Jeremy Kadden's blog

In the $3.77 trillion budget that President Obama unveiled this month, he includes $52 billion for the International Affairs Budget (150 account) for fiscal year (FY) 2014. Of that, $48.2 billion is for the account's "base" budget, while $3.8 billion is in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). How does that compare to past funding for these critical accounts? How does it break down for specific programs? Here's InterAction's analysis.

President’s Request Moves OCO Funding into the Base International Affairs Budget

The $3.77 trillion budget proposal that the Obama Administration rolled out today contains mixed news for supporters of international aid. His plan includes boosts to some health and development programs, and overall higher funding levels for foreign assistance than what Congress has put forward. But his funding recommendation is still a decrease from previous years, and specific cuts he proposes to humanitarian programs are cause for concern.

Now that the across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration have come down, the smoke is starting to clear to reveal just what the damage will be to foreign assistance accounts that support lifesaving programs around the world.

The last-second, nail-biting fiscal cliff agreement that Congress passed Jan. 1 is mostly focused on taxes, rather than spending, as has been widely reported. As a result of the deal, most of us have heard by now that the bill permanently extends Bush-era income tax cuts for individuals earning up to $400,000 and couples making up to $450,000, allows tax rates to rise for those earning more than that, and changes the tax code in a number of significant ways. 

Many Americans are focused right now on the impending “fiscal cliff,” a package of across-the-board spending cuts and tax hikes set to take effect Jan. 1. But let’s not forget about that other impending fiscal decision that has been delayed for months – the 2013 budget. As those budget negotiations continue, it is critical that foreign assistance funding not suffer disproportionate cuts.
 

Besides all the talk about the “fiscal cliff,” Congress still hasn’t passed any long-term spending bills for fiscal year 2013, which began on October 1, 2012.  While they have passed a stopgap “continuing resolution,” which would last until almost the end of March, that “CR” sets spending at essentially the same level as in 2012, so it is more of a “band-aid” solution than a final package. This means that funding for all sorts of programs – domestic, international, defense and otherwise – are stuck at last year’s spending levels.