Volume 8, Number 7 The Center for Community Solutions November 14, 2012 Social Policy and the Fiscal Cliff: Background and Observations By John A. Begala, Executive Director and Joseph Smith, Program Assistant Highlights: This issue of State Budgeting Matters explores the implications of the ‚fiscal cliff‛ for health and social policy. The extensive citations accompanying the narrative, graphs, and tables provide access to the vast array of national and state (Ohio) data on the national economy and major income support and health and social service programs. Between now and the inauguration of the President on January 20, 2013, national leaders will choose between allowing the provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 to take effect, or adopt changes to taxes and major domestic and military spending programs. Their decision will at best buy time, because extensive adjustments are needed to rationalize health and social policy. The complexity of the over 2,100 federal domestic assistance programs has become a barrier to improving their effectiveness. Long-term changes in the major income support, and health and social service programs, which account for most of the spending, could entail major realignment of spending programs and tax credits, as well as a reorganization of roles in the federal system between the federal government, states and communities. The ‚private‛ and ‚public‛ aspects of the American economy are interdependent at every level. It is counter-productive to frame policy questions as though they are somehow separable or antithetical. Social Security is much more than just pensions for older adults; it is the architecture supporting national policies for helping nearly half of all Americans meet their basic needs.
33
Embed
Social Policy and the Fiscal Cliff: Background and Observations · PDF fileSocial Policy and the Fiscal Cliff: Background and Observations By John A. Begala, Executive Director and
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Volume 8, Number 7 The Center for Community Solutions November 14, 2012
Social Policy and the Fiscal Cliff: Background and Observations
By John A. Begala, Executive Director
and
Joseph Smith, Program Assistant
Highlights: This issue of State Budgeting Matters explores the implications of the ‚fiscal cliff‛ for
health and social policy. The extensive citations accompanying the narrative, graphs,
and tables provide access to the vast array of national and state (Ohio) data on the
national economy and major income support and health and social service programs.
Between now and the inauguration of the President on January 20, 2013, national leaders
will choose between allowing the provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 to take
effect, or adopt changes to taxes and major domestic and military spending programs.
Their decision will at best buy time, because extensive adjustments are needed to
rationalize health and social policy.
The complexity of the over 2,100 federal domestic assistance programs has become a
barrier to improving their effectiveness. Long-term changes in the major income
support, and health and social service programs, which account for most of the
spending, could entail major realignment of spending programs and tax credits, as well
as a reorganization of roles in the federal system between the federal government, states
and communities.
The ‚private‛ and ‚public‛ aspects of the American economy are interdependent at
every level. It is counter-productive to frame policy questions as though they are
somehow separable or antithetical.
Social Security is much more than just pensions for older adults; it is the architecture
supporting national policies for helping nearly half of all Americans meet their basic
needs.
2
With the 2012 election behind us, national leaders have no choice but to address the next
phase of managing the nation’s continuing economic challenges. Between now and the
inauguration of the President on January 20, 2013, they will either act to forestall the ‚fiscal
cliff‛ and its repercussions, or not. Any action they may take will at best buy time, setting the
stage for further long-range structural changes in national tax and spending policies, while
possibly creating an atmosphere of conciliation and compromise for the much heavier lifting
ahead. The consequences of inaction or gridlock would be grim.
This briefing aims to provide background data and information for civic leaders and
those working in the fields of health and social services. The magnitude and complexity of the
issues, policies and programs suggest that we are going to be working through major decisions
on many fronts for years to come.
The Fiscal Cliff
The ‚fiscal cliff‛ refers to the combined budgetary consequences of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (BCA), which aims to reduce discretionary spending by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. It
will accomplish this primarily through sequestration, in effect across the board reductions to
many domestic and military spending programs. This will be accompanied by (1) expiration of
reduced national income tax rates originally enacted in 2001 and 2003; (2) expiration of
extended Unemployment Insurance benefits adopted in 2009; and (3) expiration of temporary
social security payroll tax cuts in effect during 2011 and 2012. These actions and events will be
triggered effective January 1, 2013, in part because of the failure of a BCA-created joint
committee of Congress to reach agreement on increased revenue and reduced spending to meet
the $1.2 trillion goal in 2011.
The scheduled expiration of reductions in national income and payroll taxes, along with
limits on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), would increase national tax revenues,
contributing part of the deficit reduction goal. However, most of the deficit reduction would
come from sequestration. Because the BCA exempted the largest income support and health
and social service programs from these across the board cuts, reductions to other programs
would be deep, while leaving unaddressed the long-term financial sustainability of these major
programs. Equally problematic, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the
combined impact of sequestration and increased tax rates on Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
would constrict economic growth to put the U.S. economy back into recession.1
Chart 1 illustrates historical national revenues, expenses and deficits for recent decades.
