Good Monday morning!
Greetings, fellow Dot Calm Readers, Freedom Fighters, and Truth Crusaders!
How fortuitous--I had a few minutes here this lovely Sunday morning to get a jump on Wednesday's post...and I ended up with enough to sneak in a post first thing today--w00t! Scroll down for all teh goodiez.
Don't forget to read Dot Calm's shadow's favorite independent sources of news and information:
Daily Kos
AlterNet
Peas, friends. Take care of yourselves for me. You're worth it!
- Dot Calm's shadow
Consider the preemptive Blogger phuqued-up phormatting disclaimer to be in effect. Grrr.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
********************************************
********************************************
********************************************
********************************************
Because I didn't have my usual choo-choo time (I take the train to work) to read my favorite online news for todaze post, I'm posting a few full articles here instead of headlines. Mostly, I'm flipping the bird to my Tea Party Christian friend's inaccurate world views, where it's just hunkey dokey for the average family to pay thousands of dollars per year in corporate welfare but not maybe $50 per year for food stamps. He has no problem forking over his hard-earned money to the already-bloatedly rich, but he'll be damned if he gives a penny to help someone he doesn't personally know get enough food to survive in difficult times. Nor does he think Wal-Mart, which hands out food stamp applications with your new job forms, should have to pay enough to keep its workers alive. No living wage, no food stamps. Apparently, he believes John Hagee and his other favorite televangelists who claim that poor people are poor because they're evil--so it's perfectly good and godly to let them just die. Oh, he's far too politically correct to say so out loud, but if one examines what he says, it is crystal clear that's what he thinks. On top of that, be buys the FUX Noise lies about rampant food stamp fraud and people who are not working or poor living high on the hog by using food stamps for lobster and steak. My poor friend's inability to listen to what he says (I gno, right?) and to think about what he thinks and why he thinks it is one of many reasons I think evangelical Christianity is just plain evil. It takes religion to fool yourself into mistaking such utter cruelty for godly compassion and brotherly love.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
How much do we actually pay per year for food stamps? "Just Harvest" says 2% in 2012.
There is a lot of false information out there about food stamps and the people who receive them. It’s important to separate the common myths and misconceptions from the truth about food stamps — such as, just who are those 1 in 7 of our neighbors who rely on them?
Legislators at both the federal and state level – typically self-described conservatives – regularly try to place limits on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or “food stamps”). In recent years, they have tried to cut food stamp funding at every opportunity. They propose rules to humiliate and demonize recipients of food stamps and other welfare programs, which they claim create a “culture of dependency.”The fight continues to protect food assistance benefits as the first line of defense against both hunger and poverty. A key part of this is making sure people understand how the food stamps program works, who it helps, and how much it costs.
So let’s get to it.
Can anyone can get food stamps, settle back, and live high off the hog?
You’ve likely heard stories (and outrage) about people using food stamps to purchase “steak and lobster” as well as cigarettes and alcohol, showing up at the grocery store in a nice car, nice clothes, a nice purse or an iPhone. The food stamps benefit amount is set by the U.S. Congress and is on average roughly $4 a day per person. Yes, someone could save up their monthly allotment to buy some high-priced food items for a special occasion. (Prepared foods and anything that’s not food is not allowed.) They are likely eating rice and beans and peanut butter sandwiches – and going hungry – the rest of the month as result.Moreover, many people living in poverty fell into it through job loss, the loss of a partner or spouse, or a major illness or accident. They will maintain appearances and hold onto their nice things for as long as they can afford to.
They must be poor.
The U.S. Congress sets the rules and the funding for the food stamp program, and then states administer it. To be eligible for food stamps generally you must be at or below 130% of federal poverty level guidelines that determine whether you are considered to be living in poverty due to your household’s income and size. For a family of three, the poverty line used to calculate food stamps benefits as of 2016 is $1,675 a month. Thus, 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,177 a month, or about $26,100 a year.Some people aren’t eligible for food stamps regardless of income, such as all undocumented immigrants, certain legal immigrants, and individuals who are on strike. States can also opt in to federal rules on food stamps eligibility, by requiring asset tests, or create their own, like barring those who fail drug tests or with prior criminal offenses.
And they must be working.
In 1996, President Clinton and Congress put in place work requirements for unemployed food stamps recipients. Able-bodied people without dependents can only receive food stamps for 3 months in a 3-year period unless they are working or engaged in job training, education, or community service for a certain number of hours each week. (This rule was suspended during the recent economic recession but will be back in place in most of Pennsylvania as of March 1, 2016.)Now that you know the basic rules (more info here on eligibility, what you can buy with food stamps, and how to apply), let’s address common complaints and questions about the food stamps program:
Should the U.S. be spending so much on food stamps?
