Civic Values

The Billion Dollar Question

                          The $1 Billion GiveBack

One billion dollars. That’s how much federal support the seven counties of Southeastern Pennsylvania will  lose if Senator John McCaine’s proposal to reduce discretionary domestic federal spending by 20% is  implemented by the next administration.

 

As reported in the Wall Street Journal on April 16^th, the McCain Plan is as follows:

“The bottom line: he wants to cut some $160 billion in discretionary spending out of a budget that totals a bit over $800 billion, said his chief economic adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin. Only a tiny portion of that is earmarks. If McCain gets his way, the government would eliminate 20% of all discretionary spending. Discretionary spending includes everything but entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, which are automatically funded each year and not part of this calculation.

It’s a huge bite that would affect a wide range of programs, none of which the campaign has detailed. But Holtz-Eakin said that McCain has made no secret of the fact that he thinks the federal government has grown too large.”

 

The Institute for the Study of Civic Values has completed an extensive analysis of how a 20% cut in discretionary spending could affect the seven major counties in Southeastern Pennsylvania-Philadelphia, Montgomery County, Buck County, Delaware County, Chester County, Berks County and Lehigh County.

 

The source of the data for the report is the US Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report, which shows the amount of federal money every state and county has  received for each year between 1993 and 2006. This federal database is an invaluable resource in helping us understand how our tax dollars are used in the communities where we live.

 

Our analysis shows that in 2006–the year of the most recent report-- the seven counties of Southeastern Pennsylvania received $5.3 billion to support education, transportation, housing,  law enforcement, economic development, and health and human services for people in need.  Since there were few changes in the FY2007 federal budget, it is reasonable to assume that $5.3 billion in discretionary pending is what Southeastern Pennsylvania receives at this time.

 

If this $5.3 billion is cut by 20%, we will lose at least $1 billion throughout the region.   Philadelphia will be the hardest hit–with a loss of  $656 million.   Montgomery and Chester County will  each face losses of more than $100 million. Delaware County will lose $71 million and Berks and Lehigh County will lose $85  million of the $427 million they presently receive.

                           

                     Spending Cuts Protect Tax Breaks

 

Senator McCain argues that by reducing domestic spending by 20% we can keep in place the tax cuts adopted in the Bush administration that are scheduled to end in 2010 without adding significantly to the federal deficit.

 

Who will be the major beneficiaries?  People earning more than $225,000.

 

Here are the tax cuts that people in this income level will receive.

 

                  Income Rank                         Income                                    Tax Cut

            Top 95-99 Percent                   $226,918                                    $7,871

            Top 1 Percent                          $619,651                                   $31,628

            Top .1 Percent                      $2,871,682                                 $269,364       

 

These statistics did not come from the Obama. They are set forth in a detailed analysis of both candidates’ tax plans provided by the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center based in Washington, D.C.

 

 It is also possible to estimate some part of the economic impact of these tax breaks in Southeastern Pennsylvania.

 

The 2000 Census shows that there are roughly 47,000 households in Southeastern Pennsylvania earning more than $200,000 per year out of 1.1 million households living in the region. That’s 4.2% of our population.

 

Senator McCain is arguing that the investments in the market economy made by that these 47,000 households and their counterparts nationally will produce enough growth to offset the cuts in federal spending that he wants to make and other regions.  This, again, is a critical question that the voters must answer for themselves between now and November 8th.

      

How Will McCain’s  Spending Cuts Affect SE Pennsylvania?

 

How specifically might Southeastern Pennsylvania be affected by the spending cuts that Senator McCain  recommends? The Consolidated Federal Funds Report enables us to examine the possible impact on every county in the region.

 

Here a few examples.

 

Infrastructure. Governor Rendell and the National Governor’s Association have launched a campaign to increase significantly federal investment in rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, now estimated to cost $1.6 trillion over the next five years. Southeastern Pennsylvania received roughly $810 million in federal support in 2006 for improving transportation throughout the region. A 20% cut in discretionary spending would cost us $162 million in this area, at the precise moment when Governors and Mayors in both parties have come together to demand more.

 

Housing. Under strong pressure from President Bush, Congress has reduced federal spending in housing in ways that have cost Southeastern Pennsylvania more than $88 million since the year 2000–from $833 million to $744 million in 2006.  An additional 20% cut from the 2006 level would cost the region $150 million. Under this plan, Southeastern Pennsylvania will receive $233 million less than we received in the year 2000.

 

S-CHIP. A bi-partisan coalition in Congress this year fought hard to increase the State Children’s Insurance Fund in–SCHIP. They failed. The seven counties of Southeastern Pennsylvania received $57 million to support this program.  A 20% cut would reduce SCHIP from $57 million to $45 million–$12  million less than we presently receive.

 

Pell Grants. Pell Grants  remain a  major  resource available to provide scholarships for low and moderate income students who need financial help in going to college. The Federal Funds Consolidated Report shows that federal spending on Pell Grants rose in Pennsylvania by 34% between 2000 and 2006–from $180 million to $517 million. In Senator McCain’s home state of Arizona, Pell Grants rose  from $103 million in 2000 to $188 million in 2006–an increase of more than 400%.  A 20% cut in this program would reduce the amount available for Pell Grants by $36 million. Fewer and fewer people will be able to afford college.

 

LIHEAP.  At a time when fuel prices are skyrocketing, is it appropriate to cut the LIHEAP program which helps low income families pay their energy bills by $13 million? In 2006, the  region received $64 million from Washington to provide fuel assistance to low income households.  Even that was far short of demand. A 20% cut in this program–costing nearly $13 million–would literally leave more people out in the cold.

 

These are just a sample of the possible consequences to Southeastern Pennsylvania of implementing a 20% reduction in discretionary spending over the next three years. Additional cuts in maternal infant care, day care and Head Start, Title 1 Aid to Schools and school lunches, job training, business development, and a wide range of health and social services will all have to be made in order to achieve the 20% reduction in domestic spending that Senator John McCain believes is essential to our economic recovery.

                                            

                     Senator Barack Obama’s Response

 

Senator Barack Obama proposes almost the opposite of what Senator McCain would do to stimulate the economy and strengthen communities over the next four years.

 

In relation to taxes, the Brookings-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center notes that, “Senator Obama’s proposal would make the tax system even more progressive than it was before the 2001-06 tax cuts.

 

Lower and moderate income households would receive the largest tax breaks as a percentage of income. Upper-income households would receive huge tax increases. In contrast, Senator McCain’s proposal would make the tax system even more regressive than the system created by the 2001-06 cuts. Households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution would receive average increases in after-tax income of more than 8%, in addition to their large benefits under the tax legislation already passed in this decade. Households in the middle...would receive an additional 1.4 percent in after-tax income, on average. Those at the bottom would receive tax cuts averaging just.06 percent of income.”

 

The  debate over taxes between Senators Obama and McCain  is being fought at every level-- position papers, town hall meetings, and political ads.

 

What has not been extensively debated are the differences between Senator Obama and Senator McCain over the specific proposals that Senator Obama has made that will increase federal spending. The differences between the two candidates around National Health Insurance have been widely discussed. When it comes to federal spending, that’s about as far as it goes.

 

Here a number of the specific proposals that Senator Obama has made:

 

*$15 billion invested over a ten year period to capitalize new forms of energy

*$60 million in federal support for an affordable housing trust fund.

*A national bank to invest $60 billion over 5 years in infrastructure 

*Increased Community Development Block Grant-$5 to $6 billion

*$4.9 billion for Child Support Enforcement

*$10 billion invested in early childhood learning programs.

*A $7.08 billion increase in the Pell Grant Program

*Restoration of the COPS Program to $1.2 billion–its 1998 level.

 

These are relatively modest proposals, adding roughly $50 billion to the domestic discretionary budget–equivalent to what we are now spending every five months in Iraq.

