http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/debt_proposals MATT MILLER had a modest meltdown in the Washington Post on Wednesday over the fact that 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. (Mr Miller says he considered making a column out of repeating the sentence "The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.") Bob Somerby (h/t Kevin Drum) says the explanation for the press's failure to call Republicans on this is right there in Mr Miller's own column: He says there’s a “meme,” a hunk of “conventional wisdom,” driving the press corps’ conduct. Miller doesn’t explain just what this “meme” is, nor does he explain how it got “established” as conventional wisdom. But presumably, he is referring to the Standard Press Novel in which Republican budget cutters like Ryan are inevitably said to be “courageous,” “bold” and “honest”. Is this right? Well, here's a test case. Mr Miller's column notes that "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. I'm not really sure what "courage" is supposed to mean here, but this seems precisely backwards. For 30 years, certainly since Walter Mondale got creamed by Ronald Reagan, the most dangerous thing a politician can do has been to call for tax hikes. Politicians who call for higher taxes are punished, which is why they don't do it. I'm curious to see what adjectives people would apply to the Progressive Congressional Caucus's budget proposal. But it's hard for me to imagine the media calling a proposal to raise taxes "courageous" and "honest". And my sense is that the disparate treatment here is a structural bias rooted in class.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...americas-only-honest-budget-proposal-20110428 The 75-member House Progressive Caucus has put out its own budget to counter Paul Ryan's Medicare-gutting GOP plan. This is more than a fantasy document. It's sound policy. The conservative Economist magazine has called the budget "courageous." As a conversation-starter, it shows that the path out of our debt and deficit quagmire is not as steep as most imagine, and that getting America's fiscal house in order isn't incompatible with making critical investments in jobs and infrastructure. The budget has more of what Americans say they want — new taxes on the rich and cuts to defense — than either the GOP's or the president's budget. And it has none of what Americans say they hate: changes to the social compact that's guided America from the days of the New Deal and the Great Society. The Progressive budget would slash $5.6 trillion in deficits on the way to generating a small surplus in 2021—reaching a balanced budget two decades in advance of Paul Ryan's plan: Here, some highlights: New Investments (Cost: $1.7 trillion) • Job-creating public investments, largely infrastructure – highways, public transportation, high-speed rail; $1.5 trillion spent in the first five years to combat high unemployment Defense Cuts (Savings: $2.3 trillion) • Cuts off funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. • Downsizes the military: Cuts Army and Marine Corps active duty personnel cut by nearly 30 percent; reduces the Navy's fleet size by 20 percent; grounds 15 percent of Air Force squadrons; cancels wasteful weapons systems, including the infamous Osprey and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle; and cuts funding for nukes, missile defense, and space weapons Increased Taxes (New revenue: $2.8 trillion) • Revokes the Bush tax cuts — for everybody — in 2012, with the exception of a few, targeted tax credits/fixes for married couples and families with children. Extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest — a highlight of the lame-duck budget deal — is rescinded • Taxes capital gains and dividends as normal income. Ends preferential tax treatment of investment income • Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. Brackets range from 45% for mere millionaires to 49% for those with incomes surpassing $1 billion • Creates a progressive estate tax: Excludes 99.75% of estates, farms, and small businesses from inheritance taxes. Marginal rates for the top 0.25% of estates range from 45% for a $10 million estate, to 65% for those worth more than half a billion dollars • Taxes U.S. corporations' "foreign" profits as they're earned. Prevents corporations from stockpiling income in foreign shelters by taxing profits abroad, not just when they're repatriated • Pays to index alternative minimum tax to inflation (The AMT is an alternative tax structure originally meant to ensure that rich tax evaders pay their fair share. But because it was never indexed to inflation, every year more and more middle class taxpayers are hit subject to the tax. Congress has yearly "patched" this flaw in the AMT on an ad hoc basis, adding unbudgeted billions to the deficit.) • Imposes "leverage" taxes on megabanks with assets in excess of $50 billion and new taxes on derivatives investors and other Wall Street speculators • Limits value of itemized deductions to 28%. Superrich no longer get a sweeter deal for charitable giving • Reinstates superfund (toxic waste cleanup) taxes • Revokes tax breaks to oil and gas drillers • Adds 25-cents a gallon to the federal gas tax. Reinvests proceeds in highway infrastructure Safety Net (New revenue: $1.2 trillion) • Raises the maximum income subject to Social Security payroll taxes to $170,000 Health Reforms (Savings: $308 billion) • Creates a 'public option' in health care exchanges. • Empowers Uncle Sam to negotiate lower prescription drug costs for Medicare. • Pays for the "doc fix." (In 2002, Congress passed a pay cut for Medicare providers that everyone agrees is too draconian. By habit, Congress prefers to pass ad-hoc spending bills to forestall the cut, adding unbudgeted billions to the deficit.) Interest Savings (savings: $856.3 billion) Read more about the budget here.
