The Evident Superiority of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget
As Yglesias says, Brooks ends up making the case about as well as anyone actually trying to make it could. The former’s summary is useful:
Long story short, I would say the CPC budget has the following main advantages over the Ryan budget:
- More food and medical care for poor children.
- Less air pollution and a meaningful chance to avert the worst consequences of climate change.
- Lower taxes on middle-class and working-poor families.
- Medicare reform focused on reducing the unit price of health care services rather than increasing it.
- More funding for transportation infrastructure and basic research.
- High-income individuals will be less inclined to take vacations or retire and more inclined to work long hours.
This is…not a difficult choice.
On a related note, Republican congressman Paul Broun argues that the Ryan budget isn’t quite horrible enough. Here’s a representative paragraph of this all-too-familiar marriage of Gilded Age economics and vacuous states’ rights buzzwords:
I recently co-sponsored legislation that would convert Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program into state-managed programs through a single federal block grant. This would save approximately $2 trillion over 10 years by capping federal funding at 2012 levels for the next 10 years and giving states an incentive to seek out and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. The government agency closest to the consumer can most efficiently manage taxpayer dollars.
I especially treasure the use of that old classic “waste, fraud and abuse” to handwave the fact that the “incentive” being given to the states by capping no-strings-attached federal Medicaid spending is to “deny health care to poor people.” And it’s not as if this is a secret agenda; the Supreme Court’s regrettable spending power holding in Sebelius has made clear that many Republican state officials do not want to provide health care for the poor even if the federal government is picking up most of the tab. And, of course, far from eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse” the point of making Medicaid a block grant and destroying Medicare and replacing it with a system of increasingly worthless vouchers is to devote less of a shrinking pool of money to the provision of health care and more to various rentiers.
But, of course, I’m sure House Republicans will endorse sensible, middle-of-the-road budget policies if only the President would show the courage to lead, with leadership.
Anonymous:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:08 am
Vacations and retirement by the affluent = more leisure time = more consumption = more money for the rest of us. Slack on, plutocrats.
Erik Loomis:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:14 am
Unfortunately for the good people of Rhode Island, David Cicilline is running away from the Progressive Caucus Budget as fast as possible despite the progressive support that got him over the top despite his unpopularity in the district.
Joshua:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:17 am
Is this true? Rich people value leisure time too.
And even if it is true, is it even desirable? Rich people moving on and opening slots for less rich people is a good thing.
Cody:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:21 am
Unfortunately, less of that as a % goes back into the economy then giving it to a low-income person.
Cody:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:22 am
I think we need to cap CEO salaries at $500,000 a year. That way, they will have an incentive to reduce waste and fraud in their salaries.
BigHank53:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:23 am
As someone who (A) would be under Ryan’s cutoff for social security, and (B) actually makes enough money that I can save towards retirement, I’ve had to consider what his budget would mean for me:
I’ll never buy another new car. Every financial decision I make–for the rest of my fucking life–will have to assume that there will be no safety net should I suffer an injury, contract an illness, or you know, just live long enough to become feeble. So: less dining out, less fancy craft beer, cancel that internet connection and use the wi-fi at the library, stop buying hardcovers, and goodbye to supporting the arts and those charitable deductions. I’ll be doing my own plumbing and auto repairs, too.
I can see the point of the budget if what you want to produce is a nation of immiserated, terrified serfs. But with an economy that’s 70% consumer spending, the Ryan budget is right up there with pounding a nail through your dick on the list of good ideas.
c u n d gulag:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:24 am
WTF!
Rep. Broun gets an Op-ed in the NY Times?
Are there no Editors left over there?
Friedman, Bobo, Douthat, and MoDo (though occasionally she’s still relevent – see: Moon, Blue), are bad enough.
But now you get some cracker Congressman who is/was a Doctor, and now claims, either because of some complete refutation of his years of scientific study and medical experience (uhm, hasn’t he seen “Evolution” on a microbial level for decades?) because he “saw the light” from the Invisible Sky Guy, or, more likely, for political expediency to keep garnering votes from the cracker rubes, fools, suckers, marks, morons, imbeciles, and idiot’s in his district – AND/OR because he wants to run for the Senate in his state, and wants to make sure he reaches out to same group, statewide, and the NY Times feels he’s worthy for its readers to be exposed to his miasmal word-turds?!?!
This is a Doctor, who has basically denied one of the things that allowed the field of medicine to advance in the last century and a half – Evolution – and still, the NY Times gives him valuable Op-ed real estate, to show that he knows even less about economics, finance, and budgets, than the knows about his former field of “expertise.”
If you ever wanted to see proof that “even the Liberal NY Times” still cowers, afraid of being labeled by the Reich-wing once again, as being “too Liberal,” it’s giving this former Doctor room to opine on killing Grannie and Grandpaw-paw, and stealing not only the kiddies candy, but their educations and lunch money, and taking their parents home from them when one or both of them lose their jobs, all to hand that money over to the fat-cats who’ll fund his Senate race.
Again, the NY Times mistakes its motto as, “All the news that’s print to fit.”
OY!!!
actor212:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:28 am
High-income individuals will be less inclined to take vacations or retire and more inclined to work long hours.
What a load of horseshit. They’ll work no more or less hours because they earn a salary and dividends and their efforts amount to a hill of beans as to how those will pay out and they know it. If anything, it will allow them to sock more away in the Caymans.
JKTHs:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:29 am
Ah, Paul Broun. I guess Ryan’s one-third cut of Medicaid wasn’t big enough, so he had to go for a half.
JKTHs:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:31 am
This. If you get a salary, marginal tax rates don’t mean all that much unless you’re gonna intentionally take a bunch of vacation days so you lose income and thus lower your tax bill.
Blanche Davidian:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:46 am
To WASTE a vote on that FRAUD Paul Broun is an ABUSE of democracy.
rea:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:48 am
The last thing the world need is a bunch of Wall Street millionaires busily thinking up innovative new ways to make money off derivatives.
dan:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:49 am
I have my own plan to balance the budget. I’m going to return military spending to 1993 levels, block-grant the money to the Pentagon, capping growth at 1% less than the rate of inflation, with instructions to the Pentagon that it has to invest portions of the military budget so that future wars will be funded out of deferred military spending rather than new appropriations. This will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.
I haven’t done the calculations yet, but I’m pretty sure this will result in a balanced budget pretty damn quick.
Charles:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:51 am
Considering that the “work” of plutocrats consists of siphoning wealth from the broader economy into their personal accounts (at our expense), I’m all for imposing heavy penalties on every hour of “work” they do.
JKTHs:
March 20th, 2013 at 8:52 am
Why stop at block granting it to the Pentagon? Block grant it to the states for their share of national security spending. Federalism!
Rick Massimo:
March 20th, 2013 at 9:01 am
I always ask people who parrot this talking point what they think of their own state and municipal governments.
They change the subject REALLY quickly.
Vance Maverick:
March 20th, 2013 at 9:01 am
Actually, I think this is a good editorial use of the op-ed slot. The attribution is clear, enabling the readers to take it as a political statement — what the Tea Partiers are saying. I hope, obviously, that they give comparable space, comparably labeled, to Keith Ellison or another representative of the Progressive Caucus.
What would be truly noxious would be to publish an op-ed like this under the byline of J. Disinterested Centrist of the Opaquely Named Institute.
JKTHs:
March 20th, 2013 at 9:02 am
+1
McKingford:
March 20th, 2013 at 9:12 am
Yes, this is a conflation of the general understanding of “productivity” with the economic meaning of “productivity”. A rich person who works longer hours is not more *productive* in the economic sense of the word (ie. they aren’t generating output more efficiently), and thus not more valuable to the economy.
