#cbpp

[josephandrewryan]

[mariacallous]

As someone who has closely followed and written about presidential budgets and social and anti-poverty programs for most of the past half-century, I examine here proposals advanced by former President Donald Trump during his years in office—mainly measures proposed in his administration’s annual budgets—that would affect social programs for people with low or moderate incomes. The piece relies primarily on analyses of these budgets by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) during those years, using data from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO).1 The piece builds upon earlier work that I and my colleagues at The Hamilton Project have conducted on the evolution of the U.S. social assistance and social insurance systems and the workings of those systems (Barnes, Bauer, Edelberg, Estep, Greenstein, and Macklin 2021; Greenstein 2022).

The Trump administration budgets were distinguished by their proposals to lower taxes and to scale back or end various social programs and other government spending. The proposed reductions in social programs fell primarily on programs for people with low or modest incomes rather than universal social insurance programs, although the Trump administration budgets did propose a reduction in one aspect of the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program, as described below in the section of this piece on cash assistance.2

This piece examines program changes that these budgets proposed, rather than just those that were enacted. Most of the proposals described here did not pass Congress, including the administration’s 2017 effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that fell just short in the Senate. In addition, the courts blocked various regulatory proposals to scale back programs, including efforts to roll back the ACA through administrative action. (This piece does not examine temporary changes not included in administration budgets that Congress and the President made in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.)

The program reductions or eliminations the Trump administration budgets proposed substantially exceeded those sought by earlier presidents, including Ronald Reagan, although the safety net in place when President Trump took office was significantly larger than that in place when Reagan assumed office more than four decades ago, giving President Trump more targets for budget reductions. Changes that Trump administration budgets proposed included the following:

SNAP. Reductions of roughly $200 billion over 10 years, or about 25 to 30 percent, in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), as proposed in all four Trump administration budgets.

Medicaid/ACA. Substantial cuts in Medicaid beyond eliminating the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, and in the first Trump administration budget, some scaling back of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The proposed reductions, including ACA repeal, totaled roughly $750 billion to $1 trillion or more over 10 years under the various Trump administration budgets.

Housing and rental assistance. Large reductions in rental assistance and other housing-related programs that, in all four Trump administration budgets, included rent increases that would average more than 40 percent for about 4 million low-income households that rent their units with rental vouchers or live in public housing. The four budgets also called for eliminating various housing-related programs including the HOME program, the Community Development Block Grant, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

Cash assistance. Large reductions in cash assistance in all four Trump administration budgets, including (1) reductions in benefits for low-income children with disabilities through Supplemental Security Income (SSI) when more than one child or both an adult and a child in the same family receive SSI, (2) a reduction of more than $20 billion over 10 years in federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding to states, and (3) a reduction in initial Social Security disability benefits for some beneficiaries. The 2017 tax cut that President Trump signed into law increased the Child Tax Credit (CTC), though the increase for children in most poor families was modest. An estimated 10 million children—those in families with the lowest incomes, including families whose earner works full-time at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour—received either an increase of up to $75 or no increase. If these children’s families participated in various programs slated for cuts such as SNAP or rental assistance, those families would in most cases have lost more income from the program cuts (often substantially more) than they would have gained from the CTC increase.

Non-defense discretionary programs. Deep cuts in “non-defense discretionary” (NDD) funding—the federal budget outside of defense, entitlements and other “mandatory” programs, and interest payments on the debt. The first Trump administration budget proposed an overall NDD level for fiscal year 2018 that would have been 13 percent below the 2017 enacted level and 25 percent below the 2010 level in inflation-adjusted terms and that would have reached its lowest level as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) in six decades. The proposed NDD reduction totaled $1.8 trillion over 10 years (Herrera and Friedman 2017). Under all Trump administration budgets, NDD funding would, by the tenth year, have been at its lowest level as a share of GDP since the Hoover years. Along with the reductions in low-income housing programs noted above, the proposed NDD reductions included reductions in various programs to strengthen the ability of low-income individuals to secure employment, as outlined in the next bullet.

Self-sufficiency. Some administration officials justified various proposed reductions in benefits for low-income households by calling on individuals in those households to go to work or work more. At the same time, the Trump administration budgets also proposed to scale back a number of programs to strengthen the ability of low-income individuals to secure and retain employment. Trump administration budgets proposed to reduce job training funds for states and localities by 40 percent (in the first budget), reduce the Job Corps substantially (in the final three budgets), reduce various education, student aid, work-study, and other programs (all four budgets), and terminate the community service employment program (all four budgets). Some Trump administration budgets also proposed to increase funding for apprentice programs, though in dollar terms, those increases amounted to a small fraction of the reductions in education, job training, and related programs.