How politics gets done: Senate 'Gang' Hashes Out Deficit Plan By NAFTALI BENDAVID And DAMIAN PALETTA http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569404576297221814287188.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_us WASHINGTON—Sen. Mark Warner brings a buzzer to meetings of the "Gang of Six" senators who are working to craft a grand deficit-cutting deal. If talks get too tense, Mr. Warner, a Virginia Democrat, hits the button, which intones: "Bull— detected. Take precautions." It's been a tough few weeks inside the closed-door talks involving an unlikely alliance of three Democrats and three Republicans, as the buzzer indicates. As soon as this week, the group—including Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) on the left and Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) on the right—could release a sweeping blueprint aimed at cutting the country's deficit. That move is likely to ratchet up pressure on President Barack Obama and Congress to do the same. Their work represents a highly unusual moment in Washington. In a city polarized by wide ideological and political gaps over spending, debt and the role of government, many in both parties see the Gang of Six effort as the best bet to forge a bargain. Democrats and Republicans rarely cooperate on minor bills, let alone a plan guaranteed to offend their allies. Even if the effort fails to produce legislation or even win the full support of all six senators, it is likely to shape the national debate. Meantime, the group's cooperation on the surface has been matched by tensions below. Three Democrats, Three Republicans, One Deficit: Six Senators Seek Common Ground The Gang of Six is converging on a proposal that would cut the deficit by roughly $4 trillion over 10 years through spending cuts, a tax-code overhaul, and reductions in the interest the U.S. would have to pay on its debt. A key element: The plan likely would give Congress a specific window of time to make deficit-cutting changes—locking in a commitment to reach the goal but giving lawmakers time to decide how best to do it. Getting here wasn't easy. Talks nearly broke down several times, aides say. When details leaked in February, participants almost walked out. Antitax activists took shots at Mr. Coburn. Mr. Obama's decision to jump into the fray a few weeks ago was another curveball. Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat and member of the group, would sometimes bring his dog Dakota to the meetings. The pooch sat motionless on Mr. Conrad's lap. The more stressful the talks, participants say, the more often Mr. Conrad brought his dog. Another group member is Idaho Republican Mike Crapo. The gang's effort, which has a goal of leading to legislation before Congress, is one of at least three deficit-control initiatives. House Republicans have passed a bill that aims to reduce the deficit through deep spending cuts and major overhauls of Medicare and Medicaid. The White House has advanced its own plan, which would combine tax increases and spending cuts over 12 years. For the senators, one top option would be a set of deficit-reduction targets, based in part on proposals made last year by Mr. Obama's debt commission. If Congress doesn't meet the targets, automatic spending cuts would kick in. The gang is looking at stipulating specific goals for a number of issues. For example, it could suggest a new scale for tax rates. How low those tax rates eventually go would depend on how many tax breaks get stripped out of the code. The plan is also expected to propose that Congress take steps to make Social Security solvent over a 75-year horizon through higher taxes and changes in the way benefits are paid. An early test will come as soon as mid-May, when Congress must consider how it will raise the nation's debt limit. Republicans say they won't agree to do so without an effort to address the U.S.'s fiscal woes. The proposal from the Gang of Six, Mr. Durbin said recently, "may change the contours of the debate." The senators' effort began modestly, when Mr. Warner, whom aides dub "the Energizer bunny," approached Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.), a relaxed Southerner, on the Senate floor last summer. The debt "is so serious, and we're just floundering around," Mr. Chambliss recalled Mr. Warner saying. Both knew that anyone campaigning for re-election would be hard pressed to make unpopular compromises—but "you and I are not up for re-election," Mr. Warner said. "We should start talking about it." On Dec. 3, Messrs. Warner and Chambliss found the spotlight suddenly shining on their effort. Mr. Obama's debt commission voted 11-7 for a plan to slash deficits by $4 trillion. Among those voting "yes" were Mr. Durbin, a liberal from Springfield, Ill., and Mr. Coburn, a conservative from Muskogee, Okla. The enlistment of Mr. Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, in the deficit-cutting cause marked a turning point. His office displays a mounted "whip scorpion," a ferocious-looking creature on loan from Chicago's Field Museum, in reference to his job as Democratic "whip" in the Senate. Mr. Durbin said he hated some elements of the commission's plan, particularly the spending cuts, "like the devil hates holy water." But he felt it was crucial to have a liberal voice at the table as Washington discussed deficit-cutting. Although the commission vote fell short of the 14 that would have required congressional action, the 11 "yes" votes generated a sense of momentum. A pivotal moment came Dec. 22—just hours before lawmakers left Washington for the holidays. The commission's report could have remained praised but ignored, like so many Washington documents. But on that day, the four senators on the commission who backed the report met in Mr. Durbin's office and agreed to work toward turning it into an actual plan to put before Congress. When Congress returned in January, they joined forces with Messrs. Warner and Chambliss, and the Gang of Six was born. Not everyone liked the term. "Gangs run around Los Angeles, Detroit and Atlanta and cause mischief," Mr. Chambliss recalled thinking at the time. In their closed-door talks, the senators fell into roles. Mr. Coburn predicted catastrophe if the debt wasn't reined in. Mr. Durbin braced against attacks from Social Security groups. Messrs. Warner and Chambliss picked their battles and pushed for agreement rather than joining every fight. One of the senators would periodically propose a tax on soft drinks to get a rise out of Mr. Chambliss, whose state is home to Coca-Cola. Any deal to significantly cut the deficit would include politically perilous proposals, like raising taxes or trimming the social safety net. "It is about trust," Mr. Warner told a group of businessmen in Richmond in March. "It's about making sure that, at the end of the day, you are going to have to link arms with somebody and take a jump." On Feb. 1, Mr. Coburn, the debt Cassandra, invited Kyle Bass, a hedge-fund manager, to address lawmakers about the risk of persistent deficits. Nearly 40 senators showed up, despite an ice storm outside, suggesting broader support than the Six had thought. Mr. Bass didn't return calls seeking comment. Then an incident nearly torpedoed the effort. In mid-February, The Wall Street Journal reported the senators were considering a plan that would trigger taxes and spending cuts if Congress didn't meet specific budgetary targets. The Journal also reported that top Democrats were pressing Mr. Durbin to exclude Social Security from the package. The revelations infuriated the senators, who felt secrecy was crucial. That's because the disclosures exposed divisions among Democrats and opened up Mr. Durbin to potential attacks from the left. Some of the senators considered walking away from the negotiations, aides said. Ultimately, they decided to push ahead. As negotiations plowed on, activists on both sides became increasingly alarmed and began attacking. Mr. Coburn became a top target. A conservative darling, colleagues called him "Dr. No" for his willingness to tie up the Senate when he felt a spending bill went too far. But with the group's focus on eliminating tax breaks, such as mortgage-interest deduction, antitax crusader Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, became a frequent critic. Mr. Norquist said the senator was potentially violating a no-tax-hike pledge he took as a candidate. Mr. Norquist said if Mr. Coburn supports any net tax increase, "he is saying he was elected on a lie." Mr. Coburn in response dismissed Mr. Norquist's organization and called its leader "disingenuous." Mr. Durbin, meanwhile, was confronting fellow Democrats wary of changing Social Security by raising the retirement age or reducing benefits for wealthy seniors. In February, Senate Democrats held a closed-door meeting at which Mr. Conrad argued for a debt-reduction deal, only to be met with opposition, aides said. Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and others argued Social Security added nothing to the deficit and shouldn't be part of a package. The most recent problem came from the president himself. Mr. Obama, after keeping a low profile, delivered a speech proposing his own deficit plan and saying that Vice President Joseph Biden would head new talks on the debt. The speech disrupted the Gang's work in that it injected a dose of partisan agita into the deficit talk and pushed Republicans to dig in on taxes, potentially complicating any final deal. Mr. Biden hastily called Mr. Durbin and eased tensions by assuring him any plan the Gang proposed would be integral to whatever the administration did. Mr. Warner said there's no option but to push ahead. A way forward won't be found "unless there's a grand enough bargain that everybody feels they've got some skin the game," he said. "It can't happen if it's pitting one side against another." Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved nd by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jon
Thanks for bringing this up. I never knew... If the past serves us well, their own party will snuff it out before it sees the mainstream light of day.
One reason why we have heard more about Ryan's budget than the Progressive Caucus' is that the Republicans are the House Majority. I think if things were the other way and progressives like Ellison where in leadership we would hear more about it. As far as calling Ryan's budget courageous, outside of Fox News, Wall Street Journal Op-ed pages and various blogs and right wing spin meisters I haven't heard it reported that way.
^ I have. It is courageous and potentially suicidal. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2063967,00.html
