Congressional Progressive Caucus’ Budget for All Deserves as Much Scrutiny as Paul Ryan’s Budget
Firedoglake author David Dayen notes that Congressional Progressive Caucus’ Budget for All Deserves as Much Scrutiny as Paul Ryan’s Budget –
As long as the news media devotes massive amounts of space to a fantasy budget, why can’t they turn their attention for just a minute to a more legitimate one? Sure, the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ Budget for All isn’t likely to get much more than the 100 or so votes of its members, short of what would be needed to pass the House. But the Paul Ryan budget has about as much of a chance as the Budget for All from becoming law.
Economic Policy Institute analysis is here.
Update: Executive summary from the House … hat tip PJR.
In other news Simpson Bowles made it to the house floor and got 38 votes. MMMmmm that’s some tasty bipartisanship!
Thanks for the heads-up and I agree the media should cover this. Ryan offers a conservative alternative to Obama’s proposals, and the progressive caucus offers a liberal alternative. Obama should not be compromising with one side and not be forced to deal with the other side. The full report, which has a nice summary and overview, is here: http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Executive%20Summary%20FINAL.pdf In it, I see new tax brackets at the top-end, a jobs program, removal of the wage cap for Social Security, a wealth tax and higher estate taxes, capital gains and dividends taxed as normal income, a public option for health insurance, removal of some businesses tax loopholes, subsidies, and deductions, a couple of moderate reductions in individual income tax deductions for high-earners, a couple of taxes on Wall Street, etcetera. Overall it’s less far-left than Ryan is far-right.
Requireing high net worth individuals to file the equivalnent of a form 706 (the estate tax form) every year is really the accountants and lawyers full employment act. The question is is it just financial assets which are easy but does it include collectables, which also would be a full employment for art assessors act. I suspect that the cost of compliance and admin would be more than the tax raises therefore being most inefficient. Perhaps if you cast it as an intangables tax i.e. on financial assets only the compliance and admin costs would be less (a lot of states used to have such taxes) so it is known how to administer them.
well two things
the B – S plan seems to be “the” position however many votes it got this time. it won’t die. and they keep on talking it up as if it was really bipartisan and reasonable and etc, instead of just a stealth plan to gut social security and medicare.
that said, it is too bad one of the more able defenders of SS has fallen into sniping “there is no Simpson Bowles Plan” every time he hears it mentioned. sure technically the S – B plan did not pass it’s own committee. but it’s still a perfectly good name to call a perfectly bad plan, and it’s foes ought to concentrate on what’s wrong with it… it is founded on the lie that SS contributes to the deficit… rather than what it is called.
and that said.. it is too bad the “progressives” can’t seem to understand that the whole principle of SS is that the workers pay for it themselves, and call for turning it into welfare by raising the cap.
it’s one thing to want to help the poor. it’s another thing to keep shooting the poor where it hurts in your crazy zeal to hurt the rich who are hiding behind them. the same may be true of some of the other proposals… good way to destroy a reasonable plan by including outrageous items that the rich will never accept and even the poor would regard as unfair or stupid.
Ryan’s decades of deficits plan passed the house today. Well played Speaker Boehner!