Trump administration budgets sought significant savings in other budget areas as well. The bulk of the proposed savings, however, fell on benefits and services for people of low or modest income. In the fiscal year 2018 Trump administration budget, for instance, while programs for people with low or modest incomes accounted for 28 percent of all non-defense spending outside of interest payments, those programs would have borne 59 percent of the reductions in non-defense programs ($2.5 trillion of $3.7 trillion in reductions over 10 years; Shapiro, Kogan, and Cho 2017). By the tenth year, overall spending for programs for people of low or modest incomes would shrink by 33 percent below the budget baseline (Shapiro 2017). A CBPP analysis of the final Trump administration budget (for fiscal year 2021) estimated that 44 percent of its proposed reductions would come from such programs (Kogan, Romig, and Beltran 2020).

The Trump administration also sought, via regulation, to limit or discourage participation in various safety net programs by certain low-income immigrants who were legally authorized to be in the United States and eligible for these programs—mainly, immigrants who had applied for permanent residence, or green cards (Bernstein, Gonzales, Karpman, and Zuckerman 2020). These regulations, which federal courts blocked in 2020 (Gonzales 2023), would have made it harder for such individuals to secure legal permanent residence status and ultimately become citizens if they had received program benefits.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Casey Wexler and Reed McMaster at MMFA:

Right-wing media have spent over a decade attacking and calling for cuts to vital food assistance programs, with particular focus on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as “food stamps”) as well as free school lunch programs. Now, Project 2025 — an extreme right-wing initiative organized by The Heritage Foundation to provide policy and personnel to the next Republican presidential administration — proposes  fulfilling their wish of cutting off hundreds of thousands of Americans from vital food assistance.

Project 2025 calls for sweeping cuts to the food stamp program, which would eliminate food assistance for some Americans and slash the purchasing power of families

Project 2025’s play book, Mandate for Leadership, calls for reimplementing work requirements for food stamps, which it estimates could put 688,000 adults at risk of losing food assistance. Project 2025 claims that these work requirements would be “fairly limited” but admits that the policy will deny some Americans food assistance. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ analysis of Project 2025, “These requirements are premised on the false assumption that people who receive SNAP do not work and must be compelled to do so — an assumption rooted in a host of unfounded prejudices based on race, gender, disability status, and class. Rigorous studies have shown that the current work requirement policy is ineffective at increasing employment. Instead, it takes food assistance away from people with very low incomes and increases food insecurity and hardship.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/3/24]

Project 2025 seeks to remove automatic qualification for SNAP if an individual receives benefits from another government program or broad-based categorical eligibility. The authors of Mandate for Leadership are trying to end automatic eligibility for SNAP for those who receive other benefits because, they claim, “‘benefit’ is defined so broadly that it includes simply receiving distributed pamphlets and 1–800 numbers. This definition, with its low threshold to trigger a ‘benefit,’ allows individuals to bypass eligibility limits—particularly the asset requirement.” But a major benefit of broad-based categorical eligibility, according to CBPP, is helping families through the “benefit cliff,” when a family’s income rises just above the SNAP limit. Broad-based categorical eligibility allows states to ignore the threshold and phase out SNAP benefits gradually as income increases. It also lets families keep higher levels of allowed assets, which allows them to “avoid debt, weather unexpected financial disruptions, and better prepare to support themselves in retirement.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/30/19]

Project 2025 attacks recent increases to the Thrifty Food Plan, which estimates the cost of a healthy diet, saying the Biden administration “may have skirted regulations and congressional authority to increase the overall cost of the program.” The Biden administration raised the budget of SNAP when it found higher costs in maintaining a healthy diet, which Project 2025 called “a dramatic overreach.” Mandate says the Thrifty Food Plan has previously been based on just inflation, which was proposed in the latest federal farm bill. According to the Urban Institute, “In effect, the proposed changes would reduce SNAP benefits’ purchasing power over time, exacerbating the current SNAP benefits gap.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; Newsweek, 4/23/24; Urban Institute, 3/18/24;]

Project 2025 seeks to close the “heat-and-eat loophole” that allows states to issue larger amounts of food stamp benefits. Food stamps are issued based on income minus certain deductions, and beneficiaries of the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program receive a large deduction even if, according to Project 2025, their LIHEAP benefits are as low as $1 (in reality, as of 2014, LIHEAP benefits have to be $20 or more). LIHEAP helps households pay utility costs, and beneficiaries of the program can maximize their SNAP benefits on top of receiving utility assistance. The program was created because low-income households have a tendency to go without food due to high energy costs. Therefore eliminating this “loophole” entirely will create the food insecurity it was implemented to prevent. [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; Food Research and Action Center, 3/16/21; LIHEAP Clearinghouse, 2/21/24]

Project 2025's plans for food assistance are diabolical, as its agenda includes reinstation of broad-based categorical eligibility and the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

[mykimi2]

やめとけばいいのにCBPP…やめとけばよかった。具の少なさを誤魔化すために風味の強いチーズソースを足したんだろうなーと穿った見方をしてしまう

I would think they added a strong flavored cheese sauce to cover up the lack of ingredients.