It is noteworthy that after a brief period of annual surpluses in the late 1990s, the long-standing
pattern of annual deficits returned following enactment of tax cuts during the first term of
President George W. Bush.
3
Chart 1: Annual Deficits 1980 - 20122
Chart 2 shows the impact of regular annual deficits upon the accumulated debt of the
federal government. While the overall trend in total debt has been consistently upward since
1980, it is alarming to many economists and policy makers that debt as a percentage of GDP has
more than doubled since 2000.
Chart 2: U.S. Public Debt as a Percentage of GDP, 1980 - 20123
-$2,000
-$1,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000A
NN
UA
L R
EVEN
UE,
EX
PEN
SE A
ND
DEF
ICIT
($
BIL
LIO
NS)
YEAR
Revenue
Expense
Deficit
909
3,206
5,629
13,529
16,351
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
1980 1990 2000 2010 2012
PU
BLIC
LY
HELD
DEB
T A
S % G
DP
DEB
T (
BIL
LIO
NS
$) TOTAL DEBT
4
The opinions of economists about the potential benefits and adverse impact of growing
annual deficits and national debt vary significantly. A general survey of research about the
impact of national debt suggests the following:
Borrowing to increase public spending during a recession usually has the effect of
stimulating the economy;
High deficits and accumulated debt, together with increases in the money supply, often
contribute to inflation in a growing economy;
Although economists disagree on this point, debt to GDP ratios may begin to adversely
affect economic growth when they reach the range of 70 to 90 percent (U.S. debt to GDP
reached 70 percent during Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2011).
How Are People Doing in this Economy?
The Great Recession of 2008 has had an enormous impact on the quality of life in
America. Among the most obvious measures of this are increases in the unemployment rate,
which rose from 4.7 percent in July of 2007 to 10.0 percent in October of 2009, and still hovers
near 8 percent over five years later (Ohio’s rates were initially higher, at 5.7 percent in July,
2007, increasing to 10.6 percent from July, 2009 through January, 2010, but then declining to
below national numbers, reaching 7.0 percent in September, 2012). 4 The recession also brought
a fourfold increase in long-term unemployment (27 or more weeks), reaching 4.4 percent, its
highest level since 1948.5
The shadow cast by the trauma of the past four years has come to obscure long-term
trends in the financial strength of American households. For over 30 years, annual earnings
have stagnated for the vast majority of Americans. Chart 3 shows the average household
incomes, in constant 2010 dollars, for each quintile (one-fifth, or 20 percent) of American
households. To gauge the importance of these data, the following general information about
American households in each quintile is helpful (based on 2010 Census estimates of 117,528,000
U.S. households, or 23,507,600 households per quintile, with an average size of 2.59 persons):
The 2010 poverty level for a family of three was $17,374;
In calculating poverty rates, earnings, unemployment compensation, workers
compensation, OASDI and SSI Social Security payments, public assistance,
veterans benefits, survivor benefits, pension and retirement income, interest,
dividends, rents, royalties, income from estates and trusts, educational
assistance, alimony, child support, and other sources of cash are counted;
noncash benefits, such as Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP,
5
formerly called Foodstamps), health insurance, and housing subsidies are not
included.
To get a sense of proportion, it is useful to consider that the 61 million Americans
living in households in the bottom quintile, with an average annual income of
$11,034, outnumber the entire populations of all but 23 of the world’s 195
countries.
There is a sharp contrast between the experience of the lowest two quintiles and the top
quintile (not to mention the top 5 percent). In effect, the benefits of economic growth during the
past three decades has increasingly accrued to those households with higher incomes, leaving
incomes for the middle of the middle class stagnant and far closer to those of the poor.
Chart 3: Average Household Incomes by Quintile, 1980-20106
The income stagnation for the middle class and poor, and the rising fortunes of those in
the highest income quintile, have been offset to some extent by changes in national tax policies
over these years. Chart 4 shows, for the period from 1979 to 2006, the downward trend in the
proportion of national taxes (income tax; OASDI, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance
taxes; corporate and excise taxes) paid by the lowest four household income quintiles. This
contrasts sharply with the corresponding steady increase in the share of taxes paid by the top 20
percent. These trends, which remained unchanged from 2007 through 2009, in part reflect the
growing impact of tax credits, in particular the earned income and child care tax credits
The stakes are high, the options innumerable, and all of this is in-play on a deadline.
