AP/ July 31, 2011, 10:54 PM

Debt deal likely to put hurt on states, poor

The recent Minnesota government shutdown shows that states are already struggling to pay their bills. The proposed Congressional deal on raising the U.S. debt ceiling is likely to cut deeply into federal aid to states.

The recent Minnesota government shutdown shows that states are already struggling to pay their bills. The proposed Congressional deal on raising the U.S. debt ceiling is likely to cut deeply into federal aid to states. / CBS News

HARTFORD, Conn. - The cost of the compromise needed to raise the federal debt ceiling likely will inflict more fiscal pain on states still struggling to recover from the recession and the end of federal stimulus spending.

President Barack Obama and Republicans sealed a deal Sunday to avoid the nation's first financial default and raise the debt limit while slashing more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. Obama said that, if enacted, the agreement would mean "the lowest level of domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was president" more than half a century ago.

While the details of the spending cuts to states remain unclear, lawmakers from both parties have discussed the need to cut or impose caps on so-called discretionary spending over the next decade.

That could mean wide-ranging cuts in federal aid to states, affecting everything from the Head Start school readiness program, Meals on Wheels and worker training initiatives to funding for transit agencies and education grants that serve disabled children.

Financial markets show optimism on debt deal
Boehner trumpets GOP influence in debt debate
President Obama: Deal reached on debt crisis
Special section: America's debt battle

There also was concern among governors, state lawmakers and state agency heads that Congress would make deep reductions or changes in federal aid for health services for the needy, most notably through Medicaid. That could shift more of the costs onto states that already are having trouble balancing their budgets.

"We have the potential for disaster should there be a major realignment in federal funding that results in a cost shift to states," said Nevada state Sen. Sheila Leslie, a Democrat from Reno who recently discussed the issue with Obama administration officials in Washington. "In short, we are teetering on the edge right now, and a cost shift could send us over the cliff."

States already have closed nearly $480 billion in budget gaps since the beginning of the recession, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In Connecticut, for example, officials have struggled to cover a $3.3 billion deficit, accounting for more than 16 percent of the state's main budget account.

About 19 percent of the state's non-transportation revenue comes from the federal government.

"The timing is lousy in every respect," said Benjamin Barnes, secretary of the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. "It will certainly have a recessionary impact on the overall national economy, and that's the last thing we want right now."

Among the programs that could be affected is a service that delivers meals to the home-bound elderly.

Connecticut received about $4.5 million from the federal government for the program this year and $1.8 million from the state. Marie Allen, executive director of the Southwestern Connecticut Agency on Aging, said the program is a staple for many senior citizens on tight budgets. The federal aid ultimately saves taxpayers money because it helps keep people out of costly nursing homes, she said.

"If we don't have the support for them in the community, people end up in nursing facilities because they don't have proper nutrition," Allen said. "These are the real reasons why we spend more money on skilled nursing care."

State officials across the country were worried about the austerity steps demanded by fiscal conservatives in exchange for raising the nation's debt ceiling, said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the National Association of State Budget Officers. He said the association expects states to be affected by cuts, if not immediately, then in the next year or two.

Obama, in his remarks on the debt deal Sunday night, said there will be no initial cuts to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. But he said both could be on the table along with changes in tax law as part of future cuts.

House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, telephoned Obama at mid-evening to say the agreement had been struck, officials said.

No votes were expected in either house of Congress until Monday at the earliest, to give rank-and-file lawmakers time to review the package. But leaders in both major parties were already beginning the work of rounding up votes.

Darrell Steinberg, president pro-tem of the California state Senate, said before the debt deal was announced Sunday night he was concerned about cuts to entitlement programs, especially if they reduce payments to the states for Medicaid, which provide health care for the poor and disabled. The state's version is known as Medi-Cal and covers 7.5 million people.

Significant cuts could have forced California to look for ways to make up for the funding at a time when the state is slowly emerging from a recession that has left it with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Lawmakers closed a $26.6 billion shortfall this year, partly with the help of rising tax revenue.

"Certainly in California, we're on the verge of turning a corner," said Steinberg, a Democrat. "We want to go forward, not backwards."

A concern in many states is a possible change in the federal-state formula known as FMAP, which is used to fund Medicaid programs. In Nevada, for example, the federal government pays 55 percent of the cost. Every 1 percent of cost that is shifted to the state equals roughly $15 million.

"The change in FMAP is probably one of the more fearful ones that we could experience," said Mike Willden, director of the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services.

Not all state officials were dismayed by the possibility of broad-based cuts in federal aid.

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said he believed substantial funding cuts would have less of an impact on his state than allowing the federal government to stay on its course of mounting debt. He is among a small group of GOP governors who signed a pledge urging Congress to oppose increasing the debt limit unless certain conditions are met, including substantial spending cuts.

"We need a serious directional change to recover, and merely raising the debt limit will lead only to disaster," he wrote in a recent email.

The long-term effects of a compromise to raise the debt ceiling could come as a surprise to many state officials, said Rep. George Miller, of California.