- 83% of all SNAP/food stamp benefits go to households with a child, senior, or disabled person. Most food stamp recipients are children and the elderly. Are these the people we want to turn our backs on?
- Legislators complain that food stamp spending in recent years has reached record highs. So has defense spending, but they justify that based on our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shouldn’t there be a war on hunger?
- Food stamp spending is a tiny fraction of overall government spending—just 2% in 2012. We spent 19% of the U.S. budget that year on defense.
- Unlike our overseas engagements, the food stamps program is highly efficient in terms of bang for the tax-payers’ bucks: it reaches the majority of people who need it and has been shown to help lift 4.7 million people out of poverty (reducing child poverty by 3%), thereby reducing those societal costs.
- Each dollar spent in food stamp benefits generates nearly double that in local economic activity.
- The majority of Americans have consistently supported the food stamp program and think cutting it is the wrong way to reduce government spending.
In fact, we’re not spending enough on food stamps.
The need for food assistance is greater than food stamps can fill, and the benefit amount is too low to allow a family to purchase an adequate, healthy diet.- The average monthly food stamp benefit per person is only $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal.
- Between 2009-2011 the purchasing power of food stamps declined by about 7%, or $47/month for a family of four, due to inflation in the cost of food.
- Only 55% of food insecure individuals are income-eligible for food stamps, and 29% are not income-eligible for any federal food assistance.
Why has food stamp enrollment grown?
Participation in SNAP/food stamps increased by 70% between 2007 and 2011 due to the economic recession. With unemployment high and wages not keeping up with the costs of living, food stamp participation will rise. But food stamp enrollment is already significantly decreasing as the economy and employment rates improve.Food stamp recipients are not lazy.
Most food stamp recipients are senior citizens on a reduced income, people with disabilities, or working families with children who are not making enough to cover rent, heating, health care costs, and other necessary expenses, including food.The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one able-bodied adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP, and more than 80 percent worked in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. These rates are even higher for families with children.
Food stamp enrollment has NOT grown due to widespread fraud and abuse of the program.
Despite such allegations, the USDA, which administers SNAP/food stamps, and the GAO, an independent federal agency charged with auditing and evaluating government programs, have definitively shown such arguments to be false. Furthermore, there is much less fraud in the food stamp program than the hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud in the farm programs that other members of Congress seem determined to protect.Is food stamp spending smart?
According to a recent White House report,A growing body of high-quality research shows that SNAP is highly effective at reducing food insecurity, and in turn has important short-run and long-run benefits for low-income families. SNAP’s benefits are especially evident and wide-ranging for those who receive food assistance as children; they extend beyond the immediate goal of alleviating hunger and include improvements in short-run health and academic performance as well as in long-run health, educational attainment, and economic self-sufficiency.”Additionally, spending on food assistance has been shown to help the economy more than any other stimulus spending. Each $1 of federal food stamp benefits generates an estimated $1.80 in economic activity because those dollars go to people living paycheck to paycheck who will turn around and spend them immediately.
Why are any cuts morally wrong?
Despite broad public support for a strong safety net, Congress is telling Americans that the richest country on the planet can afford tax cuts to corporations but must tighten its belt by cutting programs that help vulnerable citizens. Legislators should not shrink deficits by increasing human misery and suffering, especially when one in seven Americans live in poverty.
------------------------------------------------
How much do we actually pay per year for corporate welfare? In 2013, the Federalist, which is not exactly liberal, said it was at least $2,400 per average family.
Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare
It's worse than you think.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Common Dreams’ criticisms and math do eventually veer into confused, anti-business mumbo-jumbo, but here’s what they get exactly right:
If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.
As correct and important as these points are, however, the well-meaning lefties at Common Dreams go off the rails a bit when they try to add other line items to US taxpayers’ tab. For example, they bemoan “$350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees”, despite the obvious fact these management fees are the simple cost of the fund management services provided. Investors have a choice as to whether to pay this fee or invest their money elsewhere, and government certainly isn’t forcing them to do so (unlike the subsidies above). Lumping in together these voluntary transactions with government-forced wealth transfers is like comparing anti-cronyism apples and with anti-capitalism oranges. And any government-backed effort to end such fees would require laws and regulations from the same folks who happily provided all those subsidies to their Big Business buddies. Think that’ll work out well for Mom, Dad and Timmy? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
The Common Dreams folks also add in “$1,231 for Revenue Losses from Corporate Tax Havens” because “the average 2012 taxpayer paid an extra $1,026 in taxes to make up for the revenue lost from offshore tax havens by corporations and wealthy individuals”. However, unlike the tax subsidies above, “tax havens” are actually a lawful check on, rather than a gift from, Big Government. And tax offshoring is primarily the unintended consequence of bad tax policy (especially the United States’ high corporate tax rates and failure to follow most other industrialized nations by switching to a “territorial” tax system), rather than the intended result of misguided corporate welfare policies. Indeed, the best way to stop tax offshoring it to create a simple system with rules and rates that don’t encourage such behavior.
