Not Just Milwaukee

This article focuses on Milwaukee agencies, but the impact will be felt statewide.  Many agencies are concerned because it's looking like they'll either get some cuts under Obama's budget, or even more drastic cuts under the House Republican's budget.  Democrats in Senate have not announced their budget yet.

Federal Budget Look

With all the focus on the state budget repair bill, it’s easy to forget that the federal budget process is happening for the remainder of 2011 and 2012. I thought the following two links might be an entertaining way to educate yourself on the federal 2012 budget.


Here is a  NY Times article showing the President’s budget and the spending planned. What’s interesting to me is when you click “hide mandatory spending” and how little of the budget is left.

This non-partisan but progressive organization, Center for American Progress,  has put together a neat interactive tool.  Their challenge:  since the Republicans have stated they plan to cut $100 billion from the budget, the Center is challenging you to try and do the same.

Furthermore, they said they would do so without touching entitlements, defense spending, or veterans’ services. This portion of the budget, known as “non-security discretionary spending,” makes up less than 15 percent of the federal budget.

$100 billion from less than 15% of the budget.  Go take the challenge!

Done?  The House passed their version of the 2012 budget.  They could only manage $61 billion in spending cuts.  I haven't seen a full outline of the House budget yet.

Downtown Waukesha Master Plan Listening Session

The City of Waukesha is holding a listening session on the downtown master plan that is being developed.  It will be held 5PM-7PM Wednesday (2-25-11) at the Rotunda at 235 W Broadway.

If you are a City of Waukesha resident, I encourage you to go and consider discussing:

• The need for accessibility improvements around downtown area.  Are there parking spots designated accessible scattered around the downtown? Do on-street parking have ease of access to sidewalks?
• The need for more housing density, with mixed-use housing where appropriate.
• The need for affordable housing
• The need for good (and accessible) bus stops
• The need for good linkages to surrounding neighborhoods.  Ease of pedestrian access would encourage surrounding neighborhoods to visit downtown on foot more often
• Discussion on bicycle paths & "parking".  My recollection of downtown Waukesha is that it's not ideal for bicycle paths on the streets, so discuss bicycle access to downtown & where people can lock up their bicycles while shopping or dining.

What help downtown areas are frequently density and walkability, and in recent years, there have been some apartment buildings popping up around the area, which is great, but some of those buildings are not designed for the street.  There are entire block lengths of blank walls that are unappealing to pedestrians, so building design has to be a consideration.  But it's not necessary for every building off the main streets to have retail on the ground level.

Assignment: Compare and Contrast

Your assignment:  Read the two articles and discuss the funding priorities revealed in the articles.

Article #1 is from Connecticut on the impact of federal budget decisions on local programs serving homeless veterans.

The Republican-led house of Representatives passed a federal budget cutting, more than 60 billion dollars in spending.
....

What the congressional budget cutters cut was 75 million dollars for the program [Veterans Assisted Support Housing] nationally according to Courtney on the mistaken notion that there is some kind of backlog of unused vouchers around the country.

"It just shows, ya know, what you see on TV down in Washington, can really affect things right at home," says Courtney.

Courtney gave the bad news to the Legion leaders today, but said he hopes that reason will eventually prevail in Washington.

Courtney says this is the kind of short sighted budget cutting that the public doesn't really want.

Article #2 points to the continuing support for military advertising at NASCAR events as well as special tax breaks solely for NASCAR events.  Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota sponsored an amendment that would've removed this.  It was quickly defeated.

“I have nothing against Nascar,” McCollum said Thursday in a phone interview. “The Defense Department said it didn’t have anything that could be cut. Seven million dollars to sponsor a car and we’re cutting cops, we’re cutting teachers, we’re cutting programs for homeless vets?”

Her argument seemed solid. She pointed out that the Army, the Air Force and the National Guard spend millions of dollars on sponsorship — $100 million over the past 10 years.

McCollum’s amendment sought to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for sponsorship of racecars, dragsters, Indy cars and motorcycle racing. She also wanted to repeal the $45 million special tax earmark for Nascar and race track owners included in the 2010 law that extended the Bush tax cuts.

What does those two articles say about the priorities of our nation?