 

How, then, might Southeastern Pennsylvania benefit economically from these programs? The short answer is that if we received only 1% of the $50 billion needed to support them–roughly equivalent to the percentage of domestic that we receive now–this would bring an additional $500 million to the entire region. Under McCain’s plan, communities and middle-class families lose $1 billion, but wealthy households will hold onto their tax cuts. Under Obama, communities in Southeastern Pennsylvania receive an increase of $500 million, but wealthy households in the region will lose their tax cuts. The difference nationally has been clear. This is how it affects us where we live.

 

                              To Promote the General Welfare

 

The United States Constitution says that “to promote the general welfare” is a primary mission of the federal  government.  James Madison–the Father of the Constitution–makes it clear in the Federalist Papers that how we fulfill this mission must be shaped by each succeeding generation to meet the needs of the country .

 

Conservatives tell us that all federal spending is wasteful–we should spend our own money, not let the government in Washington spend it for us.

 

Yet  a significant portion of the  $350 billion described as ‘discretionary’ spending in Washington comes back to our communities It supports housing, highways, schools, and assistance to people in need.

           

So the question that voters in Southeastern Pennsylvania must answer is this:

 

Will  the country be best served by reducing federal support for communities and  families by $1 billion,  so that the tax cuts benefitting wealthy households enacted during the Bush administration can be extended into the future, on the assumption that these contribute to economic growth?

 

Or will the country  benefit more by ending tax breaks for  people earning more than  $250,000 per year and using the new revenues to support energy, affordable housing, education, and services for families in need?

 

That is our billion dollar question.

 

For the complete report go to The Billion Dollar Question

Bush Budget Shortchanges America's Communities

On February 5th, President Bush proposed a budget for FY2008 beginning next October that once again recommends drastic cuts in a wide range of programs benefitting America’s communities.

If the President has his way, community development, housing for the elderly, aid to local law enforcement, support for children and families, grants for safe and drug free schools, and job training will all face another round of cutbacks that have been implemented since 2004.

At a time when crime rates are rising in cities throughout the country, the President again proposes to cut support for local law enforcement in half.

At a time when the infrastructure problems facing America’s communities continue to grow, the President proposes to reduce the $4.1 billion Community Development Block by more than $1 billion.

At a time when millions of Americans seek employment and training to compete in the workforce, the President proposes to cut our $5.2 billion training budget by $1 billion.

At a time when suburban counties are struggle to help the growing number low income residents living in their communities, the President proposes to eliminate the Community Services Block Grant which has been the major source of support in this area and make new cuts in the Low Income Heat Emergency Program (LIHEAP)

The Democrats who now control Congress have promised a new direction to the American people. A critical test of this commitment will be their willingness to restore and even increase support for these programs which have critical to security and well-being of communities and families throughout the country.

Door to Door in Philadelphia-Committeepeople

People active as block captains are often clueless as to the role that committee people are supposed to play. That's too bad, because an active committeeperson can be a real asset to a neighborhood.

I was a committeeperson for 14 years in three different wards and the ward leader of the 13th Ward back in 1978. As a Councilman-At-Large in the 1980's, I hired several committee people to perform constituent service since the best committee people (and there are plenty of them) do this better than anyone else.

Committee people are party officers, not City employees, with the formal responsibility to get out the vote and win victories for the candidates of their choice. Whatever money they receive on Election Day comes from their wards and (occasionally) candidates who are trying to work around or against a ward leader - not the City. So blaming the City for what happens with committee people is not fair. The line of blame goes from the committeeperson to the ward leader.

But if a committeeperson takes his or her job seriously - the job being to get out the vote - -then they will work hard to help people solve block and neighborhood problems because that's the way you can persuade people to vote. The nastiest comment a voter can make to a committeeperson on Election Day is, "We don't see you until it's Election Day." That's another way of saying, 'Who the hell cares what you think?' in response to the sample 'approved' ballot that the committee person distributes on Election Day. Not good at all.

