
The House Progressive Caucus has shown the way to balance in the debate on how to avoid the sequester. It’s important to remember that the first “fix” was all program cuts, and the second “fix” reduced the proportion of program cuts from 100% to 70% — but the entire enterprise is still weighted to the GOP program-cuts side.
Here are the Progressive Caucus leaders, explaining this:
“Almost $2 trillion has been cut over the past two years from teachers, firefighters, police officers, loans for college students, and infrastructure investments,” Rep. Ellison said. “The American people shouldn’t continue to pay the price for massive tax breaks for millionaires and billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies.”
“If one-to-one is really our goal, why don’t we make the entire budget and investment process one-to-one instead of restricting it to this current round?” Rep. Grijalva said. “We’ve cut non-defense budgets to the bone. There are simply no major savings hiding in school lunch or nurse training programs. We need investments. The Beltway refusal to make job creation our number one priority is a scandal, and the Balancing Act is the right way to fix it.”
Greg Sargent shows why even “winning” as defined within the Beltway is actually losing for Democrats:
Even if the parties reach a deal in the third round of deficit reduction to avert the sequester with something approaching an equivalent sum of spending cuts and new revenues, the overall deficit reduction balance would still be heavily lopsided towards Republicans. Yet they continue to insist on resolving round three only through cuts, anyway.
Here’s what an actual 50/50 split between cuts to programs and revenue would look like. Unsurprisingly, in order to even things up at this late stage, it’s revenue-heavy. It has to be:
The Congressional Progressive Caucus announced today that it is introducing legislation to cancel the automatic spending cuts — known as the “sequester” — that are scheduled to take place at the beginning of March. The CPC’s Balancing Act would replace the scheduled spending cuts with more than $900 billion in new revenues and nearly $300 billion in cuts to the defense budget.
The Balancing Act would result in $960 billion in new revenue, generated from closing tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy. It ends the carried interest loophole that benefits wealthy hedge fund managers, closes tax loopholes that encourage corporations to send profits to offshore tax havens, ends the $4 billion in annual subsidies to Big Oil companies, and closes loopholes that benefit buyers of private jets and yachts. It also limits deductions for wealthy taxpayers and closes loopholes in the estate tax.
Of course, there’s lots of lobbyists working Capitol Hill hard for the Big Oil companies, as well as the private jet owners and estate-tax-worriers. So this plan also works to save some of the drastic cuts to the Pentagon. It would be wise for the defense industry to pay attention here:
The proposal also cuts $278 billion from defense spending, a dramatic reduction from the $500 billion in cuts the Pentagon would face under the sequester. Added together with previous deficit reduction efforts, the Balancing Act would equalize cuts to defense and domestic spending while also making the overall package of deficit reduction measures equal parts revenue and spending cuts….
There’s a chart at the link that shows how this works, and we really need to do things this way.
It’s time to compromise, people. And this 50/50 compromise is the best compromise for everyone.
Additionally:
The Balancing Act also includes investments into infrastructure and education meant to bolster the economic recovery. It would reinstitute the Making Work Pay tax credit, which would provide up to $800 to low- and middle-income families, for one year at a cost of $61 billion. It would also spend $55 billion on education investments — a measure the CPC says would prevent 280,000 teacher layoffs and modernize 35,000 public schools — and $160 billion in infrastructure investments. The CPC projects that such investments would create roughly 1 million jobs. Even with those investments, the Balancing Act would result in a total of $3.3 trillion in deficit reduction when added to already-enacted cuts and revenues.
Photo by vgm8383 under Creative Commons license




22 Comments

Ending “carried interest” is really something that should happen, but probably never will as long as hedge fund managers are in the bundling-campaign-accounts business. But really, how is this not annual income, being paid to manage other peoples’ money?
This is a great idea and should be looked into but I think dnc/0 have other ideas that aren’t fair to Main Street and won’t even mention the repugs. Thanks Teddy for putting this up.
Yup…in more ways than I care to count.
Good piece, Teddy. These recommendations need to be pushed hard in DeeCee, if for no other reason than that they would make the zombie-eyed granny-starver’s head explode. That would almost make for PPV-level entertainment.
Let’s compromise by increasing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, employment and infrastructure spending, and funding it completely with progressive tax increases for the top 2 percent and cutting the military budget by 2/3 for a start. Oh, and don’t let President Obama participate in any negotiations.
WRONG WRONG WRONG
ANY DEFICIT REDUCTION IS A BAD THING
It doesn’t matter whether it is Republican deficit reduction or Democratic deficit reduction or CPC deficit reduction. Any deficit reduction will hurt the economy.