Realistically, there are few chances for those ‚outside the beltway‛ to influence decisions over
the next two months. Equally realistically, the underlying issues will require years of concerted
effort on many fronts. The grassroots work of civic leaders, human service professionals,
‚policy wonks,‛ and advocates can have an impact over the long haul – most importantly by
engaging elected officials at home where their votes matter.
1 Congressional Budget Office, ‚Economic Effects of Reducing the Fiscal Restraint That Is Scheduled to Occur in 2013,‛ Washington
D.C., May, 2012, pp. 1-2 http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/FiscalRestraint_0.pdf. 2 Office of Management and Budget, ‚Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits as Percentages of GDP, 1930-2017,‛
Historical Tables, Washington, D.C., 2013 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. Please note that figures in Chart 1
and 2 do not include revenue and expenses for ‚off-budget‛ portions of the federal government such as the Old-Age, Survivors and
Disability and Medicare trust funds, U.S. Postal Service, Federal Reserve System, and government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)
such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 3 Ibid. 4 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‚Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,‛ Washington, D.C., November 7, 2012
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000. 5 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‚The Recession of 2007-2009,‛ BLS Spotlight on Statistics, Washington, D.C., February, 2012
http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf. 6 U.S. Census Bureau, ‚Table H-3. Mean Household Income Received by Each Fifth and the Top 5 Percent of All Households: 1967
to 2011,‛ Washington, D.C., http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/. 7 Congressional Budget Office, ‚Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities for All Households, by Comprehensive Household Income
Quintile, 1979-2006,‛ Washington, D.C., 2009 http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42878. 8 Data on tax rates above may be found at Congressional Budget Office, ‚The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes,
2008 and 2009, Supplemental Tables Final, Table 1, Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households, by Before-Tax Income Group,
1979 to 2009 (Percent)‛ Washington, D.C., July 10, 2012 http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373. 9 Economic Policy Institute, ‚Basic Family Budget Calculator,‛ Washington, D.C. http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/. 10 This table is represents estimates prepared by the authors based on data from multiple sources, including: Economic Policy
Institute, ‚Basic Family Budget Calculator,‛ Washington, D.C. http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/; Tax Policy Center of the
Urban Institute & Brookings, Washington, D.C. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/; U.S. Census Bureau, op. cit.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
qualify-for-EITC and http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources/Tools-&-FAQs/FAQs-for-Individuals/Frequently-Asked-Tax-
Questions-&-Answers/Child-Care-Credit,-Other-Credits. 11 Quoted by Hitchens, Christopher, ‚The Reactionary: The Charming, Sinister G.K. Chesterton,‛ the Atlantic, March, 2012, p.79. 12 U.S. General Services Administration, Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance.
ge=1 13 Illustrated London News, April 19, 1924. 14Hon. Frances Perkins, ‚Social Security for U.S.,‛ National Radio Address Delivered February 25, 1935, Social Security
Administration, Social Security History. http://www.ssa.gov/history/perkinsradio.html .
15 DeWitt, Larry, ‚Review of Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Welfare in the United States by Theda
Skocpol,‛ Social Insurance in the Gilded Age/Progressive Era, December, 2003.
http://www.larrydewitt.net/SSinGAPE/skocpolreview.htm. 16 For a thorough history of Civil War Veterans’ and Mothers’ pensions, see Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The
Political Origins of Social Welfare in the United States, Cambridge, MA, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992. 17 Perkins, op. cit. 18 It is important to note that many states supplement SSI benefits, and extend Medicaid and Title XX services to people other than
those ‚categorically eligible‛ through TANF and SSI. Additionally, Medicare covers some individuals with specific medical
conditions regardless of age. These significantly abbreviated descriptions allow for a clearer view of the basic interrelationships of
social security programs. 19 For a compilation of Social Security Laws, see http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/ssact-toc.htm. 20 Tax expenditures are deductions, credits, or exemptions from taxes for defined categories of taxpayers, intended to provide
publicly financed benefits similar to those of programmatic expenditures. Tax expenditures achieve this by reducing tax obligations
or refunding taxes already paid. 21 Luhby, Tammi, ‚Government Assistance Expands,‛ CNN Money, February 7, 2012
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/07/news/economy/government_assistance/index.htm. Several months after this and similar news
reports, the U.S. Census Bureau published a report with estimates considerably below levels reported by various federal and state
agencies (see Tables 2 and 3 and citations below). See Kim, Jeonsoo, Shelley K. Irving and Tracy A. Loveless, ‚Dynamics of
Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government Programs, 2004, 2007 and 2009 – Who Gets Assistance,‛ U.S. Census Bureau,
Washington, D.C., July, 2012 http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-130.pdf. 22 a Source: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/icp.html. Query for last 5 years. Data is for number in current payment for end of
December each year and includes those also receiving SSI.
b Source: http://ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2010/sect01.html. Persons who received at least one check during the calendar year.
