House Republicans released a budget plan on Tuesday, and Senate Democrats did the same yesterday, but let's not forget there's also a rival plan from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Will it have the votes to pass Congress? No. Does it deserve to be taken seriously anyway? Yes.
The reason budgets are interesting has very little to do with individual spending levels. After all, at the congressional level, budgets are generally more of a blueprint, with specific spending decisions left to a separate appropriations process. Rather, budgets get so much attention because they present a vision and help establish a caucus' fiscal priorities. Paul Ryan's House GOP budget, for example, makes clear that he and his Republican colleagues want to redistribute wealth from the bottom up.
And the Congressional Progressive Caucus' plan, called the "Back To Work Budget," makes clear they want to lower unemployment.
The budget begins with a stimulus program that makes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act look tepid. It includes $2.1 trillion in stimulus and investment from 2013-2015. The main policies there are a $425 billion infrastructure program, a $340 billion middle-class tax cut, a $450 billion public-works initiative, and $179 billion in state and local aid. [...]
Investment on this scale will add trillions to the deficit. But the House Progressives have an answer for that: Higher taxes. About $4.2 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade, to be exact. The revenues come from raising marginal tax rates on high-income individuals and corporations, but also from closing a raft of deductions as well as adding a financial transactions tax and a carbon tax. They also set up a slew of super-high tax rates for the very rich, including a top rate of 49 percent on incomes over $1 billion.
And don't forget the public option in health care intended to give consumers more options while lowering costs through competition.
Keep in mind, this isn't a fiscally irresponsible budget plan or even a plan that says fiscal responsibility is unimportant. In fact, it's the opposite.
The Progressives' priorities are paid for and after an initial burst, the budget plan reduces the deficit. What about spending cuts? The CPC blueprint does that, too, but not in a way Republicans would consider satisfactory -- their budget cuts defense by more than $900 billion.
Earlier, I suggested that the Senate Democrats' plan offers a bookend to the House GOP plan, but upon further reflection, that's not quite right. Ryan aims for radicalism; Senate Dems aim for modesty. Ryan throws caution to the wind and laughs at calls for compromise; Senate Dems deliberately identify a moderate middle ground.
The actual bookend for Paul Ryan's vision is the Congressional Progressive Caucus' plan -- it's bold and unapologetic, presenting an agenda without real regard for whether folks on the other side of the aisle will find it worthwhile.
We'll never know for sure whether the public would be amenable to a vision like this. In fact, I have a strong hunch more than 99% of the population will never hear a single word about the "Back To Work Budget." But let's be clear about one thing: on Capitol Hill, when it comes to creating millions of jobs in a hurry, this is the only game in town.
Leave a Comment:
Because the Progressives don't have a gun to the head of the country, no one will talk about it. Extremism sells, and in that respect the Ryan budget is the top seller.
That's nonsense. 2014 is fast approaching, and voters need to know that there are big differences in vision where Dems want to take the country, and why it would be good to see Pelosi restored to power in the House. What the budget promises is austerity where it is desperately needed:
That's the kind of austerity this nation needs, and progressive Dems can draw attention by baiting the lunatic right into attention getting disputes. There is much in the Budget that are worthy of the attention such political theater would invite. For example, from the summary:
It is a good place to start, but in case anyone thinks it is at the far left, you would be wrong. What's missing?
These are all fine points, but I guarantee that you won't see them detailed on any news program, and thus the public WON'T know about them. That's the difference between how media in general treats progressive ideas and conservative dogma.
There are plenty of Teabaggers willing to draw attention to themselves and willing to let progressives draw attention to their proposals so long as it also draws attention to theirs.
.
It seems to me the media would eat it up if there were sufficient theatrics to it. Maybe someone in the progressive caucus will go for it.
I think it would be fun and welcome change to constantly playing defense with the lunatic right- and constantly fighting battles on terms that they decide on.
If only you were Emperor, yes?
So I have a question. Why not just send some or all that money directly to the citizens? Wouldn't that do the best for the most?
