There’s much to be said about the President’s new budget proposal…

February 2nd, 2015 at 1:22 pm

…and here are some tasty items to get you started:

My man Bob Greenstein holds forth here.

I take an angle I haven’t seen elsewhere here, though I explicitly admit that I may be nuts.

My other man, Paul Van de Water, points out in a tweet some hawkish commentators are neglecting the progress that’s been made in near-term debt stabilization, as shown below.

More to come…


Source: OMB

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 comments in reply to "There’s much to be said about the President’s new budget proposal…"

  1. Smith says:

    I wish I had time to back up my arguments with more research, but fortunately there is a lot of common sense to what I advocate.

    Foreign profits are being held hostage, as the only reason corporations could possibly have for holding such large amounts overseas still, is waiting out the U.S. government to give in to their demands for lower rates. Aside from awful prospect of doing just that, we also know what giving in to hostage taking encourages, more bad corporate behavior.

    EITC is suspect to begin with, as the total benefits could be supplanted with just a $2.50/hour minimum wage boost for full time wage earners. If more money is available to help children from poor families it should probably go to government programs that are better targeted to benefit the children, like free child care and preschool. Both low earning wage earners with and without children need programs for training and job creation, not more benefits which still do not lift them out of poverty. Also, how does one ever imagine someone takes a low wage job they wouldn’t otherwise take because they’re anticipating the end of year tax credit? Is that the claim of the EITC backers? If the problem is a too low minimum wage, raise it, not enough jobs, create them, inability to work due to lack of affordable child care, provide it. Finally, if Paul Ryan backs it , you know it’s bad (a hidden wage subsidy for big business).

    Of course Republicans are wiling work to raise EITC and lower corporate rates. At the same time they might be willing to offer token concessions on spending caps and infrastructure spending. Real compromise will never be attained, true reform like closing the step-up-basis-loophole couldn’t even garner Democratic support, and the cost of permanently aggravating inequality by lowering corporate rates, and encouraging foreign profit hostage taking, is too high indeed.

    As perhaps Krugman might say of many of Obama’s proposals, with liberals like this who needs conservatives. Thank goodness for gridlock.

  2. Robert Salzberg says:

    JB wrote in his linked post:

    “Would the R’s go for any of that? Surely they’d be able to identify lots of spending (outside of defense) that they’d like to cut but as has been the case for far too long, they’ve stood against any new revenues, and that’s a deal breaker for the White House, which reasonably insists on balance (and the vast majority of deficit reduction we’ve done in recent years has been through spending cuts, not tax increases).”

    The special sauce for making deals with Republicans is to include unpaid for tax cuts. President Obama’s proposal to allow a 14% tax rate is about the effective tax rate paid on average by corporations but far below the statutory 35% rate so it’s technically a large tax cut.

  3. Fred Donaldson says:

    Republicans approve of raising the EITC. Many Democrats believe that it is a kind thing to do for the needy. When the wealthy masters of Congress all agree on a policy, it is often wise for the populace to duck.

    The GOP love for EITC is because it allows employers to pay poverty wages. Under normal circumstances such wages would lead to near starvation for workers, increasing turnover and encouraging unions and other troublemakers to complain about “working us to death.”

    However, with the middle class taxpayer sending billions of EITC dollars to these underpaid workers, all is well for the employer, who knows the wage slaves will survive to work another day, and the boss can announce no raise next year.

    Will Democrats in the WH recognize that most benefits (food stamps, public housing, etc.) for the working poor are just subsidies for corporations and that the solutions for reducing inequality include higher minimum wage and more public benefits for all Americans – free college, free childcare, free healthcare and free nursing homes? Or do they already know this and have bowed to pressure from lobbies and campaign contributors.