Not to mention there is zero chance the House will pass the CPC’s tax increases, so why are we even wasting time talking about this ?
The deficit is a good thing and it needs to be bigger. There are only 2 types of increased deficit spending that Republicans will support 1) war and 2) tax cuts. I suggest we suspend the FICA tax. Republicans would be hard pressed to vote against a tax cut, so it would actually have a chance of passing.
Suspending the regressive FICA tax would put more money in the hands of the working class. They’d spend it and that would create jobs and get the economy going.
God save us from the CPC and other ‘progressives’ who want to reduce the deficit.
So, the transaction tax on stocks/daytrading/computerized trading is where? And, Obama is on a 4yr. vacation, where? Where’s the stimulus spending to get us off this ” death by a thousand cuts ” spiral? I’d like to give the President, and his running lackey dogs, a swift kick in the ass but I don’t know where he is, does any Progressive? This guy proves, day in and day out, his mother really was from Kansas and so is he. The first President from Illinois was good at rail splitting. The first black President from Illinois is good at getting ” log rolled “. Well, at least there’s some real wood in there, somewhere.
Obama will order The Progressive Caucus to lie down and be door mats, and they will obey.
Obama is in it to please his buddies in the GOP. Get ready for austerity.
On a related note, John Bolton has been praising Obama’s murder-by-decree drone program. What’s next? Will Obama appoint Cheney to a cabinet post?
That’s exactly what it is. Another form of “gift” to corporations is transfer pricing. That loophole should also be closed. And while we are at it why is there such a thing as unlimited capital gains tax at 20%. end it and tax it as ordinary income.
No, it is not wrong. It is time the top one percent pay their share and corporations give up their free passes. That needs to reduce the huge differences between the top and the rest of us. Besides, they save most of their money anyway. If they want a new yacht, makes no difference what income taxes they pay. They gotta have it to keep up with the Joneses.
This proposal is a crock. It is in no way progressive. None.
50% program cuts?
I’ll tell you where the cuts need to be made.
All defense and security. when Bush cam into office, his defense budget was in the $250 billion dollar range.
Now? with the total defense/security/terrorism complex/apparatus, we spend pushing a TRILLION plus that 250 billion a year.
When Bush pushed this bullshit into effect, I called it fucked up, and twelve years later, it’s still fucked up.
Until and unless this MIC is dismantled, The People will not be the priority.
50/50 is not balance, it is getting fucked halfway.
CIA Main Man Obama has won Mustache John Bolton’s backing? …No kidding?!
That is a Big Obama WH Win!
POTUS Obama since Jan.20,2009 has been / is doing Bush / Cheney GWOT Policy as POTUS…little need to get Dick Cheney into Obama WH to do Cheney Policy Picks.
C’mon, the photo ops of Obama hugging Cheney would be the highlight of Barry’s career!
The progressive caucus shows how to practice “loser liberalism.” Does anyone over there know about this macroeconomic identity: Federal Deficits = Net Private Savings + Net Imports?
The first thing to understand about it is that it must always hold, and there’s plenty of evidence to show that for any given time period it always does.
So let’s say we determine to hold down the Federal deficit to 5% of of a projected GDP of about $16 T, which by the way is approximately the CBO projection for 2013. Then that means that if we do our best to hold to that target, then the sum of net private savings and net imports will have to be 5%. In 2012 it was close to 4% of GDP. If that happens again this year, then private sector savings taken as a whole will fall to 1% of GDP. During the last few years private sector savings was a much higher percentage of GDP as households tried to rebuild their balance sheets.
But now this wonderful Administration and Congress plans to force it to reduce savings to 1% of GDP. Since these savings are likely to be monopolized by the largest and most powerful organizations; it’s quite likely that households will be re-leveraging again, if the banks decide to extend credit to them.
If not, it will be recession city once again, thanks to our crazy political parties including progressive Dems who continue to buy into budget balancing BS.
Of course, next year, our courageous progressives will undoubtedly try to be helpful again by continuing to propose ways in the deficit can be reduced by increasing taxation and leaving spending intact. Well, that’s better than decreasing taxes and cutting spending to reduce the deficit, but not by very much.
The point is that the sectoral financial balances model given above, tells us that there should be no deficit reduction at all; but rather at least a doubling of the planned deficit, so people can spend 4% on imports and still save at least 6% of GDP. So that’s what the CPC should be fighting for. Given the political situation, the CPC probably won’t be able to get that.
But with the help of a judicious use of the filibuster by progressive Senators it could at least prevent reducing the deficit to only 5% and keeping it at the 8% or so that it is now. Then, at least, our government wouldn’t be driving us back into a deep recession.