No, they'll gain the most benefit from an updated infrastructure and greater employment, neither of which the public can do themselves. That's the greatest benefit for the most, and something to which conservatives seem to be allergic, instead opting for "cut everything but the actual problems". And seriously, you're losing your conservative cred here. I mean, your own side has said that stimulus doesn't work, Shooter; c'mon, get up to date on your talking points! Although maybe that's your ploy; encourage stimulus, then turn around and say that the government is just buying votes from those who want free things! That way, you get to be an incorrect douchebag both ways, and I know you treasure that experience.
For a trillion dollars you could send every household $10,000, twice that if you means test. Are you going to tell me a bridge in Tuscaloosa is better for the country than ten large in every house?
"Are you going to tell me a bridge in Tuscaloosa is better for the country than ten large in every house?"
Yes. If the bridge falls down and people die, or you can't get to the grocery store to buy food, or get to work, or goods can't get to market.
Money means nothing if the infrastructure is kaput. And people are not going to pool their money to pay for its repair on their own.
If it doesn't screw the poor and make the rich richer, it isn't "serious." What a country.
Right in line with the notion that if you, and your caucus, don't do as I say you aren't showing leadership...
This is what the timid, scaredy-cat Senate Democrats should have done. It gives room to "compromise" and it lays out in clear terms what the priorities are from the only side of the spectrum that is demanding the country get back on the correct path.
Agreed. If the Republicans want to negotiate and meet in the middle, then the Dems should start with this progressive plan.
The only problem with compromising to somewhere in the middle is that it will probably not be done quickly. Of course with the "no-pay" thingy it may motivate them....but doubtful. It just means a few weeks of snide comments and hundreds of politicians ranting on the newschannels accusing the other side of whatever.
The whole no pay thing is fake anyway. It is unconstitutional to make any changes to congressional pay until after an election.
Thank you Congressional Progressive Caucus! Your plan is to actually "help" US and not destroy the 98% of working Americans how refreshing!
oops
You cannot reduce a budget if it is going to lead to your demise. you cannot increase your budget if it is going to lead to your demise.
At the proper point, life cost is what it is. one can only budget after one has demanded, fought for, owned and controlled his life. the U.S. has been there done that. it started in 1775.
today, the pimped outs are trying to use a budget to steal ownership and control of our lives. in the past, we killed those who attempted to hijack our lives. if the pimped outs are not willing to be real americans, and the courts are not willing to follow the core spirit of america, what are we to do?
viva la revolucion?
Let's compromise: Take from the poor and give to the rich!
Rachael, as an independent, I find your commentary often as unfair as the Republicans you criticise.
A few nights ago, you suggested that raising taxes on the rich was right because most Americans are in favor of it. I agree that most people would rather have someone else pay their tax bill. Voting for higher taxes for someone else is like going to dinner with 7 of your best friends and having them vote that you will pay the bill because you have the most money in your wallet.
Perhaps this country could agree on tax reform if our country focused on fairness, rather than on making the other guy pay the bill.
Our capital gains tax would be a good place to start. Most of us would agree that our country should provide an incentive for long-term investment. However, our current capital gains tax effectively gives benefits for short-term speculation by providing a low rate for one-year gains.
I propose a fair method would be to index capital gains for inflation but then tax it at regular marginal tax rates. For example, if inflation were three percent, you would pay tax on 97% of the gain after one year, but only 10% of the gain after 30 years.
If your political discourse focused on what was fair, we would have a much better chance of getting both sides of the aisle to agree.
Too many loop holes. Almost everyone agrees that the tax code needs to be simplified. I say tax all income on the same curve with higher income paying a larger percentage in tax compared to lower income. Is that fair? I say yes. It is fairly obvious that the richer you are the easier it is to become even richer and the poorer you are the more difficult it is to become richer. A progressive tax helps to level the playing field. That the rich have become much, much richer while the middle class has become poorer during the last 3 decades, tells me that the rich aren't being taxed enough. With all their money, the rich have had great influence on the media and on politicians which is the reason it's been so difficult to raise taxes on the rich.