Amidst the Madness, Let’s Not Overlook the CPC’s Budget

March 13th, 2013 at 10:31 pm

Allow me to join the chorus of voices in support of another budget out this week, one I fear may be overlooked, by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Here’s the exec sum, and note what comes first: job creation!  OMG!  That’s followed by many ideas we tout here at OTE, including a financial transaction tax, ending tax preferences for investment income, a tax on carbon, spending cuts to defense, some Medicare savings (no benefit cuts), all of which creates jobs in the near term and starts the debt ratio on a downward path by 2015.  Again, for all the mishegos about balancing budgets, the economically sensible first order goal is–once the economy is reliably growing–stabilizing and then reducing the debt/GDP ratio.

But wait!  This is too liberal, too Keynesian, too revenuey!  OK, but the Ryan budget’s too austere, too draconian on the poor, too regressive, too reverse Robin-Hoody.  And that’s been front page news.  All’s we’re saying is that if legislative plausibility is the litmus test, Ryan’s House budget shouldn’t get one drop of ink (or byte, I guess would be more accurate).

But if it’s smart, timely economics and fiscal policy that form the litmus test…well, then Ryan still doesn’t get a hearing but the CPC budget does.


Source: CPC

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7 comments in reply to "Amidst the Madness, Let’s Not Overlook the CPC’s Budget"

  1. Lars Olsson says:

    Wow, living in Atlanta, you’d think I’d have known that the Centers for Disease Control had produced a federal budget. I’ll bet it has a lot of increased funding for health issues. ;o)

    • Jared Bernstein says:

      D’oh! Fixed…thnx. If I had a dime for every typo I make, I could balance the budget myself.

  2. Perplexed says:

    This is great stuff Jared! I applaud your efforts to keep it out front (along with tax expenditures & wealth concentration as you’ve been doing)!

    Maybe we should start with the corporate welfare for the “news” entertainment industry though and start auctioning off the airwaves instead of giving them away to entertainment empires. We should be able to generate enough revenues to strengthen our public broadcasting system and create some space for those interested in pealing away the obfuscation instead of creating and supporting controversy to improve entertainment value. Maybe then those working so hard to expose the deception and explain complex concepts would get some help instead of having to continuously cut through the he said – she said entertainment games.

  3. Fred Donaldson says:

    The CPC budget will get little ink and few bytes from the big media, because when corporations own the newsroom, the efforts are subtle at times, but everyone knows what you can publish and what will keep you from promotion.

    Editors and reporters play ball or get another job. Been there. Done that. Saw the difference between family-owned and corporate-controlled. If the chairman of the board is also on the board of an oil company, a big bank and an insurance giant, do you really think there are not subjects off base? And how popular will you be pointing out why business taxes should be increased and dividend rates hiked?

    You can buy most of the news, most of the time.

  4. JohnR says:

    “But if its [sic] smart, timely economics and fiscal policy that forms the litmus test…”

    If A, Then B. Not B? Then, not A.

  5. Pablo says:

    Take a look at Tom Coburn’s list of wasteful government spending. Far more outrageous.

    • JerseyShirls says:

      I cannot help but wonder why Sen Colburn didn’t just turn all these letters and suggestions into an actual legislative proposal to replace the sequester?