A friend of mine who is a very successful real estate agent keeps talking about how higher taxes will induce her to work less…as if that’s a bad thing for the economy. But the fact is, there are lots of other real estate agents out there, and properties will not be going unsold because she takes an extra 4 weeks of vacation a year. Instead, other agents will take up the slack. Isn’t this a good thing? For all concerned?
Johnny Sack:
March 20th, 2013 at 9:14 am
Minor issue. I know that the healthcare case had a very unsexy name and all, and calling it Sebelius sounds better than NFIB. But Sebelius is a cabinet secretary! They get sued! Many times! We call it Iqbal not Ashcroft!
This is beyond pedantic, I really never know what to call the case. It’s already pounded into my head to not use attorneys general and the like as short forms, and few people even seem to recognize the case when called by name. None of the linked cases have a good short form. Florida? HHS? The case is more terrible than I thought.
actor212:
March 20th, 2013 at 9:26 am
I have less problem with funneling money down to the lowest level its needed. In theory, block grants handed down to a municipality make sense, if they are targeted for specific projects, like infrastructure repair (ex. EPA funding for a pollution control going to a sewage treatment plant, where the Feds might have insisted on an air pollution control program, so long as there’s a substantive argument that the sewage treatment facility is a more pressing need.)
It’s the practical application of this where things go badly wrong.
Scott Lemieux:
March 20th, 2013 at 9:28 am
Um, I’m pretty sure it’s not going to be hard to figure out what Sebelius is referring to in any context in which the shorthand will be used.
bob_is_boring:
March 20th, 2013 at 9:41 am
That seems high to me.
Mea:
March 20th, 2013 at 9:49 am
Your example is weird and confusing. You describe targeted grants programs but then waive your hand and label them block grants.
Sewage treatment is funded directly to the local entity by (NOT block grants) EPA funding mechanisms. Directly. Targeted. Withspecific mechanissms like revolving funds. Because there is consensus about the need to treat sewage and the need to provide specific types of financing to entities that are often publicly owned.
Why would that funding work better if lumped together with “oh, and you can use it on anythinig you call environmental, if you want” unfocused block grant handed to the state or to a city govt?
And conservatives love them some block grants because community development block grants are the poter child for “clump and cut” since amorphous programs are much harder to protect.
witless chum:
March 20th, 2013 at 10:28 am
Be it known, I approve of your screen name and point, but disapprove of your overuse of capital letters.
witless chum:
March 20th, 2013 at 10:32 am
The feds are most definitely involved in sewage treatment. At the least, many sewer projects are going to use a program under the USDA to borrow the funds needed at low interest rates.
NonyNony:
March 20th, 2013 at 10:43 am
We used to have that – it was called a 90% top marginal tax bracket.
If we brought it back, a whole lot of our problems with mercenary executives and Bain capital like setups designed to make money by destroying companies instead of building them would go away nearly overnight.
Haystack:
March 20th, 2013 at 10:49 am
You don’t see the joke?
Murc:
March 20th, 2013 at 10:50 am
Your friend is a liar and you should not ever buy a house through her.
catclub:
March 20th, 2013 at 10:53 am
I thought this might result in Afghanistan style state(s) warlordism.
DrDick:
March 20th, 2013 at 10:58 am
The available evidence indicates that management are already significantly overcompensated for what they actually contribute to productivity, while labor is systematically undercompensated.
Sev:
March 20th, 2013 at 11:24 am
The funny thing is, it’s assumed that reducing the food pellet rate will make the rest of us crank the treadmill even harder, but will be a terrible disincentive to rich people to do the same. The rich are not like you and me, you see.
actor212:
March 20th, 2013 at 11:29 am
It was a hypothetical scenario. Please don’t presume ignorance on my part.
actor212:
March 20th, 2013 at 11:30 am
Yes, they are far more industrious than the poor slobs I see getting out by 5 AM to work two jobs and staggering home well past the dinner hour.
BigHank53:
March 20th, 2013 at 11:38 am
In sixty days, California would control everything west of the Mississippi.