Includes those also receiving OASDI. This includes both Federal payment and State supplementation.
c Source: msis.cms.hhs.gov data query. All information as of 10-3-11. Only 10 States are reporting 2010 data; therefore, 2010 was
excluded.
dSource: msis.cms.hhs.gov data query. All information as of 10-3-11. Only 10 States are reporting 2010 data; therefore, 2010 was
excluded.
e Source: msis.cms.hhs.gov data query. All information as of 10-3-11. Includes only children eligible under Medicaid or Medicaid
Expansions. Only 10 States are reporting 2010 data; therefore, 2010 was excluded.
f Source: msis.cms.hhs.gov data query. All information as of 10-3-11. Includes Adults, ABD, Children and others (Child of Unemployed
Adult, Unemployed Adult, Foster Care Child, Breast and Cervical Cancer Act (BCCA), Eligibility status unknown). 2010 Medicaid
Total data from CMS, ‚Medicaid Enrollment by State,‛ Baltimore, MD 2012.
p Source: 2007 Data is from http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/s11cw.pdf p. 84 table11-23 and represents the average
monthly caseload for all 50 states.
23 a Source: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/icp.html. Query for last 5 years. Data is for number in current payment for end of
December each year and includes those also receiving SSI.
b Source: http://ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2010/sect01.html. Persons who received at least one check during the calendar year.
Includes those also receiving OASDI This includes both Federal payment and State supplementation. c Source: msis.cms.hhs.gov data query. All information as of 10-3-11. dSource: msis.cms.hhs.gov data query. All information as of 10-3-11. e Source: msis.cms.hhs.gov data query. All information as of 10-3-11. Includes only children eligible under Medicaid or Medicaid
Expansions f Source: msis.cms.hhs.gov data query. All information as of 10-3-11. Includes Adults, ABD, Children and others (Child of Unemployed
Adult, Unemployed Adult, Foster Care Child, Breast and Cervical Cancer Act (BCCA), Eligibility status unknown) gSource: Medicare & Medicaid Research Review- Statistical Supplement [year];
http://www.cms.gov/MedicareMedicaidStatSupp/LT/list.asp#TopOfPage. Includes only individuals who qualify based on age. hSource: Medicare & Medicaid Research Review- Statistical Supplement [year];
http://www.cms.gov/MedicareMedicaidStatSupp/LT/list.asp#TopOfPage. Includes only those who qualify based on disability or other
status. i Source: Medicare & Medicaid Research Review- Statistical Supplement [year];
http://www.cms.gov/MedicareMedicaidStatSupp/LT/list.asp#TopOfPage. Data may not add due to rounding and/or unknown
classification. j Source: Public Records Request, Courtesy of ODJFS (September 2011). Data is for state fiscal years (1 July- 30 June). k Source: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/index.html. Average weekly unemployment rates based on calendar year
data reported. l Source: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/index.html.
nSource: U.S. Department of Labor (Unemployment benefits and claims, Emergency Unemployment compensation, and Extended
benefits program http://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/finance.asp). Total Unemployment calculated by adding carry-over claims from
previous fiscal year plus those receiving at least one check from regular unemployment, emergency unemployment compensation
[EUC] or extended benefits [EB] during the fiscal year. The spike in numbers in 2009 is due to a full year of implementation of EUC
and EB after implementation in July 2008. oSource: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/index.htm Caseload data [year]. Includes only Federal TANF. This represents the
average caseload for the entire fiscal year. pSource: Public Records Request, Courtesy of ODJFS (September 2011). Ohio Foster/Adoption reflects unduplicated counts of children in
Foster Care and In Adoption during state fiscal years (1 July-June 30). q Source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15SNAPpartPP.htm. Represents the average monthly number of persons (adults and children)
receiving benefits. 24 The number and scope of veterans benefits are generally considered outside the scope of the ‚social safety net,‛ and yet represent
the most extensive, cohesive sets of benefits provided by the federal government. A broad overview, along with details, data, and
references to other sources, may be found at: http://www.va.gov/. 25 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, ‚A Picture of Subsidized Households,‛ Washington, D.C., 2008.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/picture2008/index.html. On February 27, 2012, The Center for Community Solutions submitted a
Freedom of Information Act request for annual public housing data for Ohio; the HUD response, dated August 6, 2012 did not
provide sufficient information to provide estimates for Ohio. 26 Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation, U.S. Congress, Present Law and Background Relating to Tax Treatment of Household Debt ,
Washington, D.C., July 11, 2011, p. 42. 27 An overview of and analysis of reform proposals concerning the mortgage interest deduction may be found in Toder, Eric,
Margery Austin Turner, Katherine Lim, and Liza Getsinger, Reforming the Mortgage Interest Deduction, Washington, D.C., The
Urban Institute, 2010. http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412099-mortgage-deduction-reform.pdf. 28 For a historical overview of WIC, see Devaney, Barbara, ‚WIC Turns 35: Program Effectiveness and Future Directions,‛ National
Invitational Conference of the Early Childhood Research Collaborative, Minneapolis, MN, December, 2007.