Good committee people take block captains seriously. In fact, I became a block captain after I was elected committeeperson back in 1976 because I saw it as a great way to help my neighbors and get them to vote in response. It worked well. We increased registration by 50% and I was able to get a higher than average turnout in every election. Why? People voted because they knew I was fighting for our blocks and the neighborhood and that if they voted, that gave us more clout in City Hall.

It's important to understand where the committeeperson's clout in City Hall lies - City Council. City Council is rooted in the ward system. Six of the nine Democratic Council people are ward leaders.  Most of the Republican State Representatives are also ward leaders. They'll work through the one Republican District Councilman on matters related to the City. And all of them will respond to their own committee people.

The committee person calls either the ward leader or City Council person and they get faster service. Council is the key here. When a Council office calls a department, the department listens - or there's hell to pay the next time the City Budget hearings come up. And when a committeeperson calls a Council office, he gets a good response, because committee people and ward leaders elect the Council.

There's a good way to deal with an ineffective committee person: elect someone else. It happens a lot. But we just had those elections so you'll have to wait four years to do that.

But you can get the same clout as a committeeperson simply by going down your block, registering every vote, and making sure that they vote in every election. If you start delivering results to your block, your committee people will appreciate it and Council people will listen to you as well. Call the ward leader. Tell what you're going to do. Occasionally a ward leader will even force a committee person to resign if he/she isn't getting results. A call from you will be taken seriously.

This is National Security?

The cost of the War in Iraq is now at least $75 billion a year.

Citizens for Tax Justice reports that tax cuts benefiting the top 1% of the country--households earning more than $1.2 million a year (who now receive $44,000 in tax cuts)--will cost the government  $61 billion--nearly the entire cost of the War.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln persuaded Congress  to impose a  tax on personal incomes to pay for the military in the Civil War.  By 1864, people with incomes between $400 and $5,000 were taxed at a rate of 5%. People with incomes over over $5,000 were paying 10%.

Today, households earning more than $1.2 million pay only 3.5% of their annual income in taxes.

In 1898, under our first modern Republican President--William McKinley--Congress passed the first inheritance tax in American History to help finance the Spanish-American War.

Today, the Bush administration is fighting to *end* the inheritance tax--calling it a "death tax."

The guiding principle here is that while it's an honor to die for your country, it's an imposition to pay for it.

So how *are* we financing the War?

Well, we're borrowing a lot of money from other countries. That's what the deficit forces us to do.  More than $ 1 trillion in American bonds is now held by foreign banks led by Japan and China.  If Communist China stopped buying US bonds, or sold them outright, bond prices would fall and interest rates would rise wreaking havoc on mortgage rates and home sales throughout the United States.

I know that American conservatives are perfectly happy to buy goods "Made in China" but how do they feel about going deeper and deeper in debt to the Chinese government?

The other way to reduce the deficit is to cut spending. The Bush administration is big on that.

But what does the administration want to cut?

"First Responder" Homeland Security. Down 26% since 2003.

Local Law Enforcement.  Bush wants to end just about all federal support for it.

Support for Local Police. Bush fought to end it last year. Failing that, now he wants to cut it by 86%

Firefighters Grants. Cut them by 60%.

In Philadelphia, the National Park Service wants to cordon off the area around Independence Hall as if this somehow will blunt a terrorist attack.

Meanwhile, 300 people have died in our streets since January but federal funding to support local police is gone.

If  this is the Bush administration's idea of security in the United States, what on earth must they be doing in Iraq?

The Crisis of Civic Values

The year was 1800 and Thomas Jefferson was running for President. Reverend John Mitchell of New York’s Scotch Presbyterian Church was not at all happy about it. "The federal Constitution makes no acknowledgment of this God who gave us our national existence," he proclaimed in a "Voice of Warning to Christians""If you appoint an infidel for your president, and such an infidel as Mr. Jefferson, you will sanction that neglect, and you will declare, by a solemn national act, that there is no more religion in your collective character." Notwithstanding this diatribe, Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800 and served two terms as President. Somehow, both the United States and Christianity survived.

