Press Releases

Clark Issues Report on Ryan Budget Effects to Massachusetts Economy

Washington, D.C. -- Congresswoman Katherine Clark voted against the Republican Fiscal Year 2015 budget, citing key cuts that harm the Commonwealth’s and nation's economy. Clark voted in support of three budgets: the Democratic Alternative Budget, the Progressive Budget and the Congressional Black Caucus Budget. 

“Instead of growing revenue by ending billion-dollar tax handouts for the nation’s wealthiest, Republicans chose to take away economic life support from our nation’s most vulnerable,” said Clark. “Our budget should be a statement of our national values and priorities. Sadly, Chairman Ryan’s cynical version of the American Dream is a path to prosperity for the wealthiest and the special interests. I stand with Massachusetts families who are fighting for the basic promise of opportunity for all families.”

REPORT:  Recent data from the White House shows the damage that the Ryan Budget would do to Massachusetts seniors, students, women, workers, and middle class families.

Workers, Women & Children

This irresponsible Republican budget threatens workers, women, and even children at risk of abuse.  For example, the Republican budget makes cuts in 2016, that would mean:

·         19,900 Massachusetts workers would lose training and employment services, and 52,800 people would lose search assistance – all critical for workers to get jobs and get ahead.

·         $35.7 billion in cuts to the Social Services Block Grant, that supports child care for low-income parents along with protective services for children at risk of abuse and neglect.

·         730 Massachusetts children would lose access to child care, which is essential for working parents to hold down a job.

·         1,753 fewer victims of domestic violence would receive through the STOP Violence Against Women Program.


Seniors

The GOP plan significantly undermines the economic and health security of seniors in the Commonwealth:

·         For a fourth consecutive year, Republicans’ plan would end the Medicare guarantee and raise health care costs for seniors;
·         Their plan also jeopardizes nursing home care for tens of thousands of seniors here in Massachusetts by slashing Medicaid by $19 billion over the next 10 years;

·         67,514 Massachusetts seniors would pay more for prescription drugs, as the Ryan Republican budget reopens the Medicare Part D donut hole.


Education

The House Republican budget ransacks our nation’s commitment to education with severe cuts in elementary and secondary education and early learning programs. For example, the budget makes cuts in 2016 that would:

·         Push 2,710 Massachusetts children out of Head Start;

·         Rob 170 Massachusetts schools and 50,440 disadvantaged students of the extra academic support through Title I they need to succeed, with 480 fewer teachers and aides to help these students;

·         Cut 500 special education teachers  in Massachusetts.


The Ryan Republican Budget also makes college less affordable for millions of students who rely on Pell grants, federal student loans, and higher education tax credits – pushing college out of reach for many bright young students in the Commonwealth.

·         The budget slashes student aid and support by a total of $260 billion below current policy over the next 10 years;

·         At a time when college costs continue to rise, the Republican budget would cut $50,700,000 in Pell Grants for Massachusetts students and 9,940 fewer students would receive help paying for college.

Jobs & Middle Class Families

These devastating Republican cuts are not the only problem for America’s middle class in this budget.  Under the Ryan Republican Budget, middle class families will see higher taxes and fewer jobs:

·         The GOP budget would cause the loss of three million American jobs in 2016 year alone.

·         Republicans would raise taxes on middle class families with children by more than $2,000 – to pay for a more than $200,000 tax break for millionaires.

 

Notes on methodology
1. All Discretionary Programs - Reductions to discretionary programs are determined by calculating the percentage reduction from the non-defense budget authority provided in the President's Budget for FY 2016 (with slight adjustments for comparability, $530 billion) to the budget authority provided under the House Republican Budget in the same year ($450 billion). This results in an overall reduction in non-defense discretionary budget authority of 15% compared to the levels proposed by the President. Given that the House Republican Budget does not specify how these reductions would be achieved, this 15% reduction is applied across-the-board to current programmatic levels to show illustrative differences that could occur within a few years.

2. Medicare Part D - Calculations reflect the number of seniors that received discounts on prescription drugs in 2013 due to the closure of the Part D donut hole.

3. Pell Grants - Pell Grant numbers were calculated using the current 2014 policies compared to the 2015 defined program parameters in the House Budget Resolution.

4. Medicaid - Reductions are based on applying a 20% reduction to CBO's total Medicaid spending projection under current law from 2015-2024, and then dividing the reductions by state according to each state's share of nationwide spending in FY 2013. Of note, reductions due not include additional Medicaid funding that would be denied to states due to the repeal of the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.
5. Head Start - Reductions reflect the estimated children who would not receive Head Start and Early Head Start services, which is higher than reduction of full-year slots from the program due to turnover. State-by-state estimates are based on national average cost per child, blended across Head Start and Early Head Start.

 6. Child Care Block Grant - Estimates are derived from historic funding levels and the average program unit cost. This table only shows funding from CCDBG (i.e., CCDF Discretionary) and does not include CCDF Mandatory or Matching funding.

7. Job Training Grants - Estimates assume the same formula allocation for each state as in 2014. The projected decrease in participants for each state was derived by applying the percentage reduction in funding for each state to the national projected reduction in the number of participants served. Some participants in the Employment Services program may also co-enroll in WIA programs, and therefore numbers cannot be summed across WIA and ES.


###