http://www.earlychildhoodrc.org/events/presentations/devaney.pdf. 29 For summary information and data on Head Start, see factsheets posted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administrtion for Children and Families, Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center, Office of Head Start.
http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/About%20Head%20Start. 30 For a detailed description of the Child Care and Development Block Grant, see Lynch, Karen E., ‚The Child Care and
Development Block Grant: Background and Funding,‛ Washington D.C., Congressional Research Service, January, 2010.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/19845.pdf. For data on CCDBG participation, see Mathews, Hannah and
Teresa Lim, Child Care and Development Block Grant Participation in 2009, Washington, D.C., CLASP, 2011.
31 Summary information and data on the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit may be found in McKenna, Christine, Child Care
Subsidies in the United States: Government Funding To Families (2010), Chestnut Hill, MA, Boston College (Sloan Work and Family
Research Network), 2010. http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=17275&area=All. For current data, see also ‚Quick
Facts: Child Care and Dependent Tax Credit (CCDTC),‛ Washington, D.C., Tax Policy Center (Urban Institute and Brookings
Institution). http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/press/quickfacts_cdctc.cfm#two. 32 For detailed information about Older Americans Act programs, visit the website for the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration on Aging. http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/AoA_Programs/index.aspx. See also Napili, Angela and Kirsten
J. Coello, ‚Older Americans Act: Funding,‛ Washington, D.C., Congressional Research Service, 2010.
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging18.pdf. For summary service data, see National Health Policy Forum, ‚The Basics: The Older
Americans Act,‛ Washington, D.C., George Washington University, 2008. http://www.nhpf.org/library/the-
basics/Basics_OlderAmericansAct_06-10-11.pdf. 33 See Forman, Jonathan Barry, ‚Earned Income Credit‛ from Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy, republished by The Tax
Policy Center, Washington, D.C. http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1000524. See also Maag, Elaine and Adam
Carasso, ‚Taxation and the Family: What is the Earned Income Tax Credit,‛ Washington, D.C., Tax Policy Center (Urban Institute
and Brookings Institution), 2010. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/eitc.cfm. See also ‚Life’s a
Little Easier with the EITC,‛ Washington, D.C., Internal Revenue Service, 2011. http://www.eitc.irs.gov/central/abouteitc/. 34 Spar, Karen, ‚Budget ‘Sequestration’ and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules,‛ Washington, D.C., Congressional
Research Service, October 2, 2012. 35 Ibid. p. 5-17. 36 Ibid. pp. 9-12. 37 Shrestha, Laura B., ‚Life Expencancy in the United States – Updated August 16, 2006,‛ Washington, D.C., Congressional Research
Service, The Library of Congress, 2006, p. 4. 38 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, Washington, DC, 2005, Table 662, p. 452.
se 39 Caplow, Theodore, Louis Hicks and Ben J. Wattenberg, The First Measured Century: An Illustrated Guide to Trends in America,
1900-2000, PBS, 2000, p. 165. http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book.htm 40 Ibid. p. 161. 41 Ibid. p. 163. 42 Ibid. p. 175. 43 U.S. Census Bureau, ‚Census of Housing: Historical Census of Housing Tables – Homeownership,‛ Washington, DC, 2000.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html 44 Source: Bertelsmann Stiftung (Foundation), Germany. Selected measures from the report "Social Justice in the OECD- How Do
the Member States Compare?" Includes some categories of index ratings and some raw data.
*Gini Index - higher numbers represent more income inequality. A population with perfect equality in income
distribution would have a score of 0; a population where one person has all the income would have a score of 1.0
**Public expenditure on pre-primary education as a percentage of GDP.
***Inclusiveness, quality of service, and perceived health between highest/lowest incomes.
****Includes family and pension policies, environmental policies, and assessment of political-economic well-being being
established for future generations.
State Budgeting Matters is published by The Center for Community Solutions. Comments and questions