Jefferson did, indeed, oppose any formal relationship between denominational religion and government. It was he who characterized the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between church and state" in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802. In his first inaugural address, he condemned the "religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered." and warned that "we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions."

Yet for Jefferson what could provide moral guidance to both government and citizens in America were civic values--the self-evident truths set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This has been a distinguishing feature of our democracy. In 1922, no less a devout Catholic than G.K. Chesterton observed in What I Saw in America that "America is the only country in the world that is founded on a creed... set forth with theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence. It enunciates that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just.. There is a creed, if not about divine, at least about human things." This is precisely what Jefferson had in mind.

Jefferson had the opportunity to apply these principles as President. "Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles," he urged in his inaugural address. "Political debate should be shaped according to the rules of the Constitution." People should unite in "common efforts for the common good." and "restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things." This is what it meant to rely on civic values to shape the democratic process.

I would suggest that this is just the sort of politics that millions of Americans are seeking today. Unfortunately, leaders in both parties have failed to provide it. Our own Senator Rick Santorum writes a book called "It Takes a Family" that urges us to work for the common good and then blames most of the problems facing America’s families on liberals. He asserts that since the Preamble to the Constitution speaks only of "promoting the general welfare," there is not much government can do, somehow ignoring Article I where Congress is mandated to "provide" for the general welfare." So much for a careful and accurate explication of Constitutional principles.

The national Democratic Party isn’t much better. Many Democrats now promise to defend "the people against the powerful," in a modern day form of Populism. But while the Populist Platform of 1892 certainly did condemn economic policies that were "breeding two great classes--tramps and millionaires," it went on to say that their purposes were identical with the "purposes of the national Constitution"--justice, domestic tranquillity, the common defense, the general welfare, the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. They understood--as many Democratic leaders today do not-- that the only way we can only change America for the better is by reminding people again and again what America is supposed to be.

So there is, indeed, a crisis of values in America today, but it is not about religion. Our main conflicts revolve around civic values. We are deeply divided on how best to apply the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to the problems facing America today. What does it mean to "promote the general welfare?" How can we "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?" These are questions we ought to be asking. The sooner political leaders start addressing them, the better off the rest of us will be.

Fight for America's Communities

The following were remarks made at the close of the Institute for the Study of Civic Values' "State of Our Values" session in Philadelphia in response to the State of the Union.

We were pleased to cooperate with a number of community and faith-based organizations  in Philadelphia to put together this event, which was one of 400 "State of Our Values" events coordinated  nationally by Sojourner.

Here's the PodCast of the Speech. You need Apple QuickTime to watch it but that's easy to download (Version 7).

Fight for America's Communities, Ed Schwartz,  Philadelphia, January 31st, 2006

The following are news reports  covering other "State of Our Values" sessions held in response to Sojourner's Call.

Media Coverage of "State of Our Values Sessions."

Ed Schwartz

Martin Luther King and America's Civic Values

For those seeking online resources for Martin Luther King Day observances, I've assembled a web page of online articles, audio clips, and educational programs that might help.

Martin Luther King and America's Civic Values

No one in the 20th century--and perhaps throughout our history--articulated America's civic values more powerfully than Martin Luther King.  Now that much of his work is online, we can work even more effectively to keep his legacy alive.

Protest Federal Budget Cuts Oct. 17th-18th

Protest Federal Budget Cuts
Toll Free Call In Days--Monday, Tuesday (October 17th-18th)

Congress resumes today and high on its list of priorities is final approval of a budget for Fiscal Year 2006.

The news about this budget was never good--only bad and slightly less bad. We're still facing a 10% cut in the Community Development Block Grant, cuts in the Low Income Heating an Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), cuts in Medicaid and Food Stamps, cuts in job training and Title 1 Aid to schools, and more...

There's a full update on the BushBudget.com web site.

In response, the  American Friends Service Committee is again providing a toll free number to call Congress about the budget.

The number is 1-800-426-8073. You ask for the Capitol switchboard. Then you should ask for your Senators.

