Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Offers Alternative to Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Plan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
coti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 12:58 PM
Original message
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Offers Alternative to Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Plan
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=122070

WASHINGTON, DC (November 16, 2010) – Today Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, offered a comprehensive proposal to reduce the federal deficit without making middle class Americans foot the bill. Schakowsky's plan is an alternative to the Bowles-Simpson plan and would reduce the deficit by $441 billion in 2015, surpassing President Obama’s $250 billion target. Critically, the Schakowsky plan accomplishes deficit reduction without making cuts to essential federal expenditures that benefit the middle class. In unveiling her proposal, Schakowsky made the following statement:

....

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.

3) Mandatory spending cuts

•Health Care – at least $31.2 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.

(more)

See the whole deficit reduction plan here:

http://schakowsky.house.gov/images/stories/1118_Schakowsky_Deficit_Reduction_Plan.pdf

----------

Much better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Taxing capital gains would slaughter a republican sacred cow.
I'd love to roast that beef, but that part of her proposal has little chance of becoming a reality.

I suppose she is trying to build a stack of trading cards moving toward the final recommendation of the committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. We need to also re-implement a transaction tax on stocks. We had
one in place from the 30s to the 60s, and it was dropped because it was generating a genuine surplus, and apparently some rocket scientists decided we were just awash in money and didn't need it anymore!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That would certainly help reduce the ultra high frequency trading
that give the big houses an enormous advantage over most individuals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC