The Trump budget proposal for fiscal year 2020 is out. Overall, the budget proposes a 3.5% cut in administrative funding. Considering inflation, that would be a cut of more than 5% in rel dollar terms. That would undoubtedly lead to a significant reduction in force.
Below are the primary proposals for Social Security. Click on each to view full size.
Below are the primary proposals for Social Security. Click on each to view full size.
Remember that appropriations must be passed by the House of Representatives which is controlled by Democrats. This budget is only a wish list that may have little to do with what actually gets passed.
9 comments:
When was the last Presidential budget proposal adopted that was close to what was submitted. The President's budget has been "Dead on Arrival" for the last few administrations, not just the current one. They became political documents instead of actual budgets.
See the bias and frustration and outright contempt in the headline.
It could have read simply "Trump Budget Released," but had to try and get a barb in there. I
I am in no way a trump supporter, but attacking and maligning every single thing is getting reallllllyyyyyy old and annoying. Budgets are not now nor ever in living memory designed and written to be taken at face value. They are guidelines set by the POTUS for directions to take the country in. The fantasy is believing such petty and childish jabs have any real impact on the situation at all.
Reduced government size and increased military spending is nothing new or Earth shattering from the GOP.
@8:01
2012 was under the previous administration, and it was passed pretty close to as it was proposed. Historically, budget proposals from the president were generally similar to the final budget passed by congress when they are of the same party.
I'm curious how exactly they expect creating a family maximum benefit as to SSI children would result in any significant savings.
According to SSA's 2017 report, 1,308,843 children are on SSI. The SSI amount is same as adults, $750/month. That's 11.8 billion in annual expenditures. Reducing for in-kind support and maintenance, that's 7.9 billion, yet the budget assumes a savings of 7.84 billion. However, a family maximum would not result in nearly 100% savings as the term is currently used. It is a maximum, with some members of a family still receiving SOME benefits.
The budget proposal is a negotiation tool. You put out there numbers that are starting points, then give and take until an agreement is made . In some areas you ask for way more than you really want and hope to get 60-70% of it . In other areas, you propose "cuts" that you want. Often, you end up with small percentage increases that are close to the inflation rate.
Budgets are policy position papers with money specifics. They are the vehicles to communicate priorities and essentials and non-essentials with qualifiers that are numeric based. On one hand they have to be somewhat realistic because, as was stated, when parties have the WH and Congress, the document serves also as a blueprint for what the WH wants. On the other, they are devices to tell the base that their desires are real and being met as viewed by the items in the budget (regardless of whether or not what the actual passed budget looks like). Opponents will look at this and compare it to public statements on various issues (I will not cut medicare or social security) while the budget does just that and wonder what this means, what does this portend? Others will look at it and say "it's about time". So this is as much a political document as a practical document as anything else.
Notice the "let state disability officers hold hearings" - where did that come from?
Reducing retro SSA DIB to 6 months only achieves the estimated savings if people continue to file as they do now. However, with retroactivity limited to 6 months the result could simply be that more people will feel the need to file for SSA DIB sooner rather than later. This may lead to more initial denials leading to more appeals leading to greater hearings backlogs.
@5:35
That assumes people know anything about the retroactive period when they apply. Most of the clients I see have no idea how much retro they are entitled to. Some think they are not able to get any, some think they can be paid for the last 15 years...I doubt this proposed change would be the basis for people filing applications any sooner.
That being said, it is a horrible idea that takes money away from the disabled.
Post a Comment