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON — Senior lawmakers in Congress announced a bipartisan deal Tuesday to expand the child tax credit and provide a series of tax breaks for businesses.

The agreement between House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., and Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., caps months of negotiating and pursuing common ground in the divided Congress.

“American families will benefit from this bipartisan agreement that provides greater tax relief, strengthens Main Street businesses, boosts our competitiveness with China, and creates jobs," Smith said in a statement. "We even provide disaster relief and cut red tape for small businesses, while ending a COVID-era program that’s costing taxpayers billions in fraud."

The deal, details of which were reported earlier by NBC News, would enhance refundable child tax credits in an attempt to provide relief to families that are struggling financially and those with multiple children. It would also lift the tax credit's $1,600 refundable cap and adjust it for inflation.

The new child tax credit policy would benefit about 16 million kids in low-income families, according to an analysis by the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “The expansion would meaningfully reduce child poverty,” CBPP wrote. “In the first year, the expansion would lift as many as 400,000 children above the poverty line. 3 million more children would be made less poor as their incomes rise closer to the poverty line.��

Democrats had demanded a larger child tax credit after an earlier version they passed for less than one year expired, causing child poverty to fall and then rise again after it lapsed. The new agreement would provide smaller benefits than the monthly payments under the American Rescue Plan.

“Fifteen million kids from low-income families will be better off as a result of this plan, and given today’s miserable political climate, it’s a big deal to have this opportunity to pass pro-family policy that helps so many kids get ahead,” Wyden said in a statement.

Republicans were motivated to revive some expired portions of the 2017 Trump tax cuts for businesses. The deal includes expensing for research and experimental costs, restoration of an earlier interest deduction, an expansion of small-business expensing and an extension of bonus depreciation, according to a section-by-section summary released by the Ways and Means Committee.

Wyden has said he hopes to pass the deal by the beginning of tax filing season, which is Jan. 29. That's not assured as Congress is juggling other priorities, most notably averting a government shutdown at the end of this week and completing its funding process by March. If it passes, it would be a rare success story of active legislating on a politically sensitive issue by a divided Congress that has so far been historically unproductive.

"My goal remains to get this passed in time for families and businesses to benefit in this upcoming tax filing season, and I’m going to pull out all the stops to get that done," Wyden said Tuesday.

[ajunicetryagain]

For a bit of context, let's look at Donald Trump's record and promises in the same areas:

Trump's EPA cut the minimum number of lead pipes that need to be replaced each year by more than half – 3%, down from 7% under the previous 1991 rule. [Bloomberg Law]

Trump notoriously had his own fraudulent university, repeatedly tried to eliminate public service debt forgiveness and has consistently opposed Biden's efforts to forgive student loan debt. [Center for American Progress / CEPR]

Trump made the largest cuts to national monuments in the nation's history, slashing Grand Staircase-Escalante by half and Bears Ears by a staggering 85%. [The Center for Biological Diversity]

Trump rolled back Obama-era fuel efficiency standards under a so-called SAFE Vehicles Rule that his own EPA warned would be detrimental to safety. [Reuters / Public Citizen]

Trump repeatedly cut the budget for the IRS, targeted low-income people for audits and may be facing his own $100 million tax bill following an audit. [CBPP / Americans for Tax Fairness / ProPublica]

Trump, famously anti-offshore wind, has vowed to immediately end offshore wind if elected. [Washington Post / The Guardian]

Trump eliminated the DACA program, a move the Supreme Court (without all three of his eventual appointments) thankfully overturned. [National Immigration Law Center]

Trump signed a child welfare executive order – largely a repackaging of existing programs – that authorized faith-based organizations to turn away qualified prospective parents based on their sexuality, gender identity or religion. [Lambda Legal]

Trump appointed more than 200 federal judges, including such gems as his three SCOTUS appointments and Matthew Kacsmaryk [Pew Research / The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights]

The parties are not the same – and neither are Trump and Biden.

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #16

April 26-May 3 2024

President Biden announced $3 billion to help replace lead pipes in the drinking water system. Millions of Americans get their drinking water through lead pipes, which are toxic, no level of lead exposure is safe. This problem disproportionately affects people of color and low income communities. This first investment of a planned $15 billion will replace 1.7 million lead pipe lines. The Biden Administration plans to replace all lead pipes in the country by the end of the decade.

