Americans are very clear about their priorities. We need jobs, and we want to hear about concrete plans to create good jobs that will support our families. We need affordable, high-quality health care that can never be taken away. We need security in retirement. We are looking for leadership that will give us confidence in the future for our children.

A budget that addresses and elevates these priorities would call for sound policies and substantial resources to create good jobs here at home, rein in exploding health care costs and improve health coverage for the uninsured and underinsured. It would strengthen Social Security, encourage employers to create and maintain guaranteed pensions for their employees and provide greater safeguards for 40l(k) retirement savings. A budget that puts all Americans first would spend top dollar to ensure every child in America has access to a first-class public school education. And it would call for an end to perverse tax and trade incentives that reward corporations for shipping good American jobs overseas and would hold those companies accountable to their employees and their communities.

A budget for all Americans would take real and tangible steps to rebuild the middle class today and to build a sounder and more secure economic future for America’s children.

President Bush’s budget is not a budget for all Americans. The Bush plan drains resources away from programs and services to strengthen and improve jobs, health care and education and devotes them, instead, to huge new spending on the very rich.

The hallmark of the Bush budget and its driving force is the president’s determination to permanently lock in multitrillion-dollar tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit the nation’s very wealthy, while undermining our capacity to meet present and future needs and blowing titanic holes in the nation’s finances. The president’s plan—and his priorities—would give the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, a tiny sliver of the population, nearly half (47 percent) of the payoff from the trillion-dollar tax rollbacks, more than what the bottom 90 percent of America’s households receive. Millionaires would get tax breaks averaging $107,000—a windfall 163 times greater than the modest ($655) benefit for the typical household in America.

The president’s recalcitrant insistence on maintaining unaffordable tax breaks for the wealthy, while cutting back on programs for America’s families, is all the more egregious in light of the steps the administration takes in this budget to disguise real costs America’s families inevitably will have to absorb. In that regard, the budget is so deficient as to suggest an intention to deliberately mislead. How can the costs of a war we have been fighting for almost a year and that has been the subject of earlier budgets be ignored? How can the costs of further tax cuts called for by the administration be camouflaged with deficit forecasts for only five years, rather than the customary 10 years? The budget’s “creative accounting” puts Enron to shame.

In order to pay for these permanent tax-giveaways to millionaires, the Bush FY 2005 budget takes a whack at workers, jobs and school kids—among others. For example, it:

In short, the Bush budget is a blueprint for ensuring all of us will be worse off in order to maximize benefits for those of us already best off.

To be sure, the Bush budget includes a deceptive grab bag of poll-tested, election-year goodies, but more often than not, these token gestures miss the boat. They window-dress, rather than seriously address, major economic problems; they fall well short of actual need; and they come nowhere close to making up for program cuts under earlier Bush budgets. In the area of job training alone:

President Bush and his allies want to convince pundits and the public that the belt-tightening, program-cutting the president wants is required by the unprecedented deficits amassed under his watch; they will exceed $520 billion next year and rise to as much as $5.2 trillion between 2005 and 2014 (including added interest and assuming permanent tax cuts and other likely tax changes). To that end, Mr. Bush has called for laws to cap domestic spending. This proposal is nothing more than cynical sleight of hand intended to dupe the public about the real and primary reason the nation’s financial balance sheet swung from a roughly $5 trillion, 10-year surplus when Mr. Bush first took office to a projected deficit of $4.3 trillion over 10 years (2001–2011). The single largest reason for this deterioration in the nation’s fortunes is declining revenues, occasioned largely by the 2001–2003 tax cuts—not spending increases, as the president implies. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, increases in spending on domestic discretionary programs caused only 2 percent of the whirlwind turnaround from surplus to deficit. Defense-related spending increases are 10 times more costly, and the tax cuts are 19 times more costly.

The president owes the American people something other than deceptive bootstrapping of a problem he helped create into a basis for cutting important programs and starving the government of resources to shore up critical economic protections. Mr. Bush owes us a budget that puts all Americans first, with policies and resources to create good jobs, provide high-quality, affordable health care, strengthen retirement security, improve public schools, hold corporations accountable and create a secure economic foundation for future generations.