Finally, there’s one glaring omission from Common Dreams’ list: protectionism, which, as I explained in a 2011 Cato paper, forces American consumers to subsidizes domestic corporations by taxing imports and raising domestic prices of the taxed goods and services:
That said, the fact that Common Dreams got a few things wrong shouldn’t overshadow the fundamental truth that corporate welfare is most definitely a real and important problem for the American families who are forced to provide it. Subsidies are also an increasingly bipartisan issue which resonates with anti-corporatist folks on the left and limited government, free market folks on the right. As such, a campaign against corporate welfare provides an excellent political opportunity for a free market populist politician to build a new left/right coalition to challenge corporatist/statist status quo that currently infects Capitol Hill and state houses across the country. A necessary first step to any such endeavor, however, is properly distinguishing between real subsidy problems and misguided populist claptrap. Only then can some smart politician develop policies and positions that will finally rid us of our self-interested “public servants” whose exit from government is long overdue.
1. $870 for Direct Subsidies and Grants to Companies. The Cato Institute estimates that the U.S. federal government spends $100 billion a year on corporate welfare. That’s an average of $870 for each one of America’s 115 million families.This is definitely (and depressingly) correct: as I noted in my 2012 Cato paper on global subsidy reform, the US government provides myriad taxpayer-funded benefits to agribusiness, green energy, automobile manufacturers, and whole host of other US businesses. Even worse, the $100 billion figure is up significantly (about $10 billion) over the last two budget-strapped years.
2. $696 for Business Incentives at the State, County, and City Levels. A New York Times investigation found that states, counties and cities give up over $80 billion each year to companies… $696 for every U.S. family.Again, 100% correct, and this is actually one area in which state competition harms taxpayers, as politicians from different states compete with each other to woo corporations by offering them buckets of other people’s money.
6. $870 for Corporate Tax Subsidies…. [T]he Tax Foundation has concluded that their ‘special tax provisions’ cost taxpayers over $100 billion per year, or $870 per family. Corporate benefits include items such as Graduated Corporate Income, Inventory Property Sales, Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, Accelerated Depreciation, and Deferred taxes.Yep, and they also include all those green energy tax breaks quietly thrown into last year’s Fiscal Cliff deal. Wouldn’t you say it’s time for a simpler, fairer, more globally-competitive corporate tax code?
As correct and important as these points are, however, the well-meaning lefties at Common Dreams go off the rails a bit when they try to add other line items to US taxpayers’ tab. For example, they bemoan “$350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees”, despite the obvious fact these management fees are the simple cost of the fund management services provided. Investors have a choice as to whether to pay this fee or invest their money elsewhere, and government certainly isn’t forcing them to do so (unlike the subsidies above). Lumping in together these voluntary transactions with government-forced wealth transfers is like comparing anti-cronyism apples and with anti-capitalism oranges. And any government-backed effort to end such fees would require laws and regulations from the same folks who happily provided all those subsidies to their Big Business buddies. Think that’ll work out well for Mom, Dad and Timmy? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
The Common Dreams folks also add in “$1,231 for Revenue Losses from Corporate Tax Havens” because “the average 2012 taxpayer paid an extra $1,026 in taxes to make up for the revenue lost from offshore tax havens by corporations and wealthy individuals”. However, unlike the tax subsidies above, “tax havens” are actually a lawful check on, rather than a gift from, Big Government. And tax offshoring is primarily the unintended consequence of bad tax policy (especially the United States’ high corporate tax rates and failure to follow most other industrialized nations by switching to a “territorial” tax system), rather than the intended result of misguided corporate welfare policies. Indeed, the best way to stop tax offshoring it to create a simple system with rules and rates that don’t encourage such behavior.
Finally, there’s one glaring omission from Common Dreams’ list: protectionism, which, as I explained in a 2011 Cato paper, forces American consumers to subsidizes domestic corporations by taxing imports and raising domestic prices of the taxed goods and services:
At their core, trade barriers are the triumph of coercion and politics over free choice and economics. Trade barriers are the result of productive resources being diverted to achieve political ends and, in the process, taxing unsuspecting consumers to line the pockets of the special interests that succeeded in enlisting the weight of the government on their side. Protectionism is akin to earmarks, but it comes out of the hides of American families and businesses instead of the general treasury.The US Customs and Border Patrol collected about $40 billion in duties, taxes and fees on imports in FY 2012 – translating to about $348 per US family in needless taxes on food, clothing and other items. And, of course, this bill doesn’t include the higher prices that American families must pay due to these barriers. Any list of corporate welfare is incomplete without this forcible redistribution of wealth from American consumers to a well-connected cabal of domestic manufacturers and unions.
