The Economist: The Courageous Progressive Caucus budget

[Scuba]

http://www4.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/debt_proposals



<snip>

"...Republicans are refusing to raise the national debt ceiling even though their own budget raises the national debt by $6 trillion over the next decade, and no one in the national press corps seems to be pointing out the contradiction.

"the Congressional Progressive Caucus plan wins the fiscal responsibility derby thus far; it reaches balance by 2021 largely through assorted tax hikes and defense cuts." Which is pretty interesting. Have you ever heard of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget plan? Neither had I. The caucus's co-chairs, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, released it on April 6th. The budget savings come from defence cuts, including immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq, which saves $1.6 trillion over the CBO baseline from 2012-2021. The tax hikes include restoring the estate tax, ending the Bush tax cuts, and adding new tax brackets for the extremely rich, running from 45% on income over a million a year to 49% on income over a billion a year.

"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. Mr Ryan has been fulsomely praised for his courage. The Progressive Caucus has not.'

<end snip>


DU needs to shout about the "Peoples Budget" from every rooftop!!!!

[FLPanhandle]

1. Looks like the Progressive Caucus has been reading DU

"The budget savings come from defence cuts, including immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq, which saves $1.6 trillion over the CBO baseline from 2012-2021. The tax hikes include restoring the estate tax, ending the Bush tax cuts, and adding new tax brackets for the extremely rich, running from 45% on income over a million a year to 49% on income over a billion a year."

God it's so simple!

[Kolesar]

4. The defence cuts are only $180 Billion/year, one half of the huge hike they had since 2001

IIRC, the "defence" budget was $360 Billion up until Osama/bush started the War on Terror.

The DOD and "intelligence services" can certainly "protect us" with the huge amount of the public treasure that the Progressive Caucus would give them. Reducing the size of the military by tens of thousands after withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is going to reduced the budget significantly.

Defence Secretary Gates is not very courageous on defence cuts, either.

[FLPanhandle]

5. Which means we could be running a surplus with little effort

We just need to get out of the role of World's Policeman and downsize to a small but very high tech military. We'd keep the R&D jobs, and still be safe.

[Kolesar]

6. We got to a "surplus" in the Clinton era

...as a continuation of the "peace dividend" cuts started by Old Bush and Cheney.

[indepat]

8. Suspect global hegemony is what the defense budget is all about, not being safe

:patriot:

[Kolesar]

9. Cannot we just use our banks to destroy other countries?

half jokingly

[mmonk]

2. Yes, this is the best approach because it is sound

and not as ideological as the two right wing proposals for defunding the commons.

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[Telly Savalas]

7. As a moderate, I'm glad to see at least one segment of Congress

proposing a serious no-nonsense plan aimed at addressing our fiscal problems. Way to go, CPC!

[Poboy]

10. recommend

[dkf]

11. They are proposing to get rid of the tax exempt status of muni bonds.

Also to tax all foreign earnings as it is earned. I can't help but think those two aspects will have huge impacts. Will a 15% credit to the states make up for increased borrowing costs of munis? I am skeptical. Will our corporations decide to move out of the US? If the tax rate is high enough it's pretty much a no brainer if they are concerned about the bottom line.

Beware of the law of unintended consequences.