President Bush’s budget is not a budget for all Americans. We hope the U.S. Congress will make it one.

Read Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' Reports and Fact Sheets

Bush cuts would reduce domestic discretionary spending...to its lowest level in 46 years. 

Broad cuts in domestic programs after 2005.

Deep, widespread cuts in domestic programs over next five years.  

Wage and Hour and Equal Employment Opportunity Enforcement Funding

The administration’s fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget proposes modest increases in funding for wage and hour and federal contract compliance enforcement compared with FY 2004. Adjusted for inflation, however, the FY 2005 funding requests for these programs are essentially level with the programs’ FY 2001 appropriations.

Wage and Hour: Basic Labor Standards Enforcements

The Wage and Hour Administration enforces basic worker protection laws that cover virtually every American workplace and apply to almost all workers. Enforcement responsibilities include the nation’s minimum wage, overtime, child labor and other employment standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and other basic worker protection statutes.

The Bush budget seeks $165.9 million for wage and hour enforcement in FY 2005, compared with the FY 2004 budget authority of $161.3 million. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the funding sought for FY 2005 represents a 2 percent increase over the FY 2004 appropriation but is nearly level with the wage and hour appropriation in FY 2001 (0.3 percent increase).

Dollars in millions, includes FY 2004 rescission*

Enforcement of the wage and hour laws turns, in part, on adequate numbers of trained staff. The Bush budget requests 1,458 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff for FY 2005, down by 70 positions, or 4.6 percent, since FY 2001.

OFCCP: Federal Contractor Equal Employment Opportunity

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is responsible for administering a range of laws and executive orders that prohibit employment discrimination and require affirmative action by businesses contracting with the federal government. Collectively, these laws ban discrimination based on race, sex, religion, color, national origin, disability or veteran status.

The FY 2005 budget calls for $82.1 million for equal employment opportunity enforcement, a nominal increase of $2.7 million from FY 2004, or 1.7 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. In real dollars, the FY 2005 funding request is less than the FY 2001 appropriations for OFCCP (0.6 percent decrease).

Dollars in millions, includes FY 2004 rescission*

Staffing for equal employment opportunity enforcement has declined during the Bush years. Budget documents show that FTE staffing stood at 813 in FY 2001; it falls to 749 FTEs, an 8 percent decline, under the Bush FY 2005 budget.

* Note: The original FY 2004 appropriation was $161.3 million for the Wage and Hour Administration and $80.0 million for the OFCCP. To implement a subsequent .59 percent rescission to the overall FY 2004 appropriations, the administration reduced Wage and Hour funding to $160.1 million and OFCCP funding to $79.4 million.

Programs to Audit, Investigate and Prosecute Unions

As it has since fiscal year (FY) 2002, the Bush Labor Department is seeking additional funding and staff increases in FY 2005 to audit, investigate and prosecute unions. These increases are for the department’s Office of Labor–Management Standards (OLMS), which has union oversight and investigation authority, receives and publishes statutorily required union reports, sets standards governing union elections and finances and conducts both civil and criminal investigations into unions’ finances and elections. The department also seeks increased funding and staff for its Office of Inspector General (OIG), in large part to support additional union investigative activities.

Dollars in millions, includes FY 2004 rescission*

Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)

The Bush administration has sought increased funding for the OLMS in each budget request it has submitted, beginning with FY 2002. The FY 2005 budget is no exception: President Bush proposes to increase OLMS funding to $39.2 million, a $4.9 million or 12.7 percent increase, over the FY 2004 appropriation. This represents an 11 percent hike in inflation-adjusted dollars. Compared with the OLMS budget for FY 2001, the FY 2005 request represents a 31 percent increase in real dollars.

The budget request also seeks an additional 35 full-time equivalents (FTEs) for OLMS, which would bring staffing levels within the program to 382. This represents a 32 percent increase from 290 FTEs in FY 2001.

The OLMS represents slightly less than 10 percent of the Employment Standards Administration (ESA) Salaries and Expenses account (which includes, in addition to OLMS, the Wage and Hour Division, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the Office of Workers Compensation Programs and the Program Direction and Support operations). The requested increase for OLMS, however, accounts for 27 percent of the total proposed ESA increase in this account. In addition, requested staffing increases for OLMS account for 35 of the 51 (69 percent) proposed additional FTE slots for all of ESA and 35 of a total of 72 (48 percent) additional FTE slots proposed for the entire department.