------------------------------------------------
Here is an article from Forbes--Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?--that gives totals rather than what individual families pay to enrich the already-rich
I recently read the February 24 Good Jobs First report, “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent,” by Philip Mattera, a respected thought leader in our business. It says that three-quarters of all state economic development subsidies went to just 965 corporations since the beginning of the study in 1976. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks.
Think about that. The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole. Where is the outrage? Back when I was young, people went into a frenzy at the thought of some unemployed person using food stamps to buy liquor or cigarettes. Ronald Reagan famously campaigned against welfare queens. The right has always been obsessed with moochers. But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks.
According to Good Jobs First, there are 514 economic development programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. More than 245,000 awards have been granted under those programs. I ask again, where is the outrage? The system is antithetical to the idea of free markets. A quarter of a million times, state governments decided what is best for producers and consumers. That should make us cringe. First, the government is inefficient at providing public goods, and it is terrible at manipulating the markets for private goods. But more importantly, those 514 economic development programs are almost all the result of insidious cronyism. Narrow business interests manipulate government policymakers, and those interests prosper to the detriment of everyone else. Free markets be damned.
And while I’m looking for outrage, where are the liberals?
[Editor's note: doncha just love this guy's gratuitous jab at us lefties? Truth is, we've been here howling the whole time, d00d--you just didn't look hard enough. Sux to be you!]
The 965 companies in the report received over $110 billion of public money. Berkshire Hathaway, a company with $485 billion in assets and $20 billion in profits, received over $1 billion of that money. Its chair, Warren Buffett, is worth about $58 billion. Buffett, by the way, is still a darling of the left. He has some nerve to call for higher taxes. The billion dollars his companies took would pay for a lot of teachers, healthcare, and other public goods.
I don’t blame the corporations. They act rationally. If someone gives you $1 billion, you take it. The blame lies with us. The sheer size of the corporate welfare system should spark outrage whether we are conservatives, liberals, or libertarians. And that outrage should be reflected in how we vote. In the meantime, kudos to Good Jobs First for continuing to highlight this problem.
------------------------------------------------
Where
Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?
UPDATED March 4, 2016
The federal government collects taxes to finance various public services. As policymakers and citizens weigh key decisions about revenues and expenditures, it is instructive to examine what the government does with the money it collects.
In fiscal year 2015, the federal government spent $3.7 trillion, amounting to 21 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $3.7 trillion, over $3.2 trillion was financed by federal revenues. The remaining amount ($438 billion) was financed by borrowing. As the chart below shows, three major areas of spending each make up about one-fifth of the budget:
Oops--this chart doesn't reliably make it across on my browser, and I don't have time to fix it right now. If you see an empty box instead of a chart, click the link in the title and check out the chart--thanks!
-- Dot Calm's shadow
While critics often decry “government spending,” it is important to look beyond the rhetoric and determine whether the actual public services that government provides are valuable. To the extent that such services are worth paying for, the only way to do so is ultimately with tax revenue. Consequently, when thinking about the costs that taxes impose, it is essential to balance those costs against the benefits the nation receives from public services.
We based our estimates of spending in fiscal year 2015 on the most recent historical data released by the Office of Management and Budget. (Federal fiscal year 2015 ran from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015.)
The broad expenditure categories presented in this paper were constructed on the basis of classifications commonly used by budget agencies. The categories are constructed by grouping related programs and activities into broad functions, which are further broken down into subfunctions. The details of how the categories used in this paper were constructed from those functions and subfunctions are described below.
Social Security:
This category consists of all expenditures in the Social Security function (650), including benefits and administrative costs.
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies:
This category consists of the Medicare function (570), including benefits, administrative costs, and premiums, as well as the “Grants to States for Medicaid” account, the “Children’s health insurance fund” account, and the “Refundable Premium Tax Credit and Cost Sharing Reductions” account (all in function 550).
Defense and international security assistance:
The largest component of this category is the national defense function (050). In addition, this category includes the international security assistance subfunction (152) of the international affairs function.
Safety net programs:
This category includes all programs in the income security function (600) except those that fall in the following two subfunctions: federal employees’ retirement and disability (602) and general retirement and disability insurance (601). The latter contains the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and also covers programs that provide pension and disability benefits to certain small groups of private-sector workers.
Interest on debt:
This category contains the net interest function (900).
Remaining program areas:
This category includes all federal expenditures not included in one of the five categories defined above. The subcomponents of this category that are displayed in the graph are defined as follows:
In fiscal year 2015, the federal government spent $3.7 trillion, amounting to 21 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $3.7 trillion, over $3.2 trillion was financed by federal revenues. The remaining amount ($438 billion) was financed by borrowing. As the chart below shows, three major areas of spending each make up about one-fifth of the budget:
- Social Security: Last year, 24 percent of the budget, or $888 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided monthly retirement benefits averaging $1,342 to 40 million retired workers in December 2015. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.3 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.1 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.8 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2015.
- Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 25 percent of the budget in 2015, or $938 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $546 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 55 million people who are over age 65 or have disabilities. The rest of this category funds Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA subsidy and exchange costs. In a typical month, Medicaid and CHIP provide health care or long-term care to about 72 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. (Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.) In 2015, 8 million of the 11 million people enrolled in health insurance exchanges received ACA subsidies, at an estimated cost of about $28 billion.
- Defense and international security assistance: Another 16 percent of the budget, or $602 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Defense Department. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Afghanistan and other related activities, described as Overseas Contingency Operations in the budget, funding for which totaled $74 billion in 2015.
Oops--this chart doesn't reliably make it across on my browser, and I don't have time to fix it right now. If you see an empty box instead of a chart, click the link in the title and check out the chart--thanks!
-- Dot Calm's shadow
- Safety net programs: About 10 percent of the federal budget in 2015, or $362 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2014 and 2015 as the economy continued to improve.These programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income people, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and help meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.Such programs keep millions of people out of poverty each year. A CBPP analysis using Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure shows that government safety net programs kept some 38 million people out of poverty in calendar year 2014. Without any government income assistance, either from safety net programs or other income supports like Social Security, the poverty rate would have been 27.3 percent in 2014, nearly double the actual 15.3 percent. And these programs reduced the depth of poverty for millions more, even when not bringing them above the poverty line.
- Interest on the national debt: The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it borrowed to finance past deficits — that is, on the national debt held by the public, which reached $13 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2015. In 2015, these interest payments claimed $223 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.
While critics often decry “government spending,” it is important to look beyond the rhetoric and determine whether the actual public services that government provides are valuable. To the extent that such services are worth paying for, the only way to do so is ultimately with tax revenue. Consequently, when thinking about the costs that taxes impose, it is essential to balance those costs against the benefits the nation receives from public services.
Appendix
Because we discuss total federal spending, we do not distinguish programs financed by general revenues from those financed by dedicated revenues (e.g., Social Security). For more information, see Policy Basics: Federal Payroll Taxes.We based our estimates of spending in fiscal year 2015 on the most recent historical data released by the Office of Management and Budget. (Federal fiscal year 2015 ran from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015.)
The broad expenditure categories presented in this paper were constructed on the basis of classifications commonly used by budget agencies. The categories are constructed by grouping related programs and activities into broad functions, which are further broken down into subfunctions. The details of how the categories used in this paper were constructed from those functions and subfunctions are described below.
Social Security:
This category consists of all expenditures in the Social Security function (650), including benefits and administrative costs.
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies:
This category consists of the Medicare function (570), including benefits, administrative costs, and premiums, as well as the “Grants to States for Medicaid” account, the “Children’s health insurance fund” account, and the “Refundable Premium Tax Credit and Cost Sharing Reductions” account (all in function 550).
Defense and international security assistance:
The largest component of this category is the national defense function (050). In addition, this category includes the international security assistance subfunction (152) of the international affairs function.
Safety net programs:
This category includes all programs in the income security function (600) except those that fall in the following two subfunctions: federal employees’ retirement and disability (602) and general retirement and disability insurance (601). The latter contains the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and also covers programs that provide pension and disability benefits to certain small groups of private-sector workers.
Interest on debt:
This category contains the net interest function (900).
Remaining program areas:
This category includes all federal expenditures not included in one of the five categories defined above. The subcomponents of this category that are displayed in the graph are defined as follows:
- Benefits for federal retirees and veterans: This subcategory combines the veterans’ benefits and services function (700) and the federal employee retirement and disability subfunction (602, which is part of the income security function).
- Transportation: This subcategory consists of the entire transportation function (400).
- Education: The education subcategory combines three subfunctions of the education, training, employment, and social services function: elementary, secondary, and vocational education; higher education; and research and general educational aids (subfunctions 501, 502, and 503 respectively).
- Science and medical research: This subcategory consists of the general science, space, and technology function (250) and the health research and training subfunction (552).
- Non-security international: This subcategory consists of the international affairs function (150) except for international security assistance, which is included with defense, above.
- All other: This subcategory consists of all other federal expenditures.
