuts to non-defense spending, even though these programs constitute less than 25% of federal program costs. The overall impact of the GOP budgets is to vastly increase economic inequality, negatively impacting those in the middle class and devastating the lives and hopes of those below or near the poverty level. The Faithful Budget’s admonition on our shared duty to each other and our responsibility for the common good has been totally ignored.

These extensive cuts run the gamut of key programs that support moderate and low-income people: healthcare, Head Start and other early interventions for children, job training, SNAP (food stamps), Pell Grants, and other mandatory (i.e. entitlement) programs that are unspecified, but may include child nutrition and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for elderly and disabled people in poverty. In addition, more than 13 million families would see an average benefit cut of $1,073 through reductions to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which would expire after 2017.

The CBPP report calls the cuts in the congressional budget plans “strikingly imbalanced,” and those of us who support the Faithful Budget would give an even harsher assessment of the documents.

“Tax Minimization”

We are currently living through a period of “tax minimization,” both corporate and individual, in which, as a society, we tolerate and often desire to derive benefit from tax laws that shift payment for shared governance to those who have less ability to underwrite their costs. We then allow the wealthiest among us to share in the benefits of American society but avoid payment of their fair share. The Faithful Budget is very clear that fair taxation is a key responsibility that everyone bears in order to provide adequate revenue for maintaining the common good. This public investment ensures that equitable public policies will ensue and they, in turn, will strengthen our democracy.

Even public opinion polls indicate that our system of taxation is skewed toward the wealthy. In examining how the congressional budget proposals stack up against Americans’ priorities, the National Priorities Project in their March 19 research article note that:

• 68% of Americans think wealthy households don’t pay enough in taxes
• 91% think middle-class households pay enough or too much in taxes
• 79% think low-income households pay enough or too much in taxes
• 66% think corporations pay too little in taxes.

In addition, 64% say reducing the budget deficit is a top priority for Congress and the president. (Several of these polls are Gallup Polls).

Neither the House nor the Senate budget raises new revenue for deficit reduction or for investments in infrastructure or other examples of the common good. It would appear that deficit reduction will be paid for by average Americans rather than by corporations or the wealthy, since no corporate or individual loopholes are closed in either budget. Although both budgets call for comprehensive tax reform, each also calls for the reduction of the top corporate rate from 35% to 25% and for reduced individual income tax rates – two brackets (10% and 25%) are proposed.

The House proposal further eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax that ensures that high earners who use multiple loopholes are paying at least some income taxes, but the Senate proposal is silent on this issue.

The Faithful Budget, on the other hand, reinstates a just tax system, including investment in the economic wellbeing of the nation, while protecting those of limited means. The Faithful Budget believes that this type of policy will best serve to reduce the long-term deficit because it is based on fairness and shared commitment.

How Does the FY 2016 Budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Correspond to the Principles of the Faithful Budget?

More in line with the principles of the Faithful Budget are those of the FY 2016 budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). As in previous years, the CPC solicited the assistance of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in analyzing and scoring the CPC’s policy proposals and in determining their impact on the federal deficit over the next decade.

Unlike the House and Senate budget proposals, the CPC’s proposals clearly aim to improve the economic wellbeing of the working class by:

• Accelerating job growth, especially through infrastructure improvement and other public investments (finances $528 billion in job creation and investment measures in 2015 alone and almost three times that level in the following two years)
• Facilitating economic opportunity for all segments of the population through expanding tax credits and incentivizing employers to create new jobs
• Strengthening social insurance and the social safety net, not by reducing benefits, but by reducing costs – for example, using government purchasing power to lower healthcare costs, building on efficiency savings from the ACA, and increasing funding for education, training, employment and income security programs
• Cutting spending, first by reducing the military budget, and then slowing its growth over the next decade, and ending the Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funding, which has been tantamount to a slush fund
• Emphasizing fairness in the tax code by requiring the wealthy to pay somewhat higher rates, eliminating some of the most egregious corporate income tax loopholes, equalizing the treatment of capital income and labor income, and levying a financial transactions tax, among other examples
• Targeting a sustainable debt level of 66% of GDP by FY2025.

Specifically, the CPC

• Zeroes in on corporate tax evaders by preventing companies from avoiding U.S. tax through “inversions” – legally but not actually moving overseas, as well as preventing corporations from avoiding taxes on any profits held overseas. By creating a sales tax on financial transactions, the CPC proposes to raise $921 billion over 10 years
• Focuses on tax fairness for the wealthy by raising rates by 2% for those earning more than $250,000 annually; brings the tax rates on capital gains back to the level of pre-2001; and, places a cap on the value of itemized deductions that mostly benefit the wealthy
• Maintains current tax rates for those earning less than $250,000 per year; creates a new “hard work” tax credit and expands slightly eligibility for the EITC, including childless workers; and, triples the maximum child care tax credit to $3,000 per child.
• Reduces deficits of $3.4 trillion over 10 years by increasing both spending and revenues (www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/competing-visions-2015/).

This brief journey through the CPC document should clarify why it is closer to the principles of the Faithful Budget on taxation than are the GOP budget proposals.

Evaluating Other Budget Proposals against the Principles of the Faithful Budget

Finally, to assess any budget proposal relating to the federal tax code, it is helpful to ask these questions?

1. Does the budget raise sufficient revenues to meet the needs of all segments of the population?
2. Does it call for shared responsibility among all individuals and corporations?
3. Does it provide adequate income assistance and related services to workers and their families who need it?
4. Does it strengthen and/or expand help for low-income workers with children?
5. Does it provide incentives for people to pursue or maintain employment, develop their human potential, invest in their financial security, achieve self-sufficiency and increase earnings?
6. Does it promote the common good by supporting public programs that provide what markets cannot do well, including education at all levels, affordable housing, healthcare, and security for vulnerable groups such as children, immigrants, and people who are elderly and disabled?
7. Does it eliminate wasteful or inefficient tax loopholes and tax expenditures in both the individual and corporate spheres?
8. Does it promote intergenerational responsibility?
9. Does it work simply so that taxpayers can easily understand the rules and comply with them?