President Biden canceled the student debt of 317,000 former students of a fraudulent for-profit college system. The Art Institutes was a for-profit system of dozens of schools offering degrees in video-game design and other arts. After years of legal troubles around misleading students and falsifying data the last AI schools closed abruptly without warning in September last year. This adds to the $29 billion in debt for 1.7 borrowers who wee mislead and defrauded by their schools which the Biden Administration has done, and a total debt relief for 4.6 million borrowers so far under Biden.

President Biden expanded two California national monuments protecting thousands of acres of land. The two national monuments are the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument and the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument, which are being expanded by 120,000 acres. The new protections cover lands of cultural and religious importance to a number of California based native communities. This expansion was first proposed by then Senator Kamala Harris in 2018 as part of a wide ranging plan to expand and protect public land in California. This expansion is part of the Administration's goals to protect, conserve, and restore at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.

The Department of Transportation announced new rules that will require car manufacturers to install automatic braking systems in new cars. Starting in 2029 all new cars will be required to have systems to detect pedestrians and automatically apply the breaks in an emergency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration projects this new rule will save 360 lives every year and prevent at least 24,000 injuries annually.

The IRS announced plans to ramp up audits on the wealthiest Americans. The IRS plans on increasing its audit rate on taxpayers who make over $10 million a year. After decades of Republicans in Congress cutting IRS funding to protect wealthy tax cheats the Biden Administration passed $80 billion for tougher enforcement on the wealthy. The IRS has been able to collect just in one year $500 Million in undisputed but unpaid back taxes from wealthy households, and shows a rise of $31 billion from audits in the 2023 tax year. The IRS also announced its free direct file pilot program was a smashing success. The program allowed tax payers across 12 states to file directly for free with the IRS over the internet. The IRS announced that 140,000 tax payers were able to use it over their target of 100,000, they estimated it saved $5.6 million in tax prep fees, over 90% of users were happy with the webpage and reported it quicker and easier than companies like H&R Block. the IRS plans to bring direct file nationwide next year.

The Department of Interior announced plans for new off shore wind power. The two new sites, off the coast of Oregon and in the Gulf of Maine, would together generate 18 gigawatts of totally clean energy, enough to power 6 million homes.

The Biden Administration announced new rules to finally allow DACA recipients to be covered by Obamacare. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an Obama era policy that allows people brought to the United States as children without legal status to remain and to legally work. However for years DACA recipients have not been able to get health coverage through the Obamacare Health Care Marketplace. This rule change will bring health coverage to at least 100,000 uninsured people.

The Department of Health and Human Services finalized rules that require LGBTQ+ and Intersex minors in the foster care system be placed in supportive and affirming homes.

The Senate confirmed Georgia Alexakis to a life time federal judgeship in Illinois. This brings the total number of federal judges appointed by President Biden to 194. For the first time in history the majority of a President's nominees to the federal bench have not been white men.

[gorey-gorella]

I was going to ask about your thoughts on the previous articles now that the broken link thing was cleared up (Prev links: pewresearch. org/global/2011/11/17/the-american-western-european-values-gap/ ; theguardian. com/commentisfree/2021/may/28/centrism-insidious-bias-unjust-status-quo ; cbpp. org/research/health/republic ; sapiens. org/biology/is-race-real/ ; amnesty. org/en/latest/news/2018/10/its-intersex-awareness-day-here-are-5-myths-we-need-to-shatter/ ; fitchburgstate. libguides. com/c. php?g=1046516&p=7616506 ; subversions.tiss. edu/vol2-issue1/gayatri/ ; dailytargum. com/article/2020/10/rizvi-avatar-the-last-airbender-explores-important-sociopolitical-issues), but now that you've listed Dr. Shaym, Short Fat Otaku, and Shoe0nhead (who had a very brief redemption arc but has fallen back into grifterdom) as the individuals who help guide your politics, I can see that trying to have a serious discussion about this is probably not going to be fruitful. Not to say YouTubers can't provide insight (e.g. Lindsay Ellis, Anansi's Library, Boy Boy, F.D. Signifier, etc.), but consuming the works of academics and experts (e.g. Albert Einstein, George Orwell, Judith Butler, W. E. B. DuBois, Amitav Ghosh, Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, bell hooks, Frantz Fanon, Audre Lorde, Emma Goldman, Kimberle Crenshaw, Cathy Cohen, etc.) is an important part of staying appropriately informed. Observing human behavior is something most people do; what influences the outcome/ conclusions of said observations is what matters and requires a consistent moral framework. What you consider "logical" is shaped by historical context and propagandic efforts (i.e. the notion of information without bias is essentially myth). Also, your exaggerated description of the left reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of their positions (i.e. what intersectionality means—ted. com/talks/kimberle_crenshaw_the_urgency_of_intersectionality?language=en). Finding right-wingers who care about universal healthcare is like finding a needle in a haystack. The left (which is not the dem party because they're mostly neolibs) consistently support policy that upholds equity in comparison to the right (which includes neolibs, Trump republicans, and extreme right-wingers like literal neonazis). You talk of being tired of left-wing vs. right-wing bullshit, but what you're describing as the left proves that you're actually still stuck in said culture war bullshit when the actual war is class war. You are misconstruing ATLA's focus on balance as a Buddhist principle with centrism despite its clear anti-authoritarian/fascist and other left-leaning themes. Hell, Michael DiMartino even shared a quote which compared the Fire Nation to America under Trump.