For a discussion of how recent budget policy, including recent budget deals and “sequestration,” have affected the federal budget, see:
Sequestration and Its Impact on Non-Defense Appropriations
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=5272
Policy Basics: Non-Defense Discretionary Programs
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3973
For a discussion of tax expenditures (spending through the tax code) see:
Policy Basics: Federal Tax Expenditures
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4055
Sequestration and Its Impact on Non-Defense Appropriations
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=5272
Policy Basics: Non-Defense Discretionary Programs
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3973
For a discussion of tax expenditures (spending through the tax code) see:
Policy Basics: Federal Tax Expenditures
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4055
------------------------------------------------
Republicans like Roger Stone have been howling that Hillary is going to rig the election because Republicans like Scott Walker did it five times!
I guess Roger and his ilk forget that allies of George W. Bush also rigged the election...they purged poor and Black voters by the thousands...Diebold voting machines changed votes from Gore to Bush as voters watched in horror...voting machines were initialized with several-thousand-point leads for Bush and deficits for Gore...so that, ultimately, Diebold and the governor (Bob Taft, IIRC) handed over Ohio, as promised, and Jeb! and Katherine Harris handed over Florida...and Al Gore rolled over and played dead. What a different world we might live in if Gore had fought instead of being the gentleman! Do you really think he would have declared war on the Middle East, destabilizing the region, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and fomenting ISIS? How much less Islamophobia we might now have--how much more renewable energy. And I didn't even mention the tanked economy that it took Obama nearly two terms in office to get moving back in the right direction. How many more poor people
--how many fewer middle class and how many more filthy stinking rich people we now have thanks to Bush's policies! It makes me sick to think about it. Friends, we CANNOT let the Republicans give Trump the chance to wreak devastation like Bush and Cheney did--we have to grit our teeth and put Hillary in by a landslide because that is the only way to ensure victory. Please, friends--don't fiddle while Rome burns. Don't be responsible for a Trump victory.
EVERY VOTE COUNTS!!!!
-- Dot Calm's shadow
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
| |||||
********************************************
If you're not familiar with alt-right, Google it
What you find will shock you
It shocked me
These are the people Trump connects with
********************************************
Mailbag
Avaaz is being targeted! Please help!
Dear friends,
Afghan intelligence just informed us that suicide bombers targeted an Avaaz event in Kabul.
Thank god we had changed the location last minute. But this comes on the heels of recent news that our middle east campaigner had been detained, and that Saudi Arabia had joined China in blocking our site.
We've been targeted, sued, and smeared, and our site is cyber-attacked virtually every single day...and that's how we know we're doing something right.
Our team regularly decides whether to face these fights or run from them. And every time we can be fearless, because you are, and Avaaz is 100% funded and powered by you.
Darknesses are rising, the going is getting tough, it's time for us to get going.
This is Avaaz's moment. We're everything that the rising violent ethno-nationalists and corrupt mega-corporations are not. We're global, hopeful, humanitarian, democratic. We are the change we wish to see, and the fight for that change is on more than ever -- we need to rise to it.
Avaaz runs many fundraisers for many causes. But to sustain our campaigning on climate, forests, human and women's rights, peace and wildlife conservation, democracy and much more, we rely 100% on small online donations from our amazing community to keep the whole thing going. We don't accept any funding from governments, corporations, foundations or large donors.
This funding is absolutely essential - it maintains our website and technical infrastructure, our security, and supports the tiny Avaaz team. I'm incredibly grateful for those Avaazers that make this entire movement possible for the rest of us. Click below to join them, and make even more possible:
I see the impact of our donors every day - how ambitious we can be, how many challenges we can take on at once, how deep we can go into each campaign. There are many things that make Avaaz possible, but our precious sustainers are at the top of that list. So even if you can't pitch in today - I hope you'll join me in feeling gratitude for those who can!
With hope and gratitude,
Ricken and the Avaaz team
P.S. If you're still mulling this over, here are my top 5 reasons to support Avaaz:
1) Your money actually goes to social change - I've looked at how massive charities got massive, and it's really ethically tough. You have to use incredibly expensive techniques like street approaches, phone calls, or TV ads and fancy dinner fundraisers. A *very* high percentage of the funds raised (often 50-100%!) never get to the charity's programs at all, taken by the huge fundraising costs, which are often paid to a privately contracted company. The only way Avaaz raises funds is this email, which costs almost nothing to send!
2) Accountability is built into our model - Every Avaaz campaign decision is ultimately made by our movement, through statistical polling and testing that tells us exactly what the movement as a whole wants to do. This means that what we do each week with the money donated to us is both transparent to our movement and determined by it. On top of that, each Avaaz campaign is only as strong as the number of people who choose to join it. We're one of the most purely people-powered organizations in the world.
3) We're unique, and desperately needed - There just isn't another Avaaz. We are the only totally global, multilingual, campaigning movement of our size and scale in the world today, and our rapid-reaction, multi-issue, high technology approach is also unmatched globally. And wow, do we see needs for our movement everywhere we look. We get lobbied by hundreds of groups every week because people see how our blast of global attention, smart strategy, and the efforts of our amazing team can really move issues in a way few other things can.