The House of Representatives shows little hope for change--given the leadership.

We have a better chance in the Senate.

If one of your Senators is on the Appropriations Committee, so much the better. This is where the final negotiations will lie.

There's a link on the BushBudget Web Site to the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee--along with their fax numbers. Sending faxes to Congress has far greater impact than calling. So keep this mind if one of your Senators is on the Appropriations Committee.

The BushBudget web site also links to sample letters to Congress  protesting cuts in the Community Development Block Grant , Medicaid, and Food Stamps that address the major issues.

The basic message should be clear: No More Community Cutbacks.

The Philadelphia Inquirer gave us  warning here in Philadelphia about what's happening with the budget.

The Inquirer has done absolutely nothing to cover pending budget cuts on its news pages. They're not interested.

But on Friday, the resident conservative on their editorial board--Kevin Ferris--wrote an op-ed piece applauding a group of Republican Congresspeople known as the "Republican Study Group" for coming up with 122 possible spending cuts totalling $950 billion over the next 10 years.

Ferris only mentioned a few of these cuts, but the whole list includes turning Medicaid into a block grant, increasing Medicare co-payments, offering the Community Development Block Grant only to distressed cities, eliminate grants for drug and safe street schools, eliminate school lunches for middle class students, eliminate the Economic Development Administration, eliminate Americorps and VISTA, eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities--and more.

Here..read the column for yourself: Kevin Ferris on the Spending Cutbacks

I estimate that these cuts would cost our city (Philadelphia) as much  as $50 million a year.

Go to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report for your County that you can access from the Bush Budget web site to see how these additional budget cuts might effect your community.

Meanwhile, the Bush Tax Cuts--mostly benefiting people who are now trying to decide which high definition TV to buy this Christmas--currently cost the federal government $225 billion a year.

And there are more tax cuts on the way.

But the Republican Study Group in the House makes it clear these are off limits.

This is what now passes for "fiscal conservatism."

The toll free number is 1-800-426-8073.

Call it today. Or tomorrow. And if you have the time, send a fax to your Senators, especially to those on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

We really can make a difference if enough of us speak out. We have only ourselves to blame if we don't.

Now's the time.

The Bush Budget vs. America's Communities

The Bush administration’s 2006 budget proposes devastating cutbacks in domestic security, community development, education, human services, transportation, and the environment that spell disaster for America’s cities and towns.

Most of the news about the budget focuses specific programs--Social Security and Medicaid,  education, the Community Development Block Grant, agricultural subsidies, Amtrak, among a host of others. 

We are also learning what this budget will mean to broad groups of people in the United States--the elderly, veterans, farmers, working families, the poor.

Yet the central principle behind all of these cutbacks is clear:

The Bush administration wants to make America’s cities, neighborhoods, and communities pay for the War in Iraq, at a time when wealthy taxpayers are benefiting from more than $220 billion in tax cuts that the President now proposes to make permanent.

American conservatives seem to think that while it’s an honor to die for your country, it’s an imposition to pay for it.

America’s communities are paying the price.

We at the Institute for the Study of Civic Values believe that to ”promote the general welfare,” and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity,” the federal government must help us build strong and healthy communities throughout the United States.

That is an American principle as old as the 1st National Bank of the United States and the 19th Century Homestead Act. It has been a central premise of federal policy for more than 70 years.

This what the Bush administration  wants to discard in the name of “effective government.”

For this reason, we have developed a new web site--BushBudget.com--to provide updated information devastating impact that the 2006 proposed Bush budget will have on America’s communities, large and small. Among its main features is direct access to the Census Bureau's Consolidated Federal Funds Reports that the total federal investment in each and every County in the United States.

We have also established an email list to bring together people from all parts of the country who are prepared to fight for America’s communities in the budget process.

You can join it by going to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bushbudget/join.

One thing is certain: unless we, the people working to build strong communities in America mobilize to defend them, no one will do it for us.

The campaign for America’s communities begins here.