If Cathy Cohen is considered an expert, then I just don't know what to say. Also, right-wing and even Christian experts exist, so I can easily use what they say and treat them like true sources for everything, but I don't.

I didn't become an atheist because of some long evolution study.

I became an atheist because of the logic of there being a God isn't enough, it doesn't add up, it simply makes no sense, and by observing stuff, I became more and more atheist.

Yes, I do use studies. It's just not the only thing I use. Especially if the study is half-ass like those HAES/fat acceptance studies. And I rarely read long, excess things that don't get to the point quickly enough. I don't use studies that use many buzzwords and very emotional language.

Just because years later, Mike said some dumb shit, comparing Trump's America to a magical, fascism, ancient fiery Japan doesn't defy what the series taught back then.

The Fire Nation didn't turn into a government. It still had the Fire Lord and monarchy stuff at the end of the show, with Zuko becoming Firelord, his daughter becoming Firelord, and Prince Iroh II would also become a Firelord in time. So it's not full on anti-auth. It's anti-fascism.

Authoritarianism isn't inherently bad. Just like how Liberalism isn't inherently good. Rules need to be set in place.

Being a fascist is different from being auth in it of itself. Being fascist is the extremes.

The Airbenders died because they were too pacifistic.

Yes, it had many leftist themes, but it didn't treat the Airbenders and Toph's mindset as perfect. The whole point is balance, and the extremes are bad. The Fire Nation wasn't bad because it was more auth than other nations. It was because it was extremely auth, very fascist and nationalistic at the point they killed all the Air Nomads.

My point is that not all right wingers are the exact same. That's why the far right hates Trump and stuff. Trump was actually very openly pro-gay back in the day. It's why leftists are always infighting.

Also, you have your own bias. I know I have mine, I just don't let it fully control me, but you are acting like you're above it all.

Also, you asked for extremism from the left, not just simple left wing opinions, so what I did? Give you extremist ideas on the left.

I know I'm not above bias, but I try not to be overwhelmingly biased compared to the people in my homeland and here.

I'm not sure if this answered what you asked, but to me, it did.

[brianbrianbrain]

ID. Tweet by Ward Q. Normal @WardQNormal: My new hobby is taking graphs of economic data over time and indicating the year that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, in case people find that helpful or informative. End ID.

ID. A series of line graphs, each including an arrow pointing from a cutout of Reagan's face to the data point for 1981, as follows:

Title: Life Expectancy versus Healthcare Spending Over Time, from 1970 to 2014. The USA is compared to many other countries (Chile, South Korea, Israel, Greece, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia, France, Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Finland, UK, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland). Before Reagan, USA followed the same trend as the other countries. After Reagan, USA has consistently spent up to $3,000 more per capita on healthcare for up to 5 years less of life expectancy.

Title: Top 1% versus Bottom 50% national income shares in the US and Western Europe, 1980-2016: Diverging income inequality trajectories. In 2016, 12% of national income was received by the top 1% and 22% by the bottom 50% in Western Europe, compared to 20% and 13% in the US. In 1980, 10% was received by the top 1% in and 23.5% by the bottom 50% in Western Europe, compared to 11% and 20.5% in the US. Source: WID.world (2017). See wir2018.wir.world for data series and notes.

Title: Percent Increase, Since 1970, in the Annual Cost to Attend the University of Illinois, the Median Household Income in Illinois, and the Minimum Wage in Illinois. Before Reagan, tuition and fees, median income, and minimum wage all increased at the same percentages. After Reagan, when all categories had grown 100%, tuition and fees grew almost parabolically to 1400% in 2013 while median income grew linearly to 500% and minimum wage crawled to 400%.