The Department of Labor’s budget narrative explains that it is seeking additional funding and staffing for OLMS for additional enforcement and assistance to ensure compliance with requirements under the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, including annual union filings. The proposed OLMS budget also seeks authority to impose civil monetary penalties on unions and others that fail to make timely filings of their financial reports. The department says its intent is to enhance compliance not penalize inadvertent lapses in filing.

The appendix to the president’s budget states that OLMS plans to undertake “increased union audits and compliance assistance efforts” in FY 2005, including the processing of 36,000 reports and “a total of 4,582 investigations, audits, and supervised elections.” This averages out to 88 per week.

Office of Inspector General (OIG)

The Department of Labor proposes to increase funding for its OIG to $69.9 million, compared with $65.7 million in 2004. This is an increase of 6.4 percent in current dollars and 4.8 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. Compared with OIG funding in FY 2001, the FY 2005 funding request is more than a 17 percent increase.

The department seeks to increase current OIG staffing levels by 10 additional FTE staff, bringing the total complement to 480, a 17 percent increase over FTE staffing levels in FY 2001 (409).

The department states that the proposed increase in OIG funding “will better prevent organized crime in union matters, safeguard union members’ funds, and fight labor racketeering.”

Taken together, proposed FY 2005 funding levels for OLMS and the OIG are 22.6 percent greater than the FY 2001 appropriation for the programs, adjusted for inflation.

* Note: The original FY 2004 appropriation was $38.9 million for the OLMS and $65.8 million for the OIG. To implement a subsequent .59 percent rescission to the overall FY 2004 appropriations, the administration reduced OLMS funding to $38.6 million and OIG funding to $65.7 million.

Dollars in millions, includes .59 percent rescission over FY 2004 omnibus

Worker Safety and Health Programs

Overview
President Bush’s fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget for worker safety and health programs reflects the Bush administration’s policies towards worker protection. Overall funding levels proposed for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health are similar to levels appropriated by Congress for FY 2004. This marks the first budget submitted by President Bush that did not propose reductions in the OSHA and MSHA programs.

However, the FY 2005 budget proposes to increase programs for voluntary compliance and employer assistance, while cutting training and outreach programs for workers and freezing standard setting and enforcement programs. At OSHA, the president proposes to cut worker safety training programs by $7.1 million, or 65 percent, and to shift these funds to employer assistance programs. A total of $125.2 million is proposed for programs to provide compliance assistance to employers compared with only $4 million for programs to provide outreach to workers.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ($ in thousands)

The FY 2005 budget proposes $461.6 million in funding for OSHA compared with $460.8 million in the FY 2004 Omnibus spending bill passed by Congress in January. (To implement a subsequent .59 percent rescission to the overall FY 2004 appropriations, the administration reduced OSHA’s FY 2004 funding to $457.5 million, with the biggest cut coming from worker training programs).

Funding for Worker Safety Training Programs Verses Employer Compliance Assistance Programs ($ in thousands)

The proposed budget freezes funding for safety and health standards—$16.1 million is proposed compared with $16 million in FY 2004. Instead of developing new protections, the Bush administration has set as its priority the review of existing rules. According to the administration’s latest Regulatory Agenda issued in December 2003, no new significant final standards are planned, making this the first administration in OSHA’s history to issue no major safety and health standards during its tenure. Instead, the administration overturned OSHA’s ergonomics standard, killed pending final rules on indoor air quality and tuberculosis and withdrew or delayed dozens of other important safety and health rules.

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) ($ in thousands)

The FY 2005 budget proposes $275.6 million in funding for MSHA compared with $270.8 appropriated in FY 2004. (To implement a subsequent .59 percent rescission to the overall FY 2004 appropriations, the administration reduced MSHA FY 2004 funding to $268.8 million).

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) ($ in thousands)

* Unknown at this time.

Prepared by: AFL-CIO Safety and Health Department, Feb. 3, 2004.