4) We win - if you've read this far you've probably been with Avaaz for a while and you know what we're capable of. Go to our highlights page and see over 60 significant victories our movement has achieved together, and that's just a small fraction. And we don't just take on the easy wins, or claim that we won something when we had almost nothing to do with it. Alongside our massive grassroots movement we also have what might be the world's finest advocacy team, ensuring that people's voices are actually in the room where decisions are made, and matter.
5) There's a magic in Avaaz - this one might seem fluffy, but our polls show that over 60% of our movement feels it. There's something truly special about the spirit of this movement, of bringing people together across every border and barrier in hope and love and smart, effective action for the world we all dream of. I don't have a word for this magic (the team calls it "Avaaziness" :) but I feel it every single day I work here. Its what has fueled my belief that we are the change we wish to see in the world, and that together we have the capacity to shape history.
Make a donation here.
------------------------------------------------
| |
| President Obama: Keep fossil fuels in the ground | |
| The petition to President Obama reads:
“Continued fossil fuel extraction on public lands is incompatible with stopping runaway climate change. Stop all new coal, oil, and natural gas leasing on public lands and waters.”
Add your name:
|
------------------------------------------------
For millions of folks with allergies and asthma, EpiPens are literally a lifesaver in an emergency. The American taxpayer funded the creation of the EpiPen, which was developed for the armed forces as the "ComboPen."
But for Mylan, a giant pharmaceutical corporation, EpiPens are just another cash cow. Mylan has jacked up the price of EpiPen by more than 400 percent - while their CEO’s pay went up by over 7,000%. Now that the public has cried foul, including over 100,000 folks who joined Other98 in demanding they cut the price, Mylan’s running scared.
This is the perfect moment to take advantage of Big Pharma’s increasingly bad PR to make a serious, systemic change: busting up the EpiPen monopoly. The White House has the power; join us in demanding they exercise it.
On Thursday morning Mylan responded to the massive outcry by claiming they’ll cut EpiPen’s price in half. But under the surface, the company didn’t actually change the price at all. The price cuts only apply to uninsured and underinsured consumers, who will get a $300 savings card on the $600. This move is nothing but PR, and it does nothing to fix the problem of skyrocketing drug costs; in fact, it’s a great deal for Mylan: savings card programs like this one increase demand and allow drug corporations to charge higher prices by hiding behind their fake altruism.
So let’s get right to heart of it: Join us in calling on President Obama and the FDA to take action now to end abusive monopolies and rein in the skyrocketing prices of lifesaving medications like EpiPens.
President Obama has the power to bust up Pharma monopolies on life saving medicines, and the EpiPen is a great start. With the stroke of a pen, he can instruct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strip Mylan of its EpiPen monopoly, allowing other companies to produce it at a lower cost. And we’re joining up with CREDO and Social Security Works to make sure the President hears us loud and clear.
The costs of lifesaving medicines has risen by double digits in recent years, and in many cases, including Epipen, significant taxpayer resources were involved in the original creation of the medications Big Pharma is now shamelessly profiteering from. If we can get the FDA to strip Mylan’s monopoly over EpiPen, it will set an incredibly powerful precedent and finally set us on the road to making life-saving drugs a public good, not a product to make a few CEOs very, very rich.
Tell the President and the FDA: This price gouging must end! It's time to bust up the Big Pharma monopolies that are rigging the system against the American people.
Thanks for everything you do to challenge the corporate control of our Healthcare system.
John Sellers
Other98
------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| Tell President Obama: Rein in EpiPen price-gouging | |
| Petition to President Obama:
"Exercise the full weight of your executive authority to direct the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health to stop pharmaceutical monopolies from price-gouging Americans for life-saving medications like the EpiPen."
Add your name:
|
------------------------------------------------
We likely have a very narrow window to defeat the disastrous Trans
Pacific Partnership trade deal in the lame duck Congress. We must
redouble our opposition to TPP to make sure it fails.
Say you agree with Bernie Sanders that TPP must not come up for a vote – and if it does, it must be soundly defeated.
Say you agree with Bernie Sanders that TPP must not come up for a vote – and if it does, it must be soundly defeated.
------------------------------------------------
Frani, my love, this is for you!
-- Dot Calm's shadow
|
------------------------------------------------
From UltraViolet--pro-rape Judge Persky has been removed! Ding, dong--the dong is gone!
News broke last night that Judge Aaron Persky, the judge in the Stanford rape case, has been removed from all criminal cases. He will no longer preside over cases like the one in which he sentenced Brock Turner to just six months in jail.1 This is huge.
More than one million UltraViolet members--including you--demanded Persky be removed from the bench, and the announcement came just a day after UltraViolet members gathered outside the California Commission on Judicial Performance with giant pink slips. This news shows just what we can accomplish when we all stand up together in the face of injustice.