Title: United States Debt in 2014 Dollars and as Percent of GDP. Before Reagan, debt as percent of GDP had been decreasing parabolically from 120% in 1945 to 30% in 1981 while debt in 2014 dollars had decreased slightly before remaining steady at around 2.5 trillion. After Reagan, debt both as percent of GDP and in dollars increased almost linearly with the exception of the dip in 2001. In 2014, debt was just over 100% of GDP at $18 trillion.

Title: Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product. From 1965 to 1981, public debt as percent of GDP had linearly decreased from 40% to 30%. Debt as percent of GDP then rose linearly to a peak of 65% in 1995, dipped to 55% in 2001, increased linearly to 65% in 2005, and trended logarithmically to 105% in 2020. Source: FRED.

Title: Income Gains Widely Shared in Early Postwar Decades – But Not Since Then: Real family income between 1947 and 2017, as a percentage of 1973 level. Real family income among the top 5%, median, and bottom 20% as a percentage of 1973 level was about the same from 1945 (50%) to 1981 (105%). After 1981, the top 5% continued along the same trend to reach 180% of 1973 levels in 2017 while median and bottom 20% saw less growth to 130% and 110% of 1973 levels. Source: CBPP calculations based on US Census Bureau Data.

Title: Top Marginal Tax Rate from 1966 to 2014. From 1966 to 1981, the top marginal tax rate remained about 70% except for a spike to 75% in the late 1960s. The tax rate then decreased to 50% in 1982 and later 28% in 1986. The rate increased to 39.6% in the 1990s, dipped to 35% in 2001 through 2012, and increased back to 39.6% in 2012.

End ID.

And possibly the most important one that explains the rest

Happy July 5th

[prabhatdavian-blog]

Business Process Management: Certification Free Coupon

Business Process Management (BPM) plays a crucial role in enhancing organizational efficiency and achieving operational excellence. In today's competitive job market, BPM certifications are increasingly valuable, offering professionals a way to demonstrate their expertise in optimizing business processes. This article explores the world of BPM certifications, focusing on how individuals can obtain these certifications for free through various coupon offers.

Introduction to Business Process Management (BPM)

What is BPM?

Business Process Management (BPM) refers to the systematic approach of improving business processes to achieve efficiency, agility, and innovation within an organization. It involves analyzing, designing, implementing, and continuously optimizing workflows and procedures.

Importance of BPM in Modern Business

In the fast-paced business environment, BPM helps organizations streamline operations, reduce costs, and enhance customer satisfaction by eliminating inefficiencies and bottlenecks.

Benefits of BPM Certification

Career Advantages

BPM certifications validate an individual's knowledge and skills in process improvement methodologies, making them more attractive to potential employers and enhancing career prospects.

Enhanced Skillset

Certified BPM professionals gain expertise in areas such as process modeling, analysis, and automation, equipping them to lead strategic initiatives within their organizations.

Overview of BPM Certification Programs

Popular Certification Bodies

Leading organizations such as the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the American Society for Quality (ASQ) offer recognized BPM certification programs.

Types of BPM Certifications

Certifications like Certified Business Process Professional (CBPP) and Certified Process Management Professional (CPMP) cater to different levels of expertise and career goals.

Finding Free Coupon Offers for BPM Certification

Understanding Free Coupon Opportunities

Free coupons for BPM certifications often cover the cost of exam fees or provide discounts on study materials, making certification more accessible.

Where to Find Free Coupons

Online platforms, professional networks, and certification body websites frequently promote free coupon offers for BPM exams. Staying updated with these sources is key to securing a free certification.

How to Qualify for Free Coupons

Eligibility Criteria

Requirements for free BPM certification coupons vary but commonly include criteria such as professional experience or participation in training programs.

Application Process

Applicants typically need to submit proof of eligibility and follow specific instructions outlined by the certifying body to obtain their free coupon.

Comparison of Free vs Paid BPM Certification

Pros and Cons of Free Coupons

Free BPM certifications offer cost savings and accessibility, but may have stricter eligibility requirements and fewer benefits compared to paid certifications.

Value Proposition of Paid Certifications

Paid BPM certifications often provide additional resources, networking opportunities, and higher industry recognition, which can be advantageous for career advancement.

Tips for Successful Completion of BPM Certification

Study Strategies

Effective preparation involves utilizing study guides, practice exams, and joining study groups to enhance understanding of BPM concepts.

Preparing for the Exam

Familiarizing oneself with exam formats and focusing on key areas outlined in the certification syllabus are crucial steps towards exam success.

Real-world Applications of BPM Certification

Case Studies

Examples of organizations leveraging BPM certifications to achieve significant process improvements and business outcomes.

Success Stories

Profiles of BPM professionals who have successfully applied their certification knowledge to drive innovation and change within their respective industries.