And please don’t tell me we need the tax revenue. Remember, I’m the platinum coin seigniorage guy. I know that the plutocratic wonder in the White House could mint a $60 T coin if he wanted to and force the Fed to credit it. And then he can turn around and get rid of the debt gradually as it falls due; including 40% of it within the first week after minting the coin.
So, we don’t need the tax revenue. All we really need is an end to “loser liberalism.”
Didn’t Cheney work for Poppy Bush before he worked for Dim Son?
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20110215-obama-honors-ex-president-george-h.w.-bush-with-medal-of-freedom.ece
In a number of undesirable things, Obama has gone beyond both Bushes.
Why on earth is it important to remember what the first two bullshit “fixes” were? So that anything better than they were will seem like something for which everyone should be grateful?
Until there are meaningful cuts to defense and meaningful increases in revenues, talk of cutting the very meager incomes of and benefits to those who are disabled, elderly is not only wildly premature but heartless and shameful.
@ medicinecat @ comment #12 above
… ;-> that would be an instant classic politicians hug photo …
… making it a 3 Way Man Hug with John Bolton? pure ‘Onion’ classics zone 100%
Mustache John Bolton, BlackHeart Cheney and The Drone Barry Obama doing a 3 Way Man Hug being plenty enough to get Ed Anger really heated up at Weekly World News too… ;->
Plain to see The Drone Barry Obama is protected by using his IOKIYAAD Shield.
TeeVee TX Cowboy ” you with me or against me? ” G.W.Bush had to do what he did without Barry’s IOKIYAAD Shield to keep Team D Whup Ass Zealots League being made fools of and on the wrong trail looking in the wrong places.
“Pops” G.H.W.Bush likely was Regent POTUS during much of RayGun Ronnys WH reign 1980-1988? Yes? Yes. Bush Family USG connections along with CIA credentials made Pops Bush someone who likely knew where many puppet strings led to. Oddly enough along came Kuwait Oil Crisis! which eventually led to Attack Iraq! in March 2003 to thwart any post Soviet Union collapse “peace dividend” while Pops Bush was POTUS and in the WH.
W.J.Clinton gets along with Pops Bush fine it seems while CIA Main Man Barry Obama sure did sweep thru 2008 selling a pile of BS. Obama as POTUS appears to be going along with what House of Bush /CIA Siths laid out since 1980′s right up thru 2008 — kept it in place/secure thru 2012 and will likely do so now until 2016.
I’m guessing Jeb Bush may follow Barry Obama into WH. Happy to be wrong but I suspect 2016 has been reserved by UniParty for Jeb Bush leading to a January 2017 Jeb Bush becomes POTUS outcome. This is certainly a desirable way to keep War Criminals G.W.Bush and B.H.Obama safe and not in any political/legal peril. Bush Dynasty and CIA will see to that being so.
Since 2000 I am not discounting White House and American Empire surrealism anymore.
I find this continual assertion, groundless in my experience, that there is a “progressive” win to the Democratic Party. How can a demonstrably authoritarian/right party like the Dems have a progressive wing? It’s anathema to their policies and goals.
Rewritten, now that I’m awake.
I find this continual assertion, groundless in my experience, that there is a “progressive” wing to the Democratic Party more than a little disturbing and disingenuous. How can a demonstrably authoritarian/right party like the Dems have a progressive wing? It’s anathema to their policies and goals.
Members who own Goldman Sachs shares: 16
•Boehner, John (R-OH)
•Cantor, Eric (R-VA)
•Cruz, Ted (R-TX)
•Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL)
•Fitzpatrick, Michael G (R-PA)
•Hagan, Kay R (D-NC)
•Kerry, John (D-MA)
•Kingston, Jack (R-GA)
•McCaul, Michael (R-TX)
•Mullin, Markwayne (R-OK)
•Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX)
•Peters, Gary (D-MI)
•Roe, Phil (R-TN)
•Schneider, Brad (D-IL)
•Vitter, David (R-LA)
•Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI)
Campaign finance totals for the current election cycle were released by the FEC on January 14, 2013 and by the IRS on November 13, 2012, lobbying data was released by the Senate Office of Public Records on January 28, 2013, outside spending data was released by the FEC on February 7, 2013, and PFD data was released by the House, Senate, and US Office of Government Ethics starting in June 2011.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center
See something wrong or want to suggest an improvement? Contact us.
