Speaking Out! How to understand the federal budget talk

The congressional “super committee” is nearing a decision on how to cut more than $1 trillion from federal spending, and next year’s appropriations process is trying to address the budget deficit as well. There is general agreement that some sacrifices need to be made for the sake of the federal budget.

We just need to make sure that it isn’t our children that end up being sacrificed. Voices believes in a balanced approach of spending cuts and revenue generation to protect investments in the next generation. With that in mind, we have some general guidelines on how to judge the work of Congress in the next few months.

Will the government raise more money?

Perhaps the most important way to judge budget plans is by whether they would raise more government revenue. Analysts are more or less agreed that the government can’t simply cut its way back into the black. And a cuts-only approach puts children at risk.

But a cuts-only approach is exactly what many in Congress are advocating. Coalitions are gathering to lobby Congress to resist any changes to the tax code that could raise more money, and many policymakers have said tax increases are off the table. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein likened this to a man deciding he had to lose 20 pounds, but declaring that exercise and eating right are off the table.

There has been great resistance to even very modest tax increases on those who would be least affected. President Obama’s American Jobs Act, for example, would have provided stimulus and jobs, while paying for itself only in popular tax changes like fewer exemptions for things like corporate jets and fewer tax breaks for oil companies. Yet even this compromise was enough to doom the jobs bill.

The problem with taking government revenue off the table is that it then falls to the most vulnerable to pay. Children’s programs, since they lack corporate lobbies, make soft targets. And since they tend to be cost-efficient, there isn’t much fat to cut. See what an impact we could have on kids’ lives just by removing the 2001-2003 tax cuts for a year.

Are smart investments in place for the next generation?

“Think of the debt we’re leaving the next generation,” deficit hawks will often remark. Yet often the cuts they propose are some of our most important investments in the next generation. We need to make sure that if we cut a service children depend on, we’re not leaving behind a different kind of a debt: a human deficit.

A great example of the wisdom of investing in the young is anti-delinquency programs. The federal government spends just $62 million to help states separate youth from adult convicts in the juvenile justice system. And it spends just $54 million helping states with their anti-delinquency programs. Both efforts are undeniably important in a country that made nearly 2 million juvenile arrests in 2009.

These tens of millions of dollars are a drop in bucket for the federal government, of course. Naturally, they don’t make a dent in the more than $1 trillion total the super committee seeks. Yet the House is proposing to cut money to keep youth separate by one-third, and do away with the anti-delinquency spending altogether.

These kinds of petty cuts are short-sighted. Not only is helping guide troubled and at-risk youth the right thing to do, but it’s also economical in the long run. After all, it costs $88,000 to incarcerate a juvenile for a year. And of course, kids who stay out of trouble will earn more, pay more in taxes, depend less on social services, and contribute more to society than those lost in the system. Learn more in our recent infographic on juvenile justice, and tell your members of Congress to demand smart investments for our kids.

Do we remember those left behind?

The child poverty rate last year rose to more than one in five. As Congress plans how it will balance the budget, they must not be forgotten.

Joblessness remains high, and we should remember that jobs lost often mean health benefits and food security lost as well. Although the recession is technically over, the hardship continues for the more than 9 percent unemployed, a rate that is much higher in certain hard-hit parts of the country. As you can see in one of our recent infographics, demand for food stamps has increased alongside the unemployment rate, clearly showing how families continue to struggle.

These guidelines are how we judge all proposals that could affect the services children and families depend upon. Budgets are best thought of as a statement of the nation’s priorities, and the proposals that would sacrifice child services while handing out tax breaks to the wealthy have their priorities all wrong.