Ever since the story about Judge Persky and Brock Turner broke, UltraViolet members have been mobilizing to keep the pressure on. Together, we did not give up. Our work generated thousands of press hits across the country, and legal agencies in California received hundreds of calls demanding accountability for Judge Persky. Here's just a little bit of what we accomplished together:
-
More than one million UltraViolet members--including you--signed a petition demanding Persky be removed from the bench.
-
Bay Area members delivered these signatures to the California Commission on Judicial Performance on June 10.
-
UltraViolet flew a plane over Stanford University before commencement ceremonies with a banner reading: "Protect Survivors. Not Rapists. #PerskyMustGo."
-
We took out a full-page ad in The Stanford Daily’s graduation issue inviting students and alumni to take a stand against rape culture. More than 1,000 Stanford alumni signed on to a letter to the Commission to remove Persky from the bench.
-
At the June 29 meeting of the Commission, survivors of sexual assault and their allies shared their stories and called for Judge Persky’s removal from the bench.
-
More than 4,500 UltraViolet and Courage Campaign members in California pledged to never serve in Judge Persky's courtroom.
-
And finally, just this week, UltraViolet members gathered outside the Commission's meeting to read aloud the survivor's powerful letter, and deliver pink slips for Judge Persky.
There is still work to do, but together we have taken a huge step toward ending rape culture. Thanks for being part of it.
--Nita, Shaunna, Kat, Karin, Adam, Holly, Kaili, Kathy, Onyi, Susan, Anathea, Audine, Shannon, Megan, Libby, and Emma, the UltraViolet team
P.S. Check out some of the pictures from the campaign here.
Source:
1. Judge In Stanford Sex Assault Case Will No Longer Hear Criminal Cases, BuzzFeed, Aug 25, 2016
********************************************
********************************************
Democracy Now!
This feature will be back Wednesday.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
********************************************
Heather Bresch and Martin Shkrelli prove
that medical care, pharmaceuticals,
and health insurance
MUST NEVER be
For Profit
********************************************
Daily Kos
Please pardon any repeats--I've run out of time to edit these before posting them. Thanks!-- Dot Calm's shadow
********************************************
********************************************
AlterNet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
********************************************
-- Lawrence Krauss
********************************************
Movies!
It's Science Monday! To celebrate, here are a couple of fun videos featuring my hero, Carl Sagan--w00t! It's amazing how relevant his words are today. Would that they weren't!
Here's a touch of Neil DeGrasse Tyson just for fun. Why is anyone shocked that America "boasts" so many flat-earthers? Of course there are flat-earthers out there, just as there are young-earthers, hard-sky-ers, no-such-thing-as-DNA-ers, thar-be-giants-ers, outer-space-is-water-not-vacuum-ers, and all other manner of credulous, ridiculous biblical literalists out there! This is the product of the Christian right dismantling our education system to teach religion instead of science. What else did you expect?
Want moar science? Why not invest in your very own baloney detection kit?
Uh-oh! Back to Mr. Deity! I can't seem to help myself--I just love hearing THE TRUTH!
Oh. My. FSM. I would kiss Brian Dalton's ring if I ever meet him. Talk about just lurving hearing reality...!
Boy, it would be so great if every Christian in America would watch this video and follow the instructions!
Sometimes, it takes a man to explain why rape is always wrong and never the victim's fault. The victim-blamers excuse men's bad behavior, which only perpetuates it. Too many victim blamers demand the right to dictate how women dress--like the Montana Republican who wants to outlaw yoga pants (because he finds bodies so...disgusting). Talk about Christian Sharia! What will these Christo-fascists want next--women shrouded in burkas embroidered with crosses all over them? Or would that constitute cross dressing? All I know is that these bastids make me cross!
Brian gave a talk about religion, atheism, morality, and ideas for the show. He uses the same approach I do in a lot of my efforts at debunking religion: taking the abstracts that people gloss over and translating them into concrete words and actions that smack you upside da haid.
*Sigh*...I wish every religious person in the world would watch these three vids. It would be a better world if they would.
And now...back to atheist bible study, Mr. Deity-style!
Love, love, love. So funny!
These are just plain fun--enjoy!
'Til next time, check out these great channels:
...or, if you just want something mindless and fun, try Tested
********************************************
Holy phuque--it's not even April Fools' Day...!
TRUMP TO IMMIGRANTS: Pay your taxes
IMMIGRANTS TO TRUMP: You first
Holy phuque--it's not even April Fools' Day...!
TRUMP TO IMMIGRANTS: Pay your taxes
IMMIGRANTS TO TRUMP: You first
-- Mrs. Betty Bowers
posted by Dot Calm @ 5:51 AM
<< Home