Interest GroupsLobbyingRevolving DoorPACsOrganizations
All Organizations Profiles
Heavy Hitters
Heavy Hitters ListIndependent ExpendituresTop Individual Contributors
Top National Donors
527s
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
About these ads
Page: 1 2 3 4
Name Office Total Contributions
Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $1,033,204
Obama, Barack (D) Pres $192,050
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $78,700
Brown, Scott (R-MA) Senate $78,400
Meek, Christopher D (R-CT) House $66,860
Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $65,850
Pawlenty, Tim (R) Pres $57,500
Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $51,000
Boehner, John (R-OH) House $42,500
Altschuler, Randy (R-NY) House $42,438
Corker, Bob (R-TN) Senate $40,500
Lingle, Linda (R-HI) Senate $39,900
Roskam, Peter (R-IL) House $38,500
Himes, Jim (D-CT) House $35,300
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) Senate $29,500
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) House $28,000
Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) Senate $28,000
Tester, Jon (D-MT) Senate $27,750
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) House $27,350
Murphy, Christopher S (D-CT) House $23,749
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $21,000
Heller, Dean (R-NV) Senate $20,000
Kyrillos, Joe (R-NJ) Senate $20,000
Dold, Robert (R-IL) House $19,750
Maloney, Sean Patrick (D-NY) House $18,500
Shays, Christopher (R-CT) Senate $17,500
Berg, Rick (R-ND) House $17,250
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) Senate $17,000
Flake, Jeff (R-AZ) House $16,500
Frank, Barney (D-MA) House $16,500
Scott, Tim (R-SC) House $16,499
Boustany, Charles W Jr (R-LA) House $16,000
Hayworth, Nan (R-NY) House $15,500
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) Senate $15,000
Cardin, Ben (D-MD) Senate $14,000
Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) House $14,000
Hurt, Robert (R-VA) House $14,000
Kaine, Tim (D-VA) Senate $13,750
Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $13,650
Meehan, Patrick (R-PA) House $13,300
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) Senate $13,000
Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) House $12,500
Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) House $12,500
Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) House $12,500
Huntsman, Jon (R) Pres $12,250
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Senate $12,200
Berman, Howard L (D-CA) House $12,000
Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV) House $12,000
Conaway, Mike (R-TX) House $12,000
Grimm, Michael (R-NY) House $11,800
Cicilline, David (D-RI) House $11,350
Barrasso, John A (R-WY) Senate $11,150
Clarke, Yvette D (D-NY) House $11,000
Israel, Steve (D-NY) House $11,000
King, Pete (R-NY) House $11,000
Schock, Aaron (R-IL) House $11,000
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME) Senate $11,000
Stivers, Steve (R-OH) House $11,000
Duffy, Sean P (R-WI) House $10,950
Gibson, Chris (R-NY) House $10,500
Wicker, Roger (R-MS) Senate $10,300
Camp, Dave (R-MI) House $10,000
Carney, John (D-DE) House $10,000
Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) House $10,000
Matheson, Jim (D-UT) House $10,000
McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) House $10,000
McHenry, Patrick (R-NC) House $10,000
Meeks, Gregory W (D-NY) House $10,000
Miller, Gary (R-CA) House $10,000
Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX) House $10,000
Nunes, Devin Gerald (R-CA) House $10,000
Peters, Gary (D-MI) House $10,000
Price, Tom (R-GA) House $10,000
Reed, Tom (R-NY) House $10,000
Scott, David (D-GA) House $10,000
Sewell, Terri A (D-AL) House $10,000
Walden, Greg (R-OR) House $10,000
Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) House $10,000
Towns, Edolphus (D-NY) House $9,000
Casey, Bob (D-PA) Senate $8,850
Allen, George (R-VA) Senate $8,500
Brady, Kevin (R-TX) House $8,500
Chaffetz, Jason (R-UT) House $8,500
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) House $8,500
Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) House $8,500
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH) House $8,500
Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) House $8,000
Doheny, Matt (R-NY) House $8,000
Fitzpatrick, Michael G (R-PA) House $8,000
Manchin, Joe (D-WV) Senate $8,000
Richmond, Cedric (D-LA) House $8,000
Jeffries, Hakeem (D-NY) House $7,900
Obsitnik, Steve (R-CT) House $7,750
Bass, Karen (D-CA) House $7,500
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) Senate $7,500
Carper, Tom (D-DE) Senate $7,500
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) House $7,500
Clyburn, James E (D-SC) House $7,500
Coons, Chris (D-DE) Senate $7,500
Hagan, Kay R (D-NC) Senate $7,500
METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations were made during the 2012 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission. Figures for the current election cycle are based on data released on January 14, 2013.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.
Interest GroupsLobbyingRevolving DoorPACsOrganizations
All Organizations Profiles
Heavy Hitters
Heavy Hitters ListIndependent ExpendituresTop Individual Contributors
Top National Donors
527s