Budget Cuts for Montanans w/ 2006 Budget

[MattK]

I got this from an e-mail....I don't have an opinion on it but thought it was an interesting read.

Bush recently unveiled his reckless plan to privatize Social Security, and now he's touting a budget that slashes key programs that help Montana's working families.

Bush plans devastating cuts to America's top priorities, from homeland security to health care to education to benefits for veterans and much more. Despite these cuts, this budget is a fiscal disaster, with Bush's trademark irresponsibility pushing America deeper into the red with another record deficit.

And this budget is a huge disaster for Montana. Here are just a few of the cuts Montana faces under Bush's 2006 budget:

Homeland Security
The Bush 2006 budget cuts $420 million to state and local funding for homeland security, including a $9.9 million cut for Montana. These cuts will take police and firefighters off your streets.
The Bush budget cuts the COPS program, which has put 395 officers on Montana streets, by 96 percent.
Health Care
The Bush budget cuts $45 billion from Medicaid, enough to provide health care to 1.8 million children. Montana's share of these cuts is $133 million.
Bush's budget cuts the very same community and rural health care programs he touted during the campaign, even though more than 27,000 Montana residents have lost their health care coverage since Bush took office due to his failures.
Education
Bush underfunds his own No Child Left Behind Act by $13.1 billion in his budget. In Montana, that means a shortfall of $72.7 million, leaving behind 10,268 Montana children.
Bush promised to fund Pell Grants in his State of the Union address, but his budget is $6.6 billion short. That's $25.4 million less than what's needed in Montana, a real burden for the 17,522 students in Montana who receive the grants.
Other Priorities
Bush cuts $6.9 million from Montana job training programs in his 2006 budget.
The Bush budget would require many veterans to pay a new $250 annual "user fee" to use the Veterans Administration health care system, and would double the prescription drug co-payment for the 108,476 Montana veterans.
Bush cuts Montana clean water programs by $1.9 million.
Bush's 2006 budget also cuts the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program -- which helps low-income families afford heating fuel in the winter -- by $234.4 million, including $1.4 million cut for Montana residents.
And Bush's irresponsible budget is a record $427 billion in the red, increasing each Montana family's share of the federal debt by $36,467.

 

[ringer]

Dub is finally acting like a responsible leader on this one. He knows if he asks for any cuts at all he will get kicked by both parties who spend other people's money with no concern. By the way I have been to Montana and there is absolutely no terrorist threat there due to lack of population so are you calling that money necessary as a welfare donation?

 

[Nemont]

That is pretty interesing considering the State of Montana is going to have a $7 billion dollar budget over the next 2 years which is an increase of $870 million dollars. Nearly all of that increase in the budget is attributed to increased Federal dollars.

State increasingly reliant on federal money

It's always worth a comment after federal budgets come out: Montana gets more federal aid, per capita, than most other states.

Such comments usually include a pat on the back for our pork-producing congressmen (we prefer to think of it as bringing home the bacon), as well as rationales for why Montana needs and deserves the money.

Indeed, we've needed and deserved it so much that the share of the state budget funded with federal money has risen from 38 percent to 46 percent over the past decade (estimated for the coming two-year state budget).

It's nice work if you can get it, and Montana does seem to get it: In October, the national Tax Foundation's annual bang-for-the-buck list placed Montana seventh among the states.

Montana got $1.60 back for every dollar its taxpayers sent to Washington in 2003, not far behind the No. 1 state, New Mexico, which got back $1.99 per tax dollar.

Such a cash flow is easily defensible: The state has more highway miles per person than most states, lots of federal land, seven Indian reservations, an older population, lower per-capita incomes, and so on.

But there's a dark cloud on the Big Sky horizon, and state budget officials know all about it.

In the past four years, they and the rest of us have watched the federal deficit grow — estimated at $427 billion this year.

The biggest contributors are defense spending and tax cuts, not the programs that show up in the state budget (those programs have grown, but not by that much).

The effect of all that red ink is to put pressure on President Bush to trim the federal budget.

And given the makeup of Congress, the rollbacks are most likely to occur in state- and people-oriented programs, not in defense spending or tax cuts.

Thatis the dark cloud:

"The loss of federal funds translates to either reductions in services to citizens," says a legislative budget report, "or increased state costs to offset the loss, loss of jobs in the state and loss of imported money into the Montana economy."

"Any talk of cuts out of Washington pose big impacts on state budgets," said David Ewer, Gov. Brian Schweitzer's budget director.

The biggest target is Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, to the tune of $500 million a year in Montana.

That's the biggest, but far from being the only, fed-dependent program run by the state Department of Health and Human Services, which expects to get $1.84 billion in federal money over the next two years.

