Start A Petition

Congress Plans To Spend Less And Less On Children Over The Next Decade

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Americans, children, congress, education, dishonesty, economy, Govtfearmongering, lies, media, politics, propaganda, republicans, Sequestration )

- 1699 days ago -
The report's figures reflect the continuing impact of budget cuts from sequestration over the coming decade.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 6:54 am
Photo Credit: AP

Government spending on children fell by 7 percent in 2012 as Recovery Act funding boosts to kids’ programs dried up. In percentage terms, the $28 billion cut from 2011 levels was the largest one-year pullback in funding for children since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. According to a new analysis from First Focus it is only the beginning: The federal government will spend less and less on America’s children each year over the next decade unless it changes course.

The largest proportion of the $348 billion the government spent on children in 2012 came through the tax code, with tax rebates and subsidies tied to children accounting for 39 percent of the total. But tax expenditures on children are just 8 percent of the total spending through the tax code, much of which goes to corporations. Education funding was less than 14 percent of total 2012 spending on children, at $48 billion, and absorbed the majority of the total cuts that First Focus identified. Compared to the previous year, the government cut education spending on kids by more than one quarter.

First Focus previously reported that 2012 was the third consecutive year in which spending on children had fallen in raw dollar terms, and Tuesday’s report indicates it will fall again in 2013. Children’s programs will see raw-dollar funding totals rise over the following decade, but the government will actually be spending less of its total output on children over that period. First Focus reports the share of the federal budget that goes to kids will fall from 10 percent in 2012 to 8 percent in 2023.

Figures that compare spending to the size of the overall economy also show a projected drop in the resources the government will dedicate to kids. The only form of spending on children that is projected to rise is health care spending. Nutrition programs, education, early-childhood programs, housing, social services, and provisions of the tax code that benefit children are all projected to decline:

**See chart at VISIT SITE***

The report’s figures reflect the continuing impact of budget cuts from sequestration over the coming decade. The “constrained environment created by non-defense discretionary spending caps” means “spending on children is expected to fall in absolute dollars between 2012 and 2023 — not even keeping pace with inflation.” In other words, the austerity agenda pushed into law by the crisis-driven budgeting failures of 2012 will undermine the country’s ability to invest in its future workers, business leaders, soldiers, artists, and innovators for a full decade. That trajectory runs counter to the consensus recommendation of business leaders, military leaders, law enforcement leaders, and progressives, all of whom agree that the country should invest more in children over the coming years.

By Alan Pyke | Think Progress |

Kit B (276)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 6:58 am

We must fight these plans to end public education, soon the United States will be like India or China with only children from wealthy families able to gain an education. Is that really the future we want?

Sue Matheson (79)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 7:19 am

Ben O (171)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 7:31 am
Henrik Tikkanen was right:
"Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us"

JL A (281)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 8:54 am
When Reagan went after children the pundits pointed out that they were low hanging fruit because they couldn't vote--the revamping of defining who is society that there is a duty to serve...those inside that circle are far fewer than was even true in his day, to our shame.

Sue H (7)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 8:56 am

Gene J (290)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 1:50 pm
Ahh, somebody told them that of the 5 and under population more than half are children of color, didn't they? Someone will just have to 'fess up because no way they figured that out by themselves. What other reason could they have for wanting to do in America's next generation? They are insisting they be born but then cast adrift on rafts? Damn fools.

Mike M (40)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 2:11 pm
It is the plan to make the 99% only followers with no intention of of caring what happens to them or how they a used and abused

Sheryl G (363)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 3:32 pm
Government spending on children fell by 7 percent in 2012 as Recovery Act funding boosts to kids’ programs dried up. In percentage terms, the $28 billion cut from 2011 levels was the largest one-year pullback in funding for children since Ronald Reagan was in the White House.

Yet to hear the White House speak one would think this wouldn't be happening. Very alarming as this is also a major threat to our Democracy. But I agree, with Mike, they only want a follow the orders and don't question people, just smart enough to do the task at hand but not too smart to look around and think.