The top Democratic lawmaker on the House Education and Workforce Committee said he had received almost no input from state education departments and local school districts about the looming spending cuts. He said reductions contained in the debt ceiling legislation are "going to make life much more difficult for" for public schools.

Robert Moran, who represents the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said plans offered by the leaders of the House and Senate each kept a major aid program largely intact. Pell grants, which provide up to $5,550 to low-income students, would sustain cuts, but they would be relatively small, he said.

"I think the higher-education community was probably pleasantly surprised about that," he said.

But he said colleges still face a double-whammy — federal cuts coming on the heels of deep state cuts. In many university systems around the country, departments have lost funding and class offerings have been reduced.

Barry Toiv, the vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Universities, said continuing to take money out of education would slowly and steadily degrade the quality of the nation's universities and affect America's ability to produce the next generation of leaders.

"It's like termites in the wall, gradually eating away at the underpinnings of our innovation," he said. "If you do that over a long period of time, at some point you're no longer leading the world. And eventually, like with termites in the wall, you're not really going to have a house anymore."

© 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
159 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Truth_Tracker says:
The Super Wealthy got everything they wanted, no questions asked, with the "TARP-Banks-Wall Street-Auto Industry" bailouts. The Super Wealthy got a humongous Welfare Check last December when the Bush Tax Breaks for the Super Wealthy was renewed. And NOW, we are told, they are getting everything they wanted yet again, namely, a complete exemption from having to share in the onerous burden of reducing the deficit, because there's no potential here for a roll-back of their Bush Tax Breaks (Welfare Benefits) for the wealthy.

The U.S. media refuses to even deem this to be significant, probably because THEY benefit tremendously from those "Welfare for the Wealthy" hand-outs and they surreptitiously silence the issue by shifting focus to the "Default Crisis" - with the curt remark "something for everyone to hate," and with the errant national anthem "pass anything - anything is better than default." Well there's nothing in this plan for the Super Wealthy to "hate." The super wealthy are the only ones being rigorously represented in Congress, in the White House or in the media.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
tryhonesty says:
2012 will see the Big FLUSH of Special Interest RepubliCONs and TeaBAGS OUT of Congress.
reply
wardove replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
we will try but they will cheat and lie to win !!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
What I don't understand is why we are having to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the middle class and the rich literally get a free ride.

It just validates my hypothesis that the country has been seized by a few greedy plutocrats. But why are working people of any political bent supporting this? Or at least denying the facts?
reply
doctor_know replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
But louiville12, they own like 90% of the wealth in this country.... so it is more than fair.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
Socialism is where the means of production is owned by the people. This is exactly the opposite of a fascist nation such as America where the means of production are owned by about 400 families.
reply
noloyalisti replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
What these right wing fascists said or did has nothing to with the fact that socialism is the opposite of what we have here which is increasingly brutal rule by RIGHT WING corporatists.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
No Louis $20 million is not enough. Not for a billionaire who made all their money off of the backs of the rest of us. Again, the Top 2% own over 50% of the wealth so they can afford it.

Their pay have gone up significantly while the rest of ours has gone down. What has changed? The corporate welfare we provide to the poor suckers.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
Let's cut the bull. Where are the good paying jobs?
reply
MohatmaJeebus replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
But let's not speak of the 8 years in which Bush and the GOP turned a half Trillion dollar surplus into a 1.4 trillion deficit, started 2 wars with neither paid for, lowered taxes on the rich and gave another trillion to wall street. Must be nice to have a VERY selective memory of recent events. "blame Obama." Wow - The US is full of ignorant morons.
Mortarman1SG replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
There was never a surplus.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Progress4U says:
by moveoutanddrawfire August 1, 2011 4:19 PM EDT
"Walking on the fighting side of me" Good song by Merle haggard when I was fighting in VN
---

You faught in Villa Naga, Bali?????? Must have been a short fight!?!??!?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
Moveout should join Moveon like the rest of us. We are joining with labor to vanquish the fascists who have seized the government. Enough is enough.
reply
Mortarman1SG replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Move ON? What a joke!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Progress4U says:
by moveoutanddrawfire August 1, 2011 4:14 PM EDT
Sorry cupcake - I work and pay taxes so those that won't get to keep thir free government cell phone

So tell me Sweetie -- what do you do for God and Country beside front for Moveon.org?
---

Where's my free roof Retard!!!!! I'm a DAV and I want my GD roof!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
I love these people like moveout who are living in some kind of American fantasy world. You listen to Fox Propaganda Channel and the other right wing fascist corporate media long enough and you stay really stupid. And can't even realize that a few greedy rich have seized the government for their own crazed purposes. At the expense of the rest of us.
reply
noloyalisti replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You pay taxes but you think it is OK for a few rich to not pay. I don't get that. You think the government is bad, wait until the corporations complete their rape and pillage. Guess what, you don't get to elect any of your prison guards.
See all 159 Comments