Future Trends in BPM Certification

Emerging Technologies

Advancements in AI, automation, and data analytics are shaping the future of BPM, influencing certification programs to include relevant skills and knowledge.

Impact of Digital Transformation

The shift towards digital transformation emphasizes the need for BPM professionals skilled in managing complex workflows and integrating digital tools effectively.

[agricjournalist]

Namibia Launches Farmer Training to Combat Livestock Disease CBPP in Northern Regions

In an effort to curb the spread of Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP), a devastating cattle lung disease, the Namibian government has launched a farmer training program in the country’s northern regions, according to a statement released by the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform on Thursday. The training program, which is being rolled out in collaboration with the Food and…

[kristenpaul2023]

PCR KITS for Ruminants | Indical Bioscience

Ruminants PCR kits are diagnostic tools used for detecting and identifying specific DNA sequences in ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep, and goats. PCR (polymerase chain reaction) is a molecular biology technique that amplifies a specific region of DNA, allowing for its detection and analysis.

PCR kits designed for ruminants typically contain the necessary reagents, enzymes, primers, and probes needed to perform the PCR reaction. These kits are specifically designed to target and amplify DNA sequences that are unique to ruminant species or specific pathogens commonly found in ruminants.

The use of PCR kits in ruminant diagnostics can help identify infectious diseases, such as bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), Johne's disease, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP), and others. These kits enable rapid and accurate detection of pathogens by amplifying their DNA, which can be subsequently analyzed through various methods, such as gel electrophoresis or fluorescence detection.

PCR-based diagnostics provide several advantages, including high sensitivity, specificity, and speed compared to traditional diagnostic methods. They can also detect pathogens at early stages of infection, enabling prompt interventions and control measures to limit the spread of diseases within ruminant populations.

It's worth noting that specific PCR kits may be available for different target organisms or diseases, and their availability and composition may vary among manufacturers. Therefore, it's advisable to consult with specific suppliers or diagnostic companies to obtain detailed information on the ruminants PCR kits they offer and their specific applications.

Shop Now - https://shop.indical.com/en/assays-and-reagents/ready-to-use-assays/ruminants/?pgNr=1

[awutar]

Who will be affected the most if Biden and Republicans fail to reach an agreement on the debt

House Republicans Debt Ceiling and Cuts Bill would cut $3.6 trillion dollars over ten years from the federal budget. The cuts are mainly focused on programs that fund child care, schools, college aid, housing, medical research, transit and other national priorities, indicated the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). He adds that the cuts would average 13% in 2024, but increase to 24%…

[africafinancialtimes]

Financement vert : La CDC Bénin entre au capital de la CBPP SA dans un projet de valorisation des déchets plastiques en granulés de polypropylène. La gestion des déchets plastiques est un enjeu planétaire pour les villes face aux défis liés au changement climatique et à la conservation de la nature. En effet, plus de 6,9 milliards de tonnes de déchets plastiques ont été produits dans le monde depuis 2015 dont plus de 79% se retrouvent dans des décharges ou dans la nature. Aucune ville béninoise n’échappe à ce fléau qui engendre à une forte dégradation de la biodiversité terrestre et maritime. Il constitue également un risque accru pour la santé humaine. Face à cette crise écologique, la Compagnie Béninoise de Production de Polypropylène SA (CBPP) propose des solutions novatrices visant à moderniser la gestion de ces déchets. C’est dans cette perspective qu’elle ambitionne d’investir dans l’exploitation d’une unité industrielle de recyclage des déchets plastiques en granulés de propylène à commercialiser sous la marque « VALDEO ». Implantée à Ahozon, dans la commune de Ouidah (Bénin), ce projet d’un coût global de 11 milliards FCFA couvrira dans un premier temps le périmètre du Grand-Nokoué en développant une synergie avec la SGDS-GN et s’étendra ensuite vers les grands centres urbains voire au-delà des frontières du pays. Au démarrage, 37 800 tonnes de déchets seront traitées avec une croissance moyenne annuelle capacitaire d’environ 9 à 10%. VALDEO devrait commercialiser dès 2024 des granulés de plastiques qui servent de matière première pour des industries de transformation de produits plastiques à travers le monde entier. La cérémonie officielle de signature du pacte d’actionnaires qui s’est déroulée le jeudi 09 février 2023 au siège de la CDC Bénin en présence des directeurs généraux des entreprises signatures, respectivement messieurs Létondé F. Brice HOUETON et Loukman SANI AGATHA, illustre l’intérêt de la CDC Bénin à impacter durablement le développement du Bénin à travers des investissements économiquement viables et socialement responsables. Avec un financement de FCFA 2,6 milliards aux côtés de plusieurs autres investisseurs nationaux comme internationaux, la Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations du Bénin agit comme un catalyseur et affirme son positionnement d’investisseur éco-responsable. Cette alliance scellée entre la CDC Bénin et la CBPP SA à travers la présente signature, révolutionnera la gestion des déchets solides ménagers au Bénin, a indiqué Monsieur HOUETON.

