Schakowsky Deficit Reduction Plan

by: wegerje

Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 19:21:39 PM CST


Schakowsky is on the commission. Some sort of tokenism to progressives. She rolled this out today.

As for getting the job done, it's really not so hard. Tax the rich fairly, reduce military and other corporate wasted spending, increase the government role in health care, etc, etc .... You get the idea. I've quoted a bit but there is more at this title link:

Schakowsky Offers Alternative to Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Plan

The Schakowsky plan is based on five key elements:

1) Increased economic stimulus to spur growth in the immediate term

· Provide $200 billion to invest over the next two years in measures to create jobs and spur economic growth, including passing the Local Jobs for America Act; and funding for education and law enforcement; Unemployment Insurance, Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program extensions; and infrastructure. 

· Adopt the President’s proposals to eliminate overseas tax havens and incentives for outsourcing


2) Smart, targeted spending cuts

· Non-Defense Discretionary – $7.55 billion in savings through increased efficiency and cuts to programs that benefit large corporations that don’t need assistance.

· Defense Discretionary – $110.7 billion in cuts from the 2015 defense budget, including efficiency savings, reducing our troop levels, cutting weapons systems we don’t need, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military.


wegerje :: Schakowsky Deficit Reduction Plan

3) Mandatory spending cuts

  • Health Care – at least $17.2 billion in savings by implementing measures to bring down the cost of health care to the federal government and lower health care inflation overall.
  • Other – $7.7 billion in savings by cutting agriculture subsidies in half, and redistributing federal support to offer greater benefits to small family farms reduce subsidies to large corporate agribusiness.

4) Reductions in tax expenditures

  • Raise $132.2 billion by closing tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

5) Increases in revenues

  • Raise $144.6 billion in revenue through progressive reforms to the estate tax, treating capital gains and dividends as regular income, and enacting a cap and trade proposal that includes protections for lower-income people.
  • Enact President Obama’s budget proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 brackets expire and return to 2009 estate tax levels.
  • Non-tax revenue – raise $7 billion by addressing places where the private sector is currently under-paying.

 

Tags: , , (All Tags)

Print Friendly View Send As Email

Have a try at "Baking your own" balanced budget... (0.00 / 0)
This maay be the opportunity to ask (0.00 / 0)
a question that has been bugging me: What were the Bush tax cuts for middle-class wage-earners? I don't recall any, although my memory may be faulty.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted


Look here: (0.00 / 0)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

As you'll see, the middle class got very little out of the deal.

"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone


[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
Here's a summary of the provisions that affect me:

An automatic $300 tax decrease for everybody.

A 2% decrease in the tax rate for income over about $50,000 (married couple). That saves me a few hundred.

An increae in the married-couple exemption. Not sure how much that saves, but probably another few hundred.

An increase in the standard deduction. For me, that avoids the need for itemizing with little effect on the tax bill.

And doesn't affect me, but people with minor children get a bigger tax credit.

It's not clear from the Wikipedia articles whether the sunset provisions also affect the increased limits on retirement plan contributions. In terms of overall financial planning, I would find that the biggest part of the deal. (My wife is still contributing to her IRA.)

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted


[ Parent ]
Oops (0.00 / 0)
I should have said a 3% decrease in taxes on income over about $50,000.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted


[ Parent ]
Any progressive needs to keep this discussion going. (0.00 / 0)
I've written LTEs to the Trib and to NPR.

I've posted (and wasted) a blog post on Crain's Chicago Business and mentioned it on my Facebook page.

I'll figure out some other ways to keep the spin going.

I don't claim that this plan is perfect, but it needs to be in the discussion.

Apparently, you can't balance the budget while keeping current tax loopholes and current levels of Social-Security payments.

Schakowsky is the only one who seems to have suggested that the answer is to shrink the tax loopholes.


not sure you can say she's the only one... (0.00 / 0)

the alice rivlin/pete domenici plan relies on "ending most deductions and credits while simplifying the rest" as part of its proposal...



Want to drive conservatives crazy?  Send President Obama back to Washington for four more years...


[ Parent ]
Although on the whole ... (0.00 / 0)
that proposal strikes me as even more friendly to corporations and wealthy individuals than the one we got from the co-chairs of the official commission. I am especially opposed to their proposal to use the Social Security Trust Fund as an instrument of fiscal policy. I do not believe that Social Security can survive the notion that it can be jerked around to meet short-term political objectives.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted


[ Parent ]
Social Security (0.00 / 0)
Apparently, you can't balance the budget while keeping current tax loopholes and current levels of Social-Security payments.

It's important to note that without the budgetary flim-flam Rpublicans introduced in the 1980s, it would be obvious that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Payroll taxes go into the Social Security Trust Fund, not the Treausry. The Trust Fund then invests its money in Treasury securities, just as you and I and Chase and the government of China may do. But only in the case of the Trust Fund is the purchase price counted as income rather than a loan -- although the securities purchased still count as part of the national debt. That's how we were able to talk about a "budget surplus" in the Clinton years even though the national debt continued to rise.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted


[ Parent ]
Prairie State Blue
Front Page - Back Page


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


0 User(s) logged on.
Search




Advanced Search


Misc
View
-sitemeter was here-
Powered by: SoapBlox