Overall, the state budget contains about $3.2 billion in federal money, double the level from just 10 years ago.We won't know how big the cuts will be until next year, but it's not difficult to foresee that the 2007 Legislature could very well be facing some gaping holes where money used to be.


Originally published March 3, 2005

Lets see, Who was in office 10 years ago? Yet we are getting double the amount of federal dollars then we did then but Bush is the bad guy. |oo |oo I can't always follow that logic.

Nemont

 

[Bambistew]

Interesting..... about one in eight Montanans are veterans!

The "typical" political BS... One side will like the plan the other will make it seem like doomsday! "We don't have the money so your heath care, education and public saftey will suffer"... They pull that same BS here in Baltimore every year when the budget comes up. They just institued a big fat "phone line" tax in the city... I'll pay to the tune of over $120 a year just to have two cell lines and a land line... on top of all the federal, and state taxes on phone lines... This tax will go directly into the city coffers, right along with property taxes that are twice as high as the surounding counties, etc, etc... they they have the gaul to say that we'll have to cut police officers and firemen.. instead of kicking crack heads off their welfare programs... All while maintaining one of the highest (if not the highest) murder rate in the nation... This city is a prime candidate of how a politically one sided government can run a society into the ground! How bout this little tid bit... ONE out of every EIGHT people will be arrested in the city this year... The democrats are doing a fine job if you ask me...

 

[MattK]

Nemont- I'm not arguing for or against but your article states the same thing without concrete numbers.

"The biggest contributors are defense spending and tax cuts, not the programs that show up in the state budget (those programs have grown, but not by that much)."

"And given the makeup of Congress, the rollbacks are most likely to occur in state- and people-oriented programs, not in defense spending or tax cuts."

"The biggest target is Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, to the tune of $500 million a year in Montana."

I just thought the article was interesting because it shows how much Montana relies on Federal funds (which I already knew, just not in $ amounts). It also shows where the spending will be decreased.

 

[Nemont]

MattK,

I guess my point is why should we expect the taxpayers of other states to pick up the tab for us. Nearly 1/2 our budget is federal money. That doesn't even count all the direct payments the federal government makes to Montana residents. Whether the cuts are in "people" or state programs if you are over spending you have to cut somewhere.

Imagine if President Bush proposed reducing defense spending now. The same people bashing him for reducing federal outlays for Medicaid would be going crazy saying he is abandoning our troops in the field. What should be cut? Name a program and there is a special interest group that has a vested interest in seeing that program get increased funding.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- I understand your point. I think they should get rid of most highways in Montana. It would cut a large amount of the budget. We can do a quick study, if the highway or road isn't used by a certain number of people per day/ cut the budget on it. Make those in rural areas own suvs and drive slowly because of the dirt road w/ potholes....

I'm obviously exagerrating but for a person who relies on medicaid, they would rather not drive as much and live a little longer. Defense spending for Iraq means very little to the average person in the United States...Not good or bad, it just means very little. cjcj probably thinks more should be paid in border patrol. The budget is not an easy task for a legislative body and I certainly don't have the answers. Like I say, I just thought it was an interesting topic and an interesting article.

 

[MarvB]

MattK...I thought you said that you

don't have an opinion on it

so I take it whats stated below isn't in your words

Bush recently unveiled his reckless plan to privatize Social Security, and now he's touting a budget that slashes key programs that help Montana's working families.

Bush plans devastating cuts to America's top priorities, from homeland security to health care to education to benefits for veterans and much more. Despite these cuts, this budget is a fiscal disaster, with Bush's trademark irresponsibility pushing America deeper into the red with another record deficit.

And this budget is a huge disaster for Montana. Here are just a few of the cuts Montana faces under Bush's 2006 budget:

If they weren't your words I appologize in advance...but somebody definately had an opinion.....

 

[MattK]

The e-mail I received had the opinions...those were not my words.

 

[MarvB]

Thanks for the clarification
Have to agree with the statement their is NO easy way in budgeting funds...I don't care what the program is someone who gets shorted is gonna get pissed and ask why they weren't rather up in the que. We are working through our City budget right now for 07-08 and its the same thing- every department wants a bigger piece of the pie when the pie itself is shrinking.
We've got a handful of auto dealer that are leaving the City limits in search of the Counties "greener" pastures right outside the City limits. Result will be one of those "Auto Malls" and a $2million a year hit to our general fund due to decreased tax base...course it the same fund that paves roads, provides police and fire protection, etc. So the deck will get reshuffled and someone else will go without. Then there are those "targeted" and "matching funds" that can only be spent on certain things even if the need is not as great as in other more important areas....and if you don't spend it you'll lose it next year even if thats when you really have the need. Yup, they call it progress?

Like putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle without all the edge pieces to hold the crap all in