UserGoogol:
March 20th, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Well the rich are different from the rest of us: they don’t actually need more money. So if poor people have their wages cut they’ll have to try to get that money back some other way, whereas if rich people get their salary cut they’ll just lay around in bed playing with their money.
Of course, that also implies that trying to encourage the poor to work harder by lowering their income is cruel.
JKTHs:
March 20th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Of course, block granting and voucherizing things is a way for conservatives to slash the shit out of things while being able to say that the magik of the markit and super-honorable and competent state and local politicians will allow them to maintain services.
Djur:
March 20th, 2013 at 1:28 pm
The government agency closest to the consumer
We’re called citizens, asshole.
Scott P.:
March 20th, 2013 at 1:34 pm
The underlying idea is that rich people are so awesome that every hour they come up with an idea that save thousands of lives or makes everyone’s lives better, and if they ever take an hour off, we will forever lament the wonders that we were deprived of.
Catdaddy:
March 20th, 2013 at 2:03 pm
I would like to play poker with Ryan, his ears get bright red and he has a silly grin on his face when he lies–oh, that’s how he looks all he time.
Calming Influence:
March 20th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
“Waste, fraud and abuse” should be written and pronounced “Vasfaubuse”, with a heavy German accent.
Calming Influence:
March 20th, 2013 at 3:36 pm
As in “Ve vill tolerate keinen Vasfaubuse!!!”
UserGoogol:
March 20th, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Not all consumers of governments services are citizens, and not all citizens consume the same services. I think consumer is a fine word. It’s got a certain marketer-y vibe to it and has a tendency to have the connotation of commercial consumption (and it’s certainly being used that way in this context) but I don’t really think the word should be shunned. Consumption isn’t some deviancy of modern capitalism, it’s one of the basic building blocks of a person’s life.
Djur:
March 20th, 2013 at 4:34 pm
We’re all citizens of one type or another. You might not be a US citizen but you’re still a citizen of your locality.
JKTHs:
March 20th, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Welp, more than half the Democrats voted against the Progressive Caucus budget. Time to clean house.
JKTHs:
March 20th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
To elaborate further on Broun’s stupidity, I’m assuming that he is signing onto the Republican Study Committee budget, which also increases spending like that big-spending liberal Paul Ryan. Theirs is at a rate of 3.2% per year, while Ryan’s is 3.4%.
Why are you such a big spending liberal, Paul Broun?
Jeremy:
March 20th, 2013 at 7:42 pm
I’m actually pleasantly surprised to see my representative, Steven Lynch, was a yes vote. I’ve been rather annoyed about being redistricted out of Mike Capuano’s district, but it’s nice to see Lynch isn’t completely useless. Also nice to see that he’s making this vote while running for Kerry’s old Senate seat against the more progressive Ed Markey (also a yes vote).
Njorl:
March 20th, 2013 at 10:33 pm
Usually, people just assume you’re referring to his 2nd symphony.
mds:
March 21st, 2013 at 9:19 am
We have a winner!
mds:
March 21st, 2013 at 9:20 am
Nope. Too subtle. Perhaps if the key words had been emphasized in some way.
mds:
March 21st, 2013 at 9:21 am
Okay, I’m in.
mds:
March 21st, 2013 at 9:33 am
Does anyone know of a substantive reason to vote against this, given that it had no chance of passing anyway? Because Nick Rahall managed to muster up an Aye, while Pelosi voted Nay. Peter DeFazio voted Nay, too, and he isn’t the only member of the CPC voting that way. There’s no way that DeFazio did this because he’s a DINO. So since we’re not talking “Blue Dogs” here, what gives?
Njorl:
March 21st, 2013 at 10:23 am
You do get labelled as having voted to raise taxes if you vote for it.
mds:
March 21st, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Yeah, that would easily rattle a generic member of Congress, but presumably CPC members are already used to attacks for being “tax-and-spend liberals.” That’s the part that confuses me.