Why isn't the Grijalva/Ellison Budget Plan being discussed?

[Ruby the Liberal]

Here is a .pdf of the entire proposal - its only 12 pages long.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%20CPC%20FY2012%20Budget.pdf

Reps Grijalva and Ellison wrote of it back in April saying:

As the co-chairmen of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we stand for a budget that puts the American Dream back within reach for working families. We stand for the People's Budget.

We support a budget that puts America back to work. We support a plan that creates good-paying jobs rebuilding the roads and bridges that we cross going to work every day. We make sure that everyone pays their fair share, while ending wasteful defense contracts and costly wars. The People's Budget shuts down corporate giveaways that put small businesses and workers on an uneven playing field.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raul-m-grijalva/in-2012-will-we-have-a-pe_b_846075.html

Did anyone in either house even consider it?

[ejpoeta]

1. because they don't WANT it. it makes too much sense. and it seems this is in line with what

most of the american people want too. so they aren't even going to discuss it. you don't even hear the msm even mention there is another plan at all. just the paul ryan one. nothing else.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Has anyone in congress even looked at it?

Discussed it? Brought it to the attention of some subcommittee?

Nancy Pelosi said that there are "several" options out there. Is this even one of them?

[annabanana]

2. No one's talking about it because it would be too POPULAR.

It is the plan that has the support of about 70% of the American people, according to polling

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. Ok, then it IS out there if they are able to poll on it

I am just hearing about it today for the first time. Must have missed the coverage this spring.

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. Delete - system duped

[Warpy]

3. Because it will work, because people want it, and mostly

because it will inconvenience the greedheads.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Because the Democrats are in the minority?

And money bills must originate in the House, which means the majority writes them?

And there's no filibuster in the House?

There was plenty of discussion -- in progressive circles.

Which aren't wide enough to matter. When you're big enough to deliver an election, people listen. The Tea Party was, in 2010.

[Skidmore]

17. Bingo. But noone griping wants to hear simple facts.

Sad but true.

[Davis_X_Machina]

22. I am loath to quote Stalin...

...but quantity has a quality all its own.

[Ship of Fools]

8. Probably because it's too reasonable.

[leveymg]

9. 80 or so Reps have signed on, but a lot of solid liberals haven't.

The leadership is still marching to the WH tune, and that isn't even close to this document.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Because Republicans are in the majority, and even most Democrats in the House opposed it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll274.xml

[Ruby the Liberal]

18. Disappointing.

I didn't know they had a vote. Must have been living under a rock back then.

Thank you so much for the link.

[chill_wind]

11. Support for the People's Budget

Support for the People's Budget

Paul Krugman

“genuinely courageous”

“achieves this without dismantling the legacy of the New Deal”

Dean Baker

"if you want a serious effort to balance the budget, here it is."

Jeffrey Sachs

“A bolt of hope…humane, responsible, and most of all sensible”

The Economist

“Courageous”

“Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people.”

The New Republic

“In passing, Miller also draws attention something that's gotten far too little attention in this debate. The most fiscally responsible plan seems to be neither the Republicans' nor the president's. It's the Congressional Progressive Caucus plan…”

The Washington Post

"It’s much more courageous to propose taxes on the rich and powerful than spending cuts on the poor and disabled."

Rachel Maddow

“Balances the budget 20 years earlier than Paul Ryan even tries to”

The Guardian

“the most fiscally responsible in town… would balance the books by 2021“

The Nation

"the strongest rebuke...to the unconscionable 'Ryan Budget' for FY 2012."

Center for American Progress

"once again put(s) requiring more sacrifice from the luckiest among us back on the table"

Economic Policy Institute

"National budget policy should adequately fund up-front job creation, invest in long-term economic growth, reform the tax code, and put the debt on a sustainable path while protecting the economic security of low-income Americans and growing the middle class. The proposal by the Congressional Progressive caucus achieves all of these goals."

The Washington Post

“The Congressional Progressive Caucus plan wins the fiscal responsibility derby thus far."

Rolling Stone

"This is more than a fantasy document. It's sound policy."

Forbes

"instead of gutting programs for the poor like Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, and the new healthcare law, the People’s Budget focuses on cuts in defense. It also doesn’t scrap new financial regulations designed to at least partly stave off another massive financial collapse like the one that put us in this mess in the first place."

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1503372

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. How many votes in the House?

[chill_wind]

14. A sad political statement, isn't it?

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. When there are more progressives...

...they will be able to deliver elections. Politicians respond to incentives.

When they can deliver elections, then there'll be more progressive Representatives.

When there are more progressive Representatives, there will be more progressive legislation.

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. I feel sick to my stomach reading those quotes.

DAMN it all. :grr:

[ProSense]

13. Because 108 Democrats

voted against it

Could you imagine if Democrats in and out of Congress had pushed this budget as consistently as the Repubs pushed Ryan's?

[annabanana]

16. aggravating, ain't it? . . . . . n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Yes, and you know the really sad part?

I was still working this spring, so not as tuned in as I have been of late, but like to consider myself informed.

I know ALL ABOUT the stupid Ryan budget, and from every media outlet out there. I just found out about this one today.

Telling.

[gratuitous]

19. I suppose if it got even a tenth of the coverage the Gang of 6 have gotten

And if even a tenth of that tenth was positive, we'd hear a little more about it, and Democrats wouldn't feel quite so bold as to vote it down. Instead, we get scant coverage aided and abetted by a snicker and every other indication that it's not to be taken seriously, and down the memory hole it goes.

Now, if we had, say, someone in a national elective office who was committed to such principles as deficit reduction, more jobs, and restoring some fairness and balance to the tax code, it might get some more traction. Instead, we're stuck with a popular media that can't be bothered to take progressive ideas seriously and national politicians who can say one thing while doing something entirely with impunity because nobody in the popular media will hold them accountable.

So there's that.

[bvar22]

23. For the same reason "Medicare for ALL" wasn't allowed to be discussed.

Spurious Blue Link

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. Well, now it is a Spurious Purple Link

:D

Cool pic.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. It was scheduled to be discussed and voted on, but Kucinich and Conyers withdrew it because

"it was not the right time."

[hifiguy]

24. It does not serve the interests of the plutocrats

and discussion of things that do not serve the plutocrats is not permitted.

[Ruby the Liberal]

26. They lost them at eliminating the capital gains tax

Idiots probably stopped reading right there.

:grr: