Let me remind you, the Paul Ryan plan takes 4.2 Trillion from the middle class, the poor, and the disabled while giving 4.3 TRILLION to the top 2%! What the fuck is that all about and why do Righties support that?!
How is that trickle down worked for you middle America?? By my estimations NOT VERY WELL!
Don't confuse the Progressives plan with the Presidents plan either.
• Puts America back to work with a “Make it in America” jobs program
• Protects the social safety net
• Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Is FAIR (Fixing America’s Inequality Responsibly)
What the proposal accomplishes:
• Primary budget balance by 2014.
• Budget surplus by 2021.
• Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.1% by 2021, down 16.5 percentage points from
a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch.
• Reduces deficits by $5.6 trillion over 2012-21, relative to this adjusted baseline.
• Outlays equal to 22.2% of GDP and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021.
Here’s how the CPC budget works.....
1. Extend marriage relief, credits, and incentives for children, families, and education, but let the upper-income tax cuts expire and let tax brackets revert to Clinton-era rates
2. Index the AMT for inflation for a decade (AMT patch paid for)
3. Rescind the upper-income tax cuts in the tax deal
4. Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, and 47% top rates)
5. Progressive estate tax (Sanders estate tax, repeal of Kyl-Lincoln)
6. Tax capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income
Corporate tax reform
1. Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned
2. Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies
3. Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee
4. Financial speculation tax (derivatives, foreign exchange)
Health care
1. Enact a public option
2. Negotiate Rx payments with
3. CMS program integrity and other
4. Prevent a cut in Medicare physician payments for a decade (maintain doc fix)
Social Security
1. Raise the taxable maximum on the employee side to 90% of earnings and eliminate the taxable maximum on the employer side
2. Increase benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side
Defense savings
1. End overseas contingency operations emergency supplementals starting in 2013, providing $170 billion in FY2012 funding for withdrawal
2. Reduce baseline Defense spending by reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement, and R&D programs
Nondefense investment
1. Invest $1.45 trillion in job creation, education, clean energy and broadband infrastructure, housing, and R&D
2. Infrastructure bank
3. Surface transportation reauthorization bill
4. Finance surface transportation reauthorization by raising the motor fuel tax by 25 cents
Now come on people, what isn't there to love about this plan??? There is a stark difference between the Ryan plan and the CPC budget plan, you have to be Progressive HATER not to see this plan is what will save America. Mr. President are you listening to the Progressive Caucus???? You better be, for your own future endeavors....Once this plan gets to the airways (We all know the media doesn't focus on liberal news) the country will be as supportive as I am.
Support for the People's Budget
Paul Krugman
Jeffrey Sachs
The Economist
The New Republic
The Washington Post
The Guardian
The Nation
Center for American Progress
Economic Policy Institute
44 comments:
Sue,
The link to the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget plan is not working...at least for me.
okay Jerry, I'll check it out, thanks!
I would like to see a CBO analysis of this budget proposal. We could then compare it to Obama's and the republican plans.
END THE WARS....NOW! Frankly... I would also eliminate Homeland Security.... to me, it always seemed to be a redundancy...
Jerry: I too would like to the the CBO analysis.
Through high tax rates and low tax rates, we have never been able to maintain tax collection at 22% of GDP. Never.
That budget is missing the funding for holding down "the rich," because people won't just bend over and take it.
Also, the private sector will really have to grow, since the goal of this budget is to increase government's piece of the overall economy, and government does not provide any economic growth.
I do like the name, though. "The People's budget," appropriately conjures images of The People Republic of Cuba, etc.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/04/the-peoples-budget.html
I have repeatedly argued that long term capital gains should be taxed as regular income. (Short term capital gains are taxed as income, I believe). However, if we raise top marginal rates on the wealthiest of Americans, something else I strongly advocate, we have to be careful.
There is a point where it would not make sense for the wealthy to invest their funds, at least not in futures, stocks, and the like.
The maximum capital loss per year, I believe is 3,000.00.
Let’s say we created a structure like this:
1. We tax top marginal income at 49%, but we can only tax the top 25% of a person’s earnings at this rate, regardless of how great their earnings are.
2. The bottom 75% of a person’s earnings would use a marginal plan, just as is used today. Instead of setting the top marginal rate for the bottom 75% portion of a person’s earnings at 35%, we would set it at 43% or something.
3. Close all tax loopholes and the majority of incentives
4. Once the budget is in surplus and the debt no longer oppressive, review what taxes are really needed. I philosophically don’t mind keeping high taxation, but it causes problems and too much discontentment, so it is better to lower taxes when we can.
While we have a deficit in place, I would support such a plan. However, we may then have to remove the capital loss restriction. If we have a capital loss restriction that makes it so wealthy people who trade in high volume cannot write off their losses, but must declare their gains, at some point it makes no sense for wealthy people to put money in American stocks. If the trades turn against them, it could take literally years to recoup the lost write-offs (3000.00 at a time).
The Economic Policy Institute has analyzed and scored the specific policy proposals in the People’s Budget and modeled their cumulative impact on the federal budget over the next decade. Our analysis finds that the People’s Budget would balance the federal budget within a decade and place debt held by the public on a sustainable trajectory. Specifically, the budget would move to a surplus of $30.7 billion (0.1% of gross domestic product) in 2021, and debt as a share of the economy would trend downward to 64.1% of GDP in that year. The budget would reduce deficits by $5.6 trillion over the next decade relative to the CBO baseline (adjusted for current policies regarding the “doc fix” and a patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax).
And SF you can also say Ryan's Path to Prosperity is an absurdity which would put us on the path to Third World status in the blink of an eye...
anything the Bush clan conjured up was redundant Jim...Hideous pack of lying scum! Check out my FB link for the You Tube video on the liars from the Shrub Era talking about the wars and trying to defend themselves.
A plan I can support.
Raising revenue has never stunted growth, and cutting taxes has never produced enough income to pay our bills, or create enough jobs to fill America's needs.
Clinton raised taxes, produced 22 million jobs, and if Republicans (Bush) had left Clinton's budget alone, we not only would have had a budget with a surplus, but would have actually started paying off the multi-trillion dollar debt.
Cutting NPR, Planned Parenthood, etc, will not cut the debt, it is just Republicans trying to shove their exclusive, bigoted social agenda down our throats.
Ryan's plan takes too long, but at least he stepped out with a plan, which is better than the president has done.
Third world? We're already there, Sue. Were the dollar not the "world's currency," we would already be Argentina.
Love those high gas and grocery prices? That tax cheat Geithner, Bum Bernanke and anyone foolish enough to cheer their printing more money, which has eaten away at our buying power and our savings.
"at least he stepped out with a plan, which is better than the president has done"
What do you think the budget is? You may not like it, but it is a plan.
we're the richest nation on earth, the GOP likes to say we are Third World but that's a lie so they can steal back the power. The country is on the right track, now if the voters stay patient we will win the fight back from GOP abyss.
Yes Jerry, and his plan spends even more money, which is why he stepped out with a new nebulous outline last week.
Sue: We are the richest country, in resources, people, ingenuity and capital formation. We also have an extremely wasteful government that is destroying wealth.
Drilling here, Drilling now and building more refineries, could make gas prices go down, but more importantly, it would keep more petroleum production money here in the US.
That is thinking like a capitalist and having concern for the economy and job growth, something we haven't seen from the Obama administration.
Our problem is not importing refined products, it is importing crude oil. More drilling barely dents what we import. The only way to shift our dependency on imported crude is to shift away from petroleum.
SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S INAUGURATION:
The Dow Jones has increased more than 50% -- from 8,000 to more than 12,000;
The wealthiest received a massive tax cut;
The top marginal tax rate was three times less than during the Eisenhower years and substantially lower than during the Reagan years;
Income and wealth inequality are so vast and rising that it is easily at Third World levels;
Meanwhile, "the share of U.S. taxes paid by corporations has fallen from 30 percent of federal revenue in the 1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009."
SOURCE
"Wells Capital states that Federal spending growth is slower today than it was from 1965 through 1985 and is consistent with growth from 1985 through 1995. This same report also shows that we have been having budget deficits 86% of the time since 1965. Interestingly the GOP loves to invoke the Kennedy tax cuts which passed the Senate in 1964 as a sensible way to decrease the deficit through economic expansion. They try to present to the public that a lower tax rate increases business expansion, thus this would increase revenue into the treasury. This obviously didn’t happen. Over the last 46 years, according to this study, our nation has had a federal deficit, for 39.5 years.
Wells Capital States this,
“….the blowout deficit of the last few years was not due to a surge in government spending, but rather is the result of the worst recession in the post-war era. That is, like most post-war deficits, the contemporary deficit is predominantly “cyclical.”’ “….As has been typical throughout the post-war era, the current deficit is primarily the result of weak government receipt growth. Indeed, in the last recession, government receipts declined by more than during any post-war recession."
SOURCE
Jerry: But think of the jobs lost by not drilling more here.
Shaw: So wealth inequality is rising under Obama? What's your point?
On corporate taxes, I am for lowering the rate in exchange for eliminating all loopholes and special favors.
I find it interesting that through the high taxation period of Eisenhower and lower taxation under Reagan and Bush, taxes as a percentage of GDP remained fairly unchanged.
This suggests what everybody knows. Jack up taxes too high and people with money just go use it somewhere else.
"think of the jobs lost by not drilling" Think of the jobs lost by cutting government spending.
"So wealth inequality is rising under Obama?" Yes, he caved to republican demands to continue the Bush tax cuts.
"I am for lowering the rate in exchange for eliminating all loopholes and special favors" Hence, you support Obama's position.
"Jack up taxes too high" Analysis of the last 80 years of economic data indicates that the top marginal tax rate should be about 60% to maximize GDP growth. Eisenhower was too high and Reagan (and us now) was too low.
Jerry: The O-Man hardly was the first to mention closing loopholes. It doesn't matter whos idea it is. It's a good one.
On the rest of it, I refer you back my comment about how no matter what the tax code was doing, tax collection as a percent of GDP stayed the same.
Eisenhower's era was different. The rich did not have the alternatives and the hidey holes they have today. We were the only game in town back then.
Time to stop looking to the past and focus on the future
The fact that Paul Krugman supports this is all that needs to be considered.
We keep looking in all the wrong direction, something that is due to class envy.
Establish a reasonable flat tax, close loopholes the wealthy and business enjoy, end government subsidies to businesses, cut defense spending {realistically}, significantly curtail {or cut}foreign welfare, eliminate duplicative spending, and end our interventionist foreign policy... and then match spending to current revenues.
"Class envy"
What bullshit
Your Republican's tax policies have leaned towards the corporations and rich for decades. Tax breaks that were never paid for, which is why were are in deep debt.
This country (its government) was set up for the people and their best interests, not corporations (who only pay 6-1/2 % of federal income). The lowest corporate tax burden in decades.
We have a progressive tax system. Always have. The more you make, the more tax you pay. Its been that way ever since citizens started paying taxes.
Some reap greater benefits from our economy than others. It is childish (and lacking in reality) to say all should pay the same rate.
But then a Rand cultist is anything but, living in, or thinking reality.
Back to RN's delusion.
SF,
Those that ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.
RN,
Here is a flat tax for you. One percent of financial assets. Personal and corporate. Annually.
Les,
I respect your stand on your ideas. In fact you seem to agree with some of the core issues here.
"End government subsidies to businesses, cut defense spending {realistically}, significantly curtail {or cut}foreign welfare, eliminate duplicative spending, and end our interventionist foreign policy.
Even Krugman, whom we would assume is always wrong by your judgment, agrees with these ideas. So we either have a blatant contradiction, or we are missing the finer points on the issues.
Also the question would arise about what would be a reasonable flat tax. In our system of cash-as-free-speech we could only surmise that "reasonable" would be whatever Big Money says is reasonable. And that figure would run mighty close to zero from what we see in our present circumstances.
A similar difficulty would also arise with determining what cutting defense spending "realistically" would look like. The Military Industrial Complex has a powerful lock on all three branches of government.
I don't think any real progress can be made as long as corporate personhood is legally sanctioned and cash-as-free-speech is a Constitutional right reserved for the elites and not the majority.
RN USA said... The fact that Paul Krugman supports this is all that needs to be considered.
I wouldn't go that far, but I do agree that his endorsement is a good indication (without even looking at it) that adopting this budget is the right way to go.
As far as "foreign welfare" is concerned, I think we need to significantly increase it. Welfare is a much more effective (and cheaper) tool for combating terrorism than war.
But all the money we're giving to foreign countries so that their governments can purchase military hardware from US based defense contractors -- I say cut all that. The welfare should be for humanitarian purposes only.
Right on Whirling Dervish! When I was a kid I thought that foreign aid was all help with efficient agriculture, clean water, resources to be used by the Peace Corps and church groups, lumber, housing, building materials, infrastructure, help with employment and industry, commerce, food shipments, maybe livestock and poultry, seed, fertilizer...
When I learned the truth, I was fucking pissed off!
Dave - Thanks. With respect to Krugman, my comment was because so often I simply find myself in disagreement with his agenda. So I didn't read the article.
If he agrees with the points I made great, I shall have to reconsider and give i a shot.
w-dervish - As to foreign welfare, well... you certainly know my position on altruism, especially foreign altruism when we have so many problem right on our on shores. So I again say it isn't our problem, and we ought not feel bound to it.
When our financial affairs are finally in order, the national debt is paid down to a reasonable level, and we are sustaining budget surpluses, then, and only then, should we consider foreign welfare, and it should only be a percentage of the "budget surplus."
It is time to get real, it is time to get serious, and it sure as H is time to get real serious.
We had a nice budget surplus until Bush came along and screwed it up with his tax cuts. Getting rid of those is the first thing to do to get us back on a sound financial footing.
Drilling here, Drilling now and building more refineries, could make gas prices go down, but more importantly, it would keep more petroleum production money here in the US.
Are you really this stupid? Frankly, the rest of your idiotic tripe leads me to no other reasonable conclusion.
Where, Mr. Einstein, do you think oil produced in the US is sold? I'll give you a hint: the exact same place oil produced in Russia is sold. Or Saudi oil is sold.
Put away the talking points. They do not enhance your chances of being taken seriously. As it is, you're taken about as seriously as your hero Newt is.
The fact that Paul Krugman supports this is all that needs to be considered.
Right you are. Since Krugman has been right as many times as right-wing "thinkers" have tripped over their own feces, that Krugman is on board tells us that this is a proposal well worth considering.
Jerry - Check kt out, seriously, the Clinton "surplus" was merely a mirage. Think outside the box of progressivism {or conservatism}.
J-R -Try as I might I am having trouble following your line of delivery. it's probably me.
But, to help out an "old", critter I think you mean, and please let me know if I'm am wrong... We should ignore the fact we are dealing with market speculates at this very moment in time.
Also -- If Paul Krugman is as wrong as often as he is right would that not mean he is at best a 50% bet at best? Not very goods odds in my conservative book.
Now, go attend to your left wing feces.
Forgive my many spelling errors. I was under considerable time pressure at comment time.
My bad!
RN said,
"my comment was because so often I simply find myself in disagreement with his agenda. So I didn't read the article."
There is a surprise, RN doesn't know what the Hell he is talking about, and makes his bigoted opinions about someones writing without having read them.
Clinton's surplus was not a mirage, it was blown just months after Bush took office, but don't let the facts get in the way of your lies RN.
Serious RN? When will you get serious, instead of being a blog troll clown?
Sue, what a great post. Will tweet it on. I love the Progressive Caucus' budget, and am amazed that the only place I've seen it is on Maddow! I surely hope The President gives it a good look.
Again, terrific post, as always.
Mr. T(om) - I like giving you an avenue {and being the punching bag}to vent your anger and hatred.
Consider it my one time altruistic donation.
Clinton didn't produce any jobs,he was in the right place at the right time
Sue, I have been following your request to not answer the trolls, but the latest lie from she-who-will-not-be-named needs to be answered:
"...23 million jobs were created under Clinton vs the 3 million that the Bush tax cuts created but how many were in the private sector."
Wall Street Journal
Why must we have to clean up after she-who-will-not-be-named when she desposits her pile of steaming, uh, lies on your front lawn?
She should be forced pick up her own offal, place it in a plastic bag, and leave it on her own blog to smell up the place.
Dear Les,
In the spirit of friendship between all Americans regardless of political stripe as well as the grand tradition of the meeting of minds here at Sue's humble blog, forthwith my gift to you. Some thoughts on altruism and the interconnectedness of all peoples of the world as envisioned by a contemporary of Ayn Rand. Delivered in Washington D.C. January 20, 1953.
If you are amenable, perhaps we could explore together the thoughts of John F. Kennedy on this subject some time in the future.
We who are free must proclaim anew our faith… in the deathless dignity of man, governed by eternal moral and natural laws. This faith defines our full view of life. It establishes, beyond debate, those gifts of the Creator that are man's inalienable rights, and that make all men equal in His sight.
In the light of this equality, we know that the virtues most cherished by free people—love of truth, pride of work, devotion to country—all are treasures equally precious in the lives of the most humble and of the most exalted. The men who mine coal and fire furnaces and balance ledgers and turn lathes and pick cotton and heal the sick and plant corn—all serve as proudly, and as profitably, for America as the statesmen who draft treaties and the legislators who enact laws.
This faith … asserts that we have the right to choice of our own work and to the reward of our own toil. It inspires the initiative that makes our productivity the wonder of the world. And it warns that any man who seeks to deny equality among all his brothers betrays the spirit of the free and invites the mockery of the tyrant…
The enemies of this faith know no god but force, no devotion but its use… They feed upon the hunger of others.
Here, then, is joined no argument between slightly differing philosophies. This conflict strikes directly at the faith of our fathers and the lives of our sons. No principle or treasure that we hold, from the spiritual knowledge of our free schools and churches to the creative magic of free labor and capital, nothing lies safely beyond the reach of this struggle…
The faith we hold belongs not to us alone but to the free of all the world. This common bond binds the grower of rice in Burma and the planter of wheat in Iowa, the shepherd in southern Italy and the mountaineer in the Andes…
We know, beyond this, that we are linked to all free peoples not merely by a noble idea but by a simple need. No free people can for long cling to any privilege or enjoy any safety in economic solitude…
So we are persuaded by necessity and by belief that the strength of all free peoples lies in unity; their danger, in discord…
In pleading our just cause before the bar of history and in pressing our labor for world peace, we shall be guided by certain fixed principles…
(5) Assessing realistically the needs and capacities of proven friends of freedom, we shall strive to help them to achieve their own security and well-being. Likewise, we shall count upon them to assume, within the limits of their resources, their full and just burdens in the common defense of freedom.
(6) Recognizing economic health as an indispensable basis of military strength and the free world's peace, we shall strive to foster everywhere, and to practice ourselves, policies that encourage productivity and profitable trade. For the impoverishment of any single people in the world means danger to the well-being of all other peoples…
(8) Conceiving the defense of freedom, like freedom itself, to be one and indivisible, we hold all continents and peoples in equal regard and honor. We reject any insinuation that one race or another, one people or another, is in any sense inferior or expendable.
By these rules of conduct, we hope to be known to all peoples.
By their observance, an earth of peace may become not a vision but a fact...
We must be willing, individually and as a Nation, to accept whatever sacrifices may be required of us. A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
These basic precepts are … laws of spiritual strength that generate and define our material strength.
Thanks for the visits and for the great comments. I read every one and appreciate you all. We're having a mini heat wave and because I'm outside with Amelia most of the day it's wearing me out, so sorry I haven't joined in the conversation. You all don't need my comments anyway! LOL. I'll try to be more present in a few days, Thanks!
FJ, you said...
"If you are amenable, perhaps we could explore together the thoughts of John F. Kennedy on this subject some time in the future."
Certainly if you like. Feel free to e-mail me with your thoughts and we can have a discussion on the subject. Given a certain 'regular' at this site I do not think a discussion in this forum would be very productive.
Fell free, anytime.
RN, please stop the mean remarks, that wasn't necessary at all.
Sue, I refer you back to remarks made by another that preceeded my last comment... aimed at me they were, well mean as well. Not that it is a problem, cause I really am not affected by them.
I do wonder why the chastising of only one however. Semms just a bit... oh he*l, never mind.
Post a Comment