Vicky P (476)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 3:39 pm
sad, shame on them :/ I bet subsidies to corporations will be the same though for all those so called job creators. Ugh

. (0)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 3:46 pm
That's terrible! They should be spending more on children and less on wars and other bad stuff. Thanks for sharing, Kit.

Joe R (190)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 3:50 pm

Roseann d (178)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 4:09 pm
Their pro-life stance is another myth that bites the dust. Once you're outside the womb, you're just another sucker for them to exploit and F-over along with the rest of us.

Deb E (63)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 5:08 pm
Keep subsidies going to huge billion dollar profits corporations but don't help kids. Whatever you do, don't help kids, don't help sick people, don't help the elderly. The fact that anybody in the United States keeps paying taxes for this kind of spending is ridiculous.

Kit B (276)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 7:05 pm

This is where the money goes, not on "welfare queens" not for Obama care or Social Security or Medicare, not on SNAP and we know not on Education, nope here is just the tip of that huge ice berg of money paid out to the "Corporate Welfare Queens and Kings".
Some other corporate subsidies you may not know about:

◾Multinational companies and banks, including General Electric, Citigroup, and Ford Motor Co., with investment earnings from overseas accounts won tax breaks collectively worth $11 billion — a return on their two-year lobbying investment of at least 8,200 percent, according to a Globe analysis of lobbying reports.

◾Hollywood production companies received a $430 million tax benefit for filming within the United States. As a result, companies like Walt Disney Co., Viacom, Sony, and Time Warner — with the help of the Motion Picture Association of America, chaired by former Connecticut senator Christopher J. Dodd — realized a return on their lobbying investment of about 860 percent.

◾Railroads lobbied on a broad array of issues, a portion of which yielded $331 million for two years’ worth of track maintenance tax credits. Return on investment: at least 260 percent.

◾Even at the low end of the economic scale the returns can be large. Two West Coast companies that manufacture electric motorcycles — Brammo Inc. of Oregon, and Zero Motorcycle Inc. of California — reported combined lobbying expenditures of $200,000 in 2011 and 2012. They won tax subsidies payable to the consumers who buy their products worth an estimated $7 million. The electric motorcycle market stands to receive a return on that investment of up to 3,500 percent.

Susanne R (235)
Friday September 27, 2013, 12:25 am
Here is an excerpt from an article that appeared in "The Hill."

Investing in our children is investing in our future
by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn)

"Every parent sees endless possibilities and great hope in the eyes of a child. As a nation, when we look at today’s children, we see tomorrow’s leaders — scientists, teachers, doctors and diplomats. But for our children to thrive and America to stay competitive in the 21st-century global economy, we must support their development, their families and the public policies that work for both. The budget put forward by the House majority would move us further in the wrong direction and help to create a lost generation of American youths."

(Note: To avoid a very lengthy comment, I've skipped paragraphs from the article but have provided a link because it's an excellent read.)

The article goes on to state:

"All of these cuts are penny-wise and pound-foolish. In this economy, we have to do more, not less, to reach children in need. Currently, only 8 percent of federal spending is dedicated to children, and we have now seen two years in a row of declines in discretionary spending on children’s programs. It is time to reverse this trend. The targeted investments and interventions we make now will make a lifetime of difference for the children they reach.

There is far more this Congress can do for our nation’s children — but first we have to make sure we are not sacrificing the future of an entire generation in order to pay for a tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."
It just doesn't make sense to NOT care for this country's greatest resource and the hope for our future! Our children should be this country's priority --and not treated like a burden on society!

Great article, Kit! Thanks for posting it!

Susanne R (235)
Friday September 27, 2013, 12:29 am
Sorry! Here's the link to the article: Investing in our children is investing in our future

Past Member (0)
Friday September 27, 2013, 1:01 am
I believe they want us all to live in worst conditions, lets say like in China or India, and that's why they don't invest in education. No, for sure we don't want that, but that is also one of our main targets. Right?

Lois Jordan (63)
Friday September 27, 2013, 6:10 pm
Noted. Thanks, Kit. This just makes me so angry! Yes, very shameful....and shaming someone used to mean something not that long ago.....
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.