La gestion des déchets plastiques est un enjeu planétaire pour les villes face aux défis liés au changement climatique et à la conservation de la nature. En effet, plus de 6,9 milliards de tonnes de déchets plastiques ont été produits dans le monde depuis 2015 dont plus de 79% se retrouvent dans des décharges ou dans la nature. Aucune ville béninoise n’échappe à ce fléau qui engendre à une forte…

[danielmhurt]

How much would UBI in America cost?

The question of whether UBI would be too expensive in the United States is frequently posed by policymakers. UBI could be cheaper than the existing social safety net. However, if we were to implement such a system, we would need to consider its gross and net costs. Taking both into account, we can make an informed decision regarding the issue.

If you're wondering how much a UBI would cost in the United States, the answer is quite a bit. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the program's annual cost would be approximately $3 trillion.

This number is based on projections by the economist Karl Widerquist. Additionally, the CBPP has proposed various funding options for the UBI, including $300 billion to $500 billion from existing social safety net programs.

A UBI would have a negligible impact on the U.S. economy compared to the economies of other countries. Currently, the United States spends less than other developed nations on social services.

Still, UBI would cost between $30 trillion and $40 trillion over a decade. An increase in taxes would cover these expenses. UBI would ultimately be beneficial for the economy. It would increase Social Security retirement benefits and provide income to those in need.

If you are unfamiliar with UBI, it is a program that provides a basic income to unemployed citizens in the United States. Additionally, the program would supplement existing disability benefits.

Estimates place the annual cost of the program between $3 and $5 trillion. This amount includes various social benefits and infrastructure expenditures. However, most of the price would come from social and medical spending, accounting for approximately 37% of the total cost.

The government would need to increase taxes to cover the cost of the UBI. Those earning over $1,000,000 yearly would pay a higher income tax rate. These tax increases may result in fewer jobs and lower wages for low-income Americans.

Proponents of the UBI assert that it will solve numerous policy problems. According to them, the program will reduce poverty and improve health. Additionally, it will stimulate the economy.

When evaluating the impact of UBI on social programs, it is crucial to examine the distributional properties of the benefits. This can be accomplished by comparing the distributional properties of the UBI to those of the existing non-contributory transfers.

The proposed approach is founded on the three principal dimensions of generosity, progression, and coverage. Each of these has significant implications for the policy package's effectiveness. Additionally, it is essential to consider tradeoffs and implementation constraints.

Universal basic income necessitates significant spending reductions. This would result in a decrease in economic output, tax revenue, and labor force. In addition, it could result in substantial losses for those at the bottom of the income distribution.

However, it is still being determined whether a universal basic income would achieve its redistributive goals. Some contend that it could be more effective for increasing the income of low-income households.

Despite this, UBI has numerous supporters. They emphasize the need to combat technological unemployment, which could result in many unemployed individuals. Additionally, it could be utilized to fight poverty. In addition, some contend that it reduces the stigma associated with receiving government assistance.

The universal basic income (UBI) debate has shifted following the global pandemic. Multiple policy circles have reported a shift in support for UBI, and individual attitudes are also shifting. There have been examinations of UBI in the United States and the United Kingdom.

People's support for UBI during the pandemic was higher than during other times. This was in part due to an increase in generosity and selflessness. However, UBI was also favored over targeted, conditional programs.

Arguments in favor of UBI emphasize the need for more generous social transfers, a reduction in bureaucracy, and the inclusion of those excluded from existing programs. A UBI could be coupled with a suitable taxation scheme to ensure that benefits are distributed equitably.

During the pandemic, support for UBI was influenced by the ease of administration and the difficulty of cheating. It was also related to reducing stress and anxiety, and there was a possibility that the labor market would shrink.

[gorey-gorella]

The U.S. is further right than many developed countries, making being a U.S. centrist the same as being on the right. Voting moderate or conservative will never get you policies like free government healthcare because they are antithetical to the capitalist logic of the right. (Sources: pewresearch. org/global/2011/11/17/the-american-western-european-values-gap/ ; theguardian. com/commentisfree/2021/may/28/centrism-insidious-bias-unjust-status-quo ; cbpp. org/research/health/republic).

Considering my politics, this implies that right-wingers are open-minded and support equal rights for all citizens, if I'm right, winger, and my politics mostly